An Overview On The Ashford Settlement Iowa

By Margaret Bell


Ashford University and Bridgepoint Education Inc., which is the parent company based in San Diego, entered into an agreement with the Iowan state. This came about due to the allegations that were directed to both entities by the Iowa Attorney General. In his allegations, both Bridgepoint Education Inc. And Ashford University had gone against the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act through the manner they conducted their enrollment and recruitment. The agreement came to popularity as the Ashford Settlement iowa.

Before the agreement came into effect, Bridgepoint Education Inc. And Ashford University had denied their role in any wrongdoing or liability in the issue. The settlement comprised of certain terms that the two institutions were required to adhere to after the agreement. They were prohibited from using unconscionable tactics to persuade students to remain or enroll in Ashford University, making misleading statements, and undertaking any unfair practices.

Further, the two entities in question agreed to disclose clearly all matters concerning graduation rates, the median loan debt of graduates, and teacher certification. They also agreed to engage in training for their workers or employees and additional measures relating to graduation rates and student retention. The agreement goes a step further to shed light on the requirements pertinent to Ashford Technology Fee and to third party companies, who deal with both entities especially in giving leads to use for recruitment.

For this agreement to be effected it required the facilitation of a Settlement Administrator. The administrator was to work independently not for either if the two institutions. Thomas J. Perrelli was the man tasked with this role. The major role of Thomas as the Settlement Administrator was to oversee and evaluate the compliance of both institutions to the terms stipulated in that agreement for a period of three years.

The role of checking compliance with the certain agreement included listening to telephone conversations and reviewing complaints leveled against the two entities . Talking with both former and current employees or students was also part of his job. Consequently, all the findings were compiled into an annual report that was to be delivered to the Attorney General and the Bridgepoint Education Inc.

Money amounting to $7,250,000 was handed out to the state of Iowa by the alleged institutions for reimbursement purposes. However, it was upon the Attorney General to use the money to serve a variety of needs within his or her discretion.

Matters concerning with the reimbursement of funds were to be addressed by the Attorney General. This meant that the Settlement Administrator had no role to play in the matter concerning payment of any funds to either the current or the former students. Residents of Iowa eligible for payment were supposed to contact the office charged with the particular task through a given hotline or website set by the office of the attorney General.

People who had feedback, complaints or concerns were supposed to seek the guidance from the Settlement Administrator. In addition, such issues could be channeled directly to the relevant office of Iowa especially if individuals felt that the workers were misleading them.




About the Author:



No comments:

Post a Comment