11

11/25/03

TO: LEADERS OF THE CHIROPRACTIC PROFESSION

FROM: DOCTORS FOR EXCELLENCE IN
CHIROPRACTIC EDUCATION (DECE)

RE:           **BREAKING NEWS** DECE FILES MASSIVE COMPLAINT
                  AGAINST CCE WITH U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

After many months of legal research and analysis, Doctors for Excellence in Chiropractic Education (DECE) filed a massive complaint against the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) with the United States Department of Education (DOE) on November 20, 2003. This complaint, copied below, was filed after CCE rebuked the efforts of DECE to reach an agreement of communication, cooperation, and understanding in regard to CCE`s accreditation process. It has always been the goal of DECE to provide meaningful input and service to CCE in ensuring that the chiropractic program accreditation process retains its integrity. Also copied below is the text of the cover letter DECE sent CCE which included a courtesy copy of the complaint.

This complaint comes on the heels of an as yet unresolved complaint to the DOE against CCE filed by the Council of New Chiropractors earlier this year. Additionally, while it is known that the lawsuit filed by Life University against CCE was settled out of court, an additional lawsuit filed by Palmer Chiropractic University Foundation and Palmer College of Chiropractic West against CCE is still ongoing in Jefferson County, Wisconsin Circuit Court. It is rumored that additional complaints against CCE will also be forthcoming in the next few months.

Despite these multiple complaints and lawsuits, CCE remains adamant in its efforts to force the entire chiropractic profession to adhere to its minority viewpoint of chiropractic. DECE remains committed to protecting the chiropractic profession from CCE`s political agenda and appreciates the support of chiropractors from across the nation. The legal research necessary to complete this complaint was made possible through the donations of committed subluxation based chiropractors nationwide.

DECE REQUIRES ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ITS
ONGOING EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE CHIROPRACTIC
PROFESSION, PLEASE VISIT THE DECE WEBSITE AT
WWW.DECE.ORG FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

As always, DECE appreciates your comments, feedback and suggestions. Simply click the reply button to provide us with your thoughts. This mailing may be forwarded, published, and reproduced without restriction.

Sincerely - DECE

*Special Note - The following comprises the body of the cover letter to CCE and the body of the actual complaint. The supporting documents noted in the appendix are not included as they numbered approximately 400 pages. A printable version of the complaint in WORD format, as well as the supporting documents, will be posted on the DECE website shortly.

DOCTORS FOR EXCELLENCE IN CHIROPRACTIC EDUCATION
14440 CHERRY LANE COURT
SUITE 100
LAUREL, MARYLAND 20707
301-490-7785 voice
301-604-8834 facsimile

Martha S. O`Connor, Ph.D., Executive Vice President
Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE)
8049 N. 85th Way
Scottsdale, AZ 85258

Re: DECE Complaint to USDOE

November 20, 2003

Dear Dr. O`Connor,

It is saddening that CCE rebuked the efforts of DECE to reach an agreement of communication, cooperation, and understanding in dealing with the situation surrounding the Life accreditation process. It has always been the goal of DECE to provide meaningful input and service to CCE in ensuring that the chiropractic program accreditation process retains its integrity.

DECE with its membership and resources would have been of invaluable service to the CCE and perhaps been able to have thwarted the necessity for the extreme financial burdens and negative publicity suffered by the parties involved and the profession.

Due to CCE`s adamant refusal to open a dialogue with DECE, DECE has, unfortunately, been forced to deal with these issues directly with the U.S. Department of Education, by way of the formal complaint process.

As a further courtesy, DECE is forwarding a copy of the complaint for your perusal.

Respectfully,

Donald W. Hirsh. D.C.
Chairman, DECE

CC Mr. John Barth, USDOE
DECE Executive Committee

The United States Department of Education

Complaint by

Doctors for Excellence in Chiropractic Education

Against

The Council on Chiropractic Education, Inc.

For

Violation of USDOE Standards on
Due Process, Conflict of Interest/Bias,
Consistency, Consensus, and Operations.

November 20, 2003

INTRODUCTION

On February 10, 2003, Federal District Judge Charles E. Moye, Jr.(1) granted the petition of Life University for a preliminary injunction against the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE), requiring CCE to reinstate accreditation for Life`s Chiropractic Program. In granting a preliminary injunction against CCE, Judge Moye described actions that CCE had engaged in which call into question the agency`s legitimacy as an accreditation body. Judge Moye described actions "which would violate the antitrust laws if incorporated in an accreditation procedure, per se," and said that they "indicate a lack of due process."(2)

After denying CCE the usual deference given by courts to accrediting agencies, because "accreditation decisions…made by actors with a financial interest in the outcome," as was the case here (3), should be given "little deference" Judge Moye raised several issues which call into question the propriety of letting CCE continue as the, or even an, agency for the accreditation of chiropractic education. Judge Moye said:

[T]he elimination of Life University as a chiropractic college would increase the number of students and money available to those competitors;
[ ]
that an aggressive group of leaders of the eight liberal (4) chiropractic schools, who had only one-third of the chiropractic students, had undertaken a series of corporate manipulations in order to reduce the representation and dominance of the eight conservative chiropractic schools (of which Life University was one), who had approximately two-thirds of all chiropractic students;
[ ]
that these corporate manipulations, which may very well have violated CCE`s corporate charter, were calculated to give dominance to the liberal minority group over the disaccreditation of the largest of all the colleges of chiropractic and the turning loose of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of students to be attracted to the other schools.
[ ]
Actions which would violate the antitrust laws if incorporated in an accreditation procedure, per se, indicate a lack of due process. (5)

[Footnotes added. The original ruling was presented in one long paragraph. So in order to make it more easily read and understood it has been divided into separate paragraphs. The brackets indicate that a space has been added.]

Doctors for Excellence in Chiropractic Education (DECE) complains to the Department of Education (DOE) that the actions and procedures alluded to by Judge Moye violate the rules of the United States Department of Education (USDOE) that CCE is required to follow. This complaint sets out the nature of those violations and offers recommendations of how to rectify the situation.

On June 24, 2003, Life University and CCE announced a settlement of their dispute (6) that restored accreditation to the University until 2005, withdrew all issues affecting CCE from the court, and sealed all documents in the case. This settlement means that the transgressions of CCE identified in Judge Moye`s order restoring Life`s accreditation will not be addressed in his court. For this reason, and because of the serious and destructive nature of CCE`s behavior, DECE files this complaint with the Department of Education. DECE believes USDOE is the body most appropriate to address the propriety of CCE as an accrediting agency for chiropractic education.

VIOLATIONS

DECE charges and presents evidence to support that it is the political agenda of a minority of the Chiropractic profession to be recognized as primary care physicians; (7) that this goal is against the interest of the majority of the chiropractic profession seeking to perform as portal of entry doctors; (8) and that CCE has violated and continues to violate six specific USDOE regulations in pursuing this minority goal. (9)

Specifically, CCE failed to provide due process (34 C.F.R. § 602.25); it failed to adequately undertake sound administrative and fiscal responsibilities (34 C.F.R. § 602.15); it failed to gain the confidence of the chiropractic community (34 C.F.R. § 602.13); it failed to ensure consistency in decision-making (34 C.F.R. § 602.18); it failed to obtain a consensus before changing its standards (34 C.F.R. § 602.21), and it maintained inadequate operating procedures (34 C.F.R. § 602.23). These failures reveal an agency out of control, conflicted and unable to provide proper, even handed oversight of educational institution accreditation.

For these reasons DECE urges that USDOE either require the restructuring of the CCE to properly represent chiropractic education or replace CCE by a properly organized and functional accreditation institution or institutions

A: VIOLATION OF § 602.25: FAILURE TO ENSURE DUE PROCESS.

According to Judge Moye, CCE violated the due process of Life University. He said, in granting the injunction against CCE, that "[a]ctions which would violate the antitrust laws (which he attributed to CCE) if incorporated in an accreditation procedure, per se, indicate a lack of due process." [Parenthesis added]

DECE filed an Amicus Brief and Georgetown University Professor of Law Sherman L. Cohn, a well-known school accreditation expert, filed a fourteen page affidavit in support of Life`s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction that set out repeated instances in which CCE, in denying Life University accreditation for its College of Chiropractic (LUCC), proceeded in a manner that denied Life due process. Professor Cohn concluded that CCE`s decision "to revoke the acceptation of LUCC has no basis in the accepted practices of accreditation agencies." (10)

Specifically, Professor Cohn pointed out that CCE failed to renew Life`s chiropractic accreditation in spite of the fact that it had compiled a positive record of compliance with CCE requirements. CCE`s own site visitors said, just before CCE took actions that would destroy the school, "significant progress has been made." (11) Professor Cohn continued saying, "while it is the professional judgment of the accreditation agency that must assess the relative significance of problems solved and problems still to be solved, in my opinion here no reasonable accreditor could rationally conclude that the three concerns left (of 12 identified the year before)-one of which, it must be emphasized, was due to state criminal law, and the other was recognized to be at least partially caused by the very actions that the COA (12) had demanded of LUCC-outweighed all of the strengths now found to exist in this program." (13) Professor Cohn concludes his affidavit saying:

"It is my opinion that applying the standards, that accreditors have developed and apply from one discipline to another, the materials before the COA on June 7, 2002, did not warrant a revocation of accreditation. Moreover, it is my opinion that revoking accreditation in this situation is outside the standards and expected practice of accreditors." (14)

It is difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of due process than for a school to engage with commitment and rigor into the process of reaccredidation mandated by its accreditors, to be successful in meeting the demands of that accreditor-on the accreditors own terms-and then to have the success ignored by the arbitrary actions of the accreditor. To have this done in a context of a political agenda (CCE`s insistence on training primary care physicians) that is outside the mandate of the accreditors, adds a political motive to the due process violation.

Finally, as Judge Moye elaborates, this political motive is driven in some part by the fact that the chiropractic schools not seeking to train primary care physicians have by far the largest number of chiropractic students. This fact creates an economic motive for less financially successful competitors to act against them arbitrarily. Judge Moye underscores the fact that these school with a differing philosophy and the potential to gain economically from removing Life`s accreditation played a role in the CCE deliberations that he suggested created a virtual per se violation of Life`s due process rights. DECE asserts that the manner in which CCE treated Life reflects a bias against all schools that do not share a broad scope philosophy. This approach violates USDOE due process requirements for accreditors.

B: VIOLATION OF SEC. 602.15: FAILURE TO ASSUME PROPER ADMINISTRATIVE AND FISCAL RESPONSIBILITIES

On December 5, 2002 Palmer Chiropractic University Foundation and Palmer College of Chiropractic - West filed suit in the Jefferson County (Wisconsin) Circuit Court claiming that CCE reorganized in violation of its bylaws and articles of incorporation (AOI) and deprived Palmer of its rights of representation in the corporate organization. (15) Dr. D. D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, established Palmer College, in 1896, making it the oldest chiropractic school in America.

Gerald W. Clum, D.C., President of Life Chiropractic West, an administratively separate institution from that of Life University, and a CCE board member, expressed his concerns over the reorganization complained of by Palmer in a letter dated April 26, 2002, to Paul D. Walker, PhD., Executive Director of CCE. (16)

Dr. Clum, made a CCE minority board member by virtue of the reorganization, and sympathetic to traditional or conservative chiropractic, detailed the rule and bylaws violations committed by the CCE leadership in its attempt to accomplish its political goal of eliminating schools resistant to abandoning traditional chiropractic teaching from meaningful participation in the CCE standards process.

His letter carefully documented how the CCE Board and Administration reorganized CCE in violation of the CCE charter and Bylaws. This letter further questioned how the leadership improperly acted to reorganize the corporation, move its state of charter from Wisconsin to Arizona, and move the power to control policy to a new Board that no longer represented the accredited schools fairly or equally.

The steps taken by the CCE board and staff were in contravention of their own Articles of Incorporation (AOI) and Bylaws. (17) The wresting of power and direction was initially accomplished through a seemingly innocuous bylaw amendment in January 1999, which would later be ignored by the CCE board and administration. This improper transformation occurred as follows and is documented in Dr. Clum`s letter. (18)

The January 1999 bylaws amendment created a new group of chiropractic school executives to be known as the "corporation" of the CCE. Each institution/program was required to designate an official at the administrative level to sit as its representative, on the "corporation." (19)

The new 1999 bylaws required any changes of incorporation or bylaws to be by a 2/3 vote of the "corporation" members. (20) The "corporation" members were charged with selecting Board members/directors by a simple majority vote. (21)

The 1999 Bylaws also changed the composition of the Board to be comprised of only thirteen directors, including seven institution/ program members, four practicing chiropractors, and two public members. (22)

CCE Articles of Incorporation provide in Article 10 that CCE " is to have no members who are not directors." (23) According to the previous bylaws, all accredited programs and institutions were members. (24) Each member was previously entitled to designate a representative to the Board. (25)

The 1999 Bylaws, however, established a Board without all the member institution/programs in contravention of Article 10 of the Articles of Incorporation (AOI). The member institution/programs, however, did retain representation in the "corporation." (26)

On January 13, 2002, the Board approached the "corporation" requesting that it dissolve and transfer its powers to the Board. (27)

March 2002 the "corporation," chaired by Dr. James Winterstein (28) called for a vote on the Board`s proposal, after declaring that the "corporation" would no longer recognize all program representatives. (29)

The vote at the March 12, 2002 meeting, taken over the objection of many, included only fourteen members, instead of the required sixteen. Eight of the fourteen voted for the Board`s proposal for the dissolution of the "corporation" and transfer of the "corporation`s" power to the Board. The vote failed to obtain the two-thirds majority as required by the 1999 bylaws. (30)

On or about April 23, 2002, Dr. Winterstein and others (31) wrote the "corporation" members seeking clarification of the bylaws, asking whether the failed vote in March 2002 actually required adhering to the 1999 Bylaws. Again, only eight replied they did not.

On May 13, 2002, the new Board created by the 1999 Bylaw changes adopted the failed measure as having passed based upon the response to the Winterstein letter of April 23, 2002, and assumed the powers of the corporation.

CCE acting under recommendation of its Executive Vice-President Paul Walker, "corporation" chair James Winterstein, CCE president Reed Phillips, and COA chairman Joseph Brimhall violated CCE`s own bylaws by removing power from the original Board and then its reconstituted "corporation" in order to transfer those same powers to a new Board without the representatives of all chiropractic programs as required by the pre-1999 bylaws. It appears that this complex and illegal restructuring was designed to alter the course of chiropractic education and practice by removing the influence of the conservative college presidents from the CCE.

With this ultra vires corporate restructuring, the above-mentioned officials (32) were free to wield their personal preferences and biases (33) into the chiropractic accreditation process while simultaneously creating an increased enrollment in their own financially floundering institutions. (34)

The restructuring of the CCE Board, tipped the scale of authority into the hands of what is the minority view of chiropractic practice taught by the smaller schools of chiropractic headed by Winterstein, Phillips, and soon to be Brimhall.

C: VIOLATION OF SEC. 602.13: FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENCY BY OTHERS

The Life University and Palmer College lawsuits against CCE represent a small portion of the alienation from CCE that has become wide spread in the Chiropractic community. The Chiropractic Coalition, (35) made up of the International Chiropractors Association (ICA), Federation of Straight Chiropractors and Organizations (FSCO) (36) and the World Chiropractic Alliance (WCA), (37) concerned over CCE`s negative impact on chiropractic education and the state of the chiropractic profession, all adopted a formal position of "NO CONFIDENCE" in the CCE in its current configuration. (38)

The New Jersey State Board of Chiropractic Examiners sent its own site visitation team to Life University and found the University`s Chiropractic program in compliance with the requirements of New Jersey law. As Judge Moye said,

"[f]ourth, as to whether an injunction would be contrary to the public interest, the Court finds that, if an injunction is not granted, the result will be the destruction of Life University`s College of Chiropractic. The effect of an injunction would be to eliminate automatic ineligibility for state licensure on the basis of lack of CCE accreditation. The Court further finds that the New Jersey State Board of Chiropractic Examiners` decision to permit licensure of Life University graduates indicates that the danger to the public is not as great as the harm of the destruction of Life University if an injunction does not issue." (39)

In addition, the Council of New Jersey Chiropractors filed a formal complaint against the recent activities of the CCE with the USDOE. (40)

The recent move toward standards that incorporate the definition of a primary care physician is in direct conflict with the laws of many states (41), which prohibit chiropractors from using the title or performing the functions of a physician.

One of the three violations for which the Life program was cited by CCE was the lack of sufficient clinical laboratory interpretations. It was acknowledged that this was due to the fact that under Georgia law it was considered to be the practice of medicine without a license. (42) Under the guise of raising the level of educational standards, CCE designed these changes in chiropractic education standards to be the basis for the expansion of the scope of chiropractic practice into areas considered in most states to be the practice of medicine.

These series of events clearly demonstrate upon close review, that others have not accepted the recent activities or standards of the CCE.

D: VIOLATION OF SEC. 602.18: FAILURE TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY IN DECISION-MAKING

On February 10, 2003 in its decision to restore accreditation to Life University the United States District Court found that " [t]hese corporate manipulations . . . were calculated to give dominance to the liberal minority group over the conservative majority group . . .." (43)

This decision substantiates our allegation that the CCE has not utilized effective controls against conflict of interests in its decision-making process. The court also found, based upon a review of the record and hearing oral arguments, that Life was " [s]ubstantially likely to succeed on the merits . . . ," (44) in its lawsuit against the CCE.

On June 24, 2003 the CCE released the following brief announcement: "Life University and the Council on Chiropractic Education are pleased to announce that they have reached an agreement to resolve the issues surrounding the accreditation status of the University`s Doctor of Chiropractic program. The agreement continues Life`s current accreditation status and provides for a special accreditation process that is scheduled to be completed by the end of January 2005." (45)

The CCE has now decided to take an action that it was free to take prior to the conclusion of the COA appeals process. DECE, in fact, in its letter of August 27, 2002 (46) offered the following suggestion:

Specifically, we suggest that -- given what, from public announcements, seem to be significant efforts of the newly installed Life Board of Directors and management to correct long existing problems -- CCE endorse, and the appeals committee grant, the school an additional 18 months of probation to undertake, under close supervision, the correction of all remaining deficiencies to CCE`s satisfaction.... An 18-month extension of Life probation, therefore, might well allow the school to correct all problems within CCE`s reaccreditations time frame.

This action, taken one year later, has now created an extraordinary process that is well outside the normal maximum time frame for reaccreditation. The fact that the CCE, presented with a lawsuit it would likely lose, has now taken a different course of action is indicative that the integrity of the accreditation process has been compromised.

DECE further asserts that the CCE organizational structure, implemented in 1999, that has resulted in an environment that invites a biased decision-making process and does little to ensure that the interests of all parties, both institutional and public, will be heard, has denied a representative voice in that process. An analysis of the members of the last three site visitation teams to the Life program is indicative of a potential lack of educational diversity within the CCE`s Academy of Site Team Visitors. (47)

The CCE has refused to publish the identities of the members and the qualifications and affiliations of those that are credentialed to perform site visits. Evidence exists that CCE is openly engaged in a program of training site team members, but has never chosen any graduates of this - Life University - program, instead opting for a clandestine method. (48) Rather than randomly selecting trained candidates from a pool of qualified individuals that are representative of the entire profession, the COA apparently is mostly utilizing candidates with a strong affiliation to their minority schools. (49) Since the removal of the college presidents from the Board of Directors in 1999, the CCE has been void of a meaningful voice from the majority of the chiropractic profession.

E: VIOLATION OF SEC 602.23: FAILURE TO MAINTAIN OPERATING PROCEDURES ALL AGENCIES MUST HAVE

During the recent review of the Life Chiropractic program, for which accreditation was denied, CCE did not provide an opportunity for third-party comment concerning that institution`s qualifications for accreditation. In his August 27, 2002 letter, James S. Turner, Esq., representing the interests of DECE, wrote to Dr. Reed B. Phillips, President of the CCE, (50)

"Once again, the issue in the minds of the thousands of concerned chiropractors, students, and their families is not necessarily any initial CCE decision (we do not know the charges against the school or the school`s answers). Rather, we are seriously concerned about the appearance of a prejudiced accreditation process with no mechanism to recognize major Life reforms undertaken since June 10th.

We hope you will reassure us regarding these matters, since there is a point at which inflexibility becomes arbitrary and capricious. We are reluctant to believe that the CCE would set a course so irrevocable and rigid as to allow its actions to be so characterized. An extension of probation for Life would permit remediation of the grounds for CCE`s concerns as well as remove the basis for doubts about CCE`s impartiality."

The response from the CCE, dated September 16, 2002, can hardly be characterized as responsive to the concerns of interested third parties. Mr. Paul Walker, Executive Director of CCE responded, "[h]owever, be assured that CCE will not respond to any further communication from you or your law firm in this regard." (51) This letter alone clearly indicates that third parties were not provided a reasonable opportunity for their concerns to be heard and/or adequately addressed by the CCE.

F: VIOLATION OF SEC 602.21: FAILURE TO OBTAIN CONSENSUS PRIOR TO CHANGING STANDARDS

The words of Dr. Wickes, now the Secretary/Treasurer of the Board of Directors of the CCE, provide an interesting insight into the issue of the standards under which Life University was scrutinized during its latest review. " The adoption of the `primary care physician and clinician` status by the CCE has been a relatively new development . . . in some cases, there has been marked resistance to the primary care status." (52) Dr. Wickes states:

"[T]he CCE Standards are those of an independent accrediting body and are not a consensus document developed by the chiropractic educational community. That there is no such consensus document is most likely a reflection of the disparate philosophies held by the various institutions." (53)

These published words of an executive of the CCE seem to clearly indicate that the recent changes to the Standards were initiated without the benefit of a consensus process. He even suggested that a consensus could not have been obtained. This paper seems to suggest the motive behind the reorganization that removed the sixteen college presidents from the Board of Directors.

RECOMMENDATIONS

DECE asserts that the CCE has been in serious violation of the Secretary`s rules since approximately 1999. DECE respectfully request that the Department of Education suspend its recognition of the CCE until such time that the CCE has undertaken adequate steps to reform its governance structure, standards, policies, and operating procedures. It is essential that the focus of an accreditation agency be limited to the issues of quality of education. Proper safeguards must be instituted to ensure that the authority vested by the Secretary of Education not be abused to advance agendas ancillary to the quality of education provided by the accredited institutions.

Pending a major reform of the CCE, DECE respectfully requests that the Department of Education require the Council on Chiropractic Education to show cause why the following should not be ordered, effective immediately:

1. CCE reversion to the last legally valid governing structure in place in 1998, pending a negotiated consensus process for the creation of a new governance structure. This new structure must meet the Criteria of the Secretary of Education as well as be representative of the diversity of teachings that exist within the chiropractic educational community. Specifically, by starting with a reversion to Article 10 of the original Articles of Incorporation, which provides that CCE "is to have no members who are not directors." (54) Historically, CCE members/directors are those chiropractic institutions and Doctor of Chiropractic Degree Programs that are accredited by CCE. Each member (that is, each CCE-accredited institution and Program) is entitled to designate a representative to sit on the Board, and the Board must seat each such designee.

2. Reversion to the Standards for Chiropractic Programs prior to the reorganization of 1999, with a mandated, negotiated consensus process implemented prior to any future changes to standards.

3. Implementation of a standardized process ensuring that the CCE Academy of Site Team Visitors be comprised of teams of qualified experts reflecting the diversity of chiropractic educational philosophies to ensure the uniform application of standards interpretations, and that is able to demonstrate an awareness and sensitivity to the diversity of existing state laws defining the scope of chiropractic practice.

CONCLUSION

A university or college is not just a teaching facility. It is also a repository of beliefs and principles, as well as a center to explore, through research, the foundations upon which those beliefs have been based. Since approximately 1999, the Council on Chiropractic Education and its Commission on Accreditation have been operating in violation of numerous rules of the Secretary`s Criteria for Recognition of Accrediting Agencies. The results of these violations have been numerous lawsuits, the dislocation of thousands of students, hundreds of teachers, and a multitude of practitioners who have been negatively affected by the associated negative publicity. A review of the documents provided with this complaint should be ample evidence to demonstrate the following:

1 There is a division in the chiropractic profession that is recognized and well understood within the profession.

2 Consensus does not exist on issues relating to primary care.

3 The practice of chiropractic is defined in most states as the diagnosis and treatment of the vertebral subluxation.

4 The new CCE standards are not a consensus and they do not represent the diversity of educational thought that exists within the chiropractic educational community.

5 Membership in the CCE, at all levels, does not equitably represent the diversity of interests that exist in the profession as a whole.

6 CCE, as a monopoly agency for the entire profession, has a responsibility to act on behalf of all interests within the profession and has failed to do so.

7 Life University, during its recent reviews, was not in fact evaluated by a group of peers that reflected the diversity of chiropractic thought that exists within the chiropractic community.

DECE concludes that the preliminary findings of the United States District Court, alone are per se sufficient to determine that the Council on Chiropractic Education has been operating in violation of the Secretary`s Criteria for Recognition. However, even these findings, make up only a small part of the record of bias, manipulations, and destructive behavior engaged in by CCE in its effort to improperly use the USDOE managed education accreditation process to force a narrow philosophical view onto the chiropractic profession.

DECE suggests that it would be prudent and in the best interest of the chiropractic profession and the public to require the CCE to undergo significant reforms as a condition for any continuation of its recognition.

DECE recommends that the Secretary terminate recognition until the CCE enacts adequate reforms and safeguards within a reasonable time frame, and demonstrates that those reforms are acceptable to the entire profession through a meaningful consensus process.

APPENDIX

No. 1. Life University, Inc. v. CCE, et al, Civil Action File No. 03-cv-4 (N.D. Ga. 2003), Judge`s Order for Temporary Injunction.

No. 2. Timeline of current events.

No. 3. Full text of each USDOE regulation that DECE charges that CCE violated.

No. 4. Life University, Inc. v. CCE, et al, Civil Action File No. 03-cv-4 (N.D. Ga. 2003), including Life`s Motion for Leave to Amend and Memorandum of Law.

No. 5. Palmer v. CCE, et. al., Circuit Court Case No./Declaratory Judgment: 30701 (Jefferson County, Wisconsin 2003)

No. 6. Gerald W. Clum, D.C., President of Life Chiropractic West, letter of April 26, 2002, to Paul D. Walker, PhD., Executive Vice-President of CCE.

No. 7. Articles of Incorporation, March 2001 and June 2002 By-laws of the Council on Chiropractic Education.

No. 8. Board Proposal requesting that `corporation` dissolve and transfer its powers to the Board. January 13, 2002, minutes of CCE Annual Meeting , p. 10 and a series of documents related to the alleged improper changes to the By-laws.

No. 9. No confidence in CCE measure drafted by leading chiropractic organizations.

No. 10. Professor Sherman Cohn affidavit and DECE Amicus Brief.

No. 11. Complaint to DOE dated April 30, 2003 by Council Of New Jersey Chiropractors, 43 Newark-Pompton Turnpike, Riverdale, NJ 07457, against the CCE.

No. 12. June 24, 2003 CCE statement of agreement with LUCC.

No. 13. August 27, 2002, James S. Turner, Esq., letter to Dr. Reed B. Phillips, President of the CCE.

No. 14. Spreadsheet of Site Team Visitation member institutional origin.

No. 15. Harrison letter dated August 7, 2003.

No. 16. September 16, 2002 letter from Paul Walker, Executive Vice-President of CCE, in response to DECE`s letter of inquiry dated August 27, 2002.

FOOTNOTES

1. Northern District of Georgia Federal Court
2. See Appendix No. 1, Life University, Inc. v. CCE, et al, Civil Action File No. 03-cv-4 (N.D. Ga. 2003), Judge`s Order for Temporary Injunction.
3. Judge Moye said,
               Although decisions of accrediting agencies have historically been given deference, where, as here, accreditation decisions are made by actors with a financial interest in the outcome, little deference should be given. Here, there were admitted conflicting economic financial interests in the decisions that were made. That fact is shown by the recruitment of Life students, after the June 2002 decisions, by competitors whose representatives were involved in the decision making on accreditation: an attempt by a competitor whose representative was one of the decision makers to buy life University after its accreditation was withdrawn, at a time when the monetary value of Life University had been reduced by the accreditation decision; the fact that the elimination of Life University as a chiropractic college would increase the number of students and money available to those competitors;
4. Since its inception by D.D. Palmer in the 1895 in Davenport, Iowa, chiropractic has contained two distinct tendencies, "straight" or conservative chiropractic, a hands on drug-avoiding approach based on ensuring total health by addressing misalignment of the spine and "mixer" or liberal chiropractic which seeks to provide a broader set of interventions including in some instances the use of drugs, with the intention of fulfilling the role of primary care physician.
5. Life University, Inc. v. CCE, et al, Civil Action File No. 03-cv-4 (N.D. Ga. 2003), Judge`s Order for Temporary Injunction.
6. On June 24, 2003 the CCE released the following brief announcement:
              Life University and the Council on Chiropractic Education are pleased to announce that they have reached an agreement to resolve the issues surrounding the accreditation status of the University`s Doctor of Chiropractic program. The agreement continues Life`s current accreditation status and provides for a special accreditation process that is scheduled to be completed by the end of January 2005.
7. The Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, National University of Health Sciences, Illinois, Vol. 1, No. 4, p. 173, 2002 "These opposing positions mitigate against the practice of primary care by the profession at large and therefore represent one of the barriers that must be addressed and overcome if members of the chiropractic profession are to engage in primary care as it is generally defined"
8. Id. at p. 142. "The commonly accepted reality is the existence of 2 distinct groups of chiropractors: those who are trained as portal-of-entry providers (the majority), and those that are trained as primary care providers (minority)."
9. See Appendix No. 3 for the full text of each USDOE regulations that DECE charges that CCE violated.
10. See Appendix No. 4, Affidavit of Sherman L. Cohn, Professor of Law Georgetown and DECE Amicus Brief.
11. Id at p. 13 par 30.
12. COA is the Commission on Accreditation of the Council on Chiropractic Education.
13. Id at p. 13 par 32.
14. Id at p. 33.
15. See Appendix No. 5, Palmer v. CCE, et. al., Circuit Court Case No./Declaratory Judgment: 30701 (Jefferson County, Wisconsin 2003).
16. See Appendix No. 6, Gerald W. Clum, D.C., President of Life Chiropractic West, letter of April 26, 2002, to Paul D. Walker, PhD., Executive Vice-President of CCE.
17. See Appendix No. 7, Articles of Incorporation and By-laws of the Chiropractic Council on Education.
18. See supra FN No. 16
19. Id. at supra FN No. 17.
20. Id. at §4.01 (3) 2001 Bylaws.
21. Id.
22. Id.
23. See supra FN 17.
24. Some institutions have more than one program. Palmer for instance, has a Palmer West and is accredited separately, thus, the distinction between institutions and programs. Historically, all separately accredited programs had a representative. See Appendix No. 4.
25. Id.
26. See supra FN 17. Those powers included amending the AOI and Bylaws.
27. See Appendix No. 8, January 13, 2002, minutes of CCE Annual Meeting, p. 10.
28. President of National University of Health Sciences, Lombard, Illinois.
29. By limiting the vote of the larger institutions with two or more programs to only one vote, a shift was accomplished toward the smaller minority view schools lacking multiple programs.
30. See supra FN 27. March 12, 2002, minutes of CCE Corporation Meeting.
31. Dr. James Winterstein, Dr. Reed Phillips, and Dr. Joseph Brimhall.
32. Winterstein, Phillips, Brimhall, and Walker.
33. ACA disavows Dr. Sid Williams: Tries to paint leader as "unscientific" huckster, The Chiropractic Journal, May 1994. [ ] Reed Phillips, D.C., president of Los Angeles College of Chiropractic, in the March 25, 1994 issue of Dynamic Chiropractic . . . characterized Williams [president of LUCC] as a "religious zealot" who rejects science or evidence-based studies. "If chiropractic desires a seat at the table of health care in this reductionist, mechanistic, scientifically driven society of managed health care, a faith-based religious context is unacceptable," he stated empirically, then asked, "If the world recognized leader of a portion of this profession, the `defender of chiropractic` as dubbed by some, is `belief based` as opposed to `evidence based,` where doth he leadeth his people?"

     The nearly simultaneous appearance of both the Dynamic Chiropractic article and the ACA statement to the Associated Press gives credence to reports from reliable sources that a concerted effort is underway to discredit Dr. Williams. At an April 6-10, 1994, meeting of the Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards (FCLB) held in Washington, D.C., officials openly and informally discussed their desire to "eliminate" Williams as a leader in the profession, according to one source. The FCLB is closely aligned with the ACA.

The same article goes on to state that,

      [ ] William H. Dallas, D.C., president of Western States Chiropractic College [now presided over by Dr. Joseph Brimhall] suggested that including drugs in the chiropractic repertoire would help patients and the profession. According to a report by John Palmer, D.C., in the Chiropractic Association of Oregon Journal, "Dr. Dallas stated that Oregon has the best opportunity to be a primary care physician if we had limited pharmaceuticals and some additional training."

     Also last year, an article in Bottom Line newsletter, based on an interview with James Winterstein, D.C., president of National College of Chiropractic and former president of the Council on Chiropractic Education, labeled chiropractic "medical therapy," and noted that the "spinal manipulation . . . is not always a necessity in chiropractic treatment."
     With this latest round of attack, the ACA appears to be trying to categorize subluxation-based chiropractic - - as championed by Williams - as not only "unscientific" but tinged with "sectarianism, cultism, (and) hucksterism." They hope to achieve this goal by accusing Williams of unprofessional conduct. [Emphasis added].

34.  Over the period of 2000 to 2002, chiropractic student enrollment dropped approximately 40% (considering all United States chiropractic institutions). Part of this precipitous drop in enrollment was the result of CCE changing the minimum entry grade point average in 1999 (there was a lag because students were already enrolled). Additionally, there was the beginning of a generalized recession in the U.S. economy. Institutional financial pressure was felt by the full spectrum of schools, however, the schools that wanted to train primary care physicians had only one third of all students and a 40% decline placed a greater financial strain on these smaller minority-view schools.
35.   Http://www.chiropracticcoalition.org. The Chiropractic Coalition, founded in November 2002 by three major chiropractic organizations - the International Chiropractors Association (ICA), the World Chiropractic Alliance (WCA), and the Federation of Straight Chiropractors and Organizations (FSCO) - brings together diverse subluxation-based chiropractic organizations working in the best interest of the public and the profession.
     Spurring the formation of the group was the widespread concern that chiropractic is in danger of being taken over by a group of medically oriented chiropractors and organizations who are trying to change the very nature of the profession, and in the process minimizing the profession`s unique role in health care and possibly placing the public at risk.
     The Coalition has pledged to monitor and counter the activities of these groups and individuals, including the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) and the Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards (FCLB), which have been seen as overstepping their authority in an attempt to control the direction of the profession.
36. Http://www.straightchiropractic.com. The Federation of Straight Chiropractors and Organizations is a national organization representing straight chiropractors and straight chiropractic affiliate organizations with a united voice for straight chiropractic principles.
    Straight Chiropractic is a vitalistic philosophy, science, and art which consists solely of the non-therapeutic objective of locating, analyzing, and assisting in the correction of vertebral subluxations, because they are detrimental to the expression of innate intelligence.
37.  Http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/about/wca.htm. The World Chiropractic Alliance was founded in 1989 as a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting and strengthening chiropractic around the world.
    WCA promotes chiropractic as a drug-free, subluxation-based health care approach providing lifetime, family wellness care. It should be available to all people, from infancy to old age, regardless of the presence or absence of symptoms. We work constantly and vigorously to ensure that chiropractic does not deteriorate into a medical therapy or incorporate drugs, surgery, or other medical techniques.
38. See Appendix No. 9, No confidence measure by leading chiropractic organizations.
39. See Appendix No. 1, Judge Moye`s ORDER ON PLAINTIFF`S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, Life University, Inc. v. CCE, et al, Civil Action File No. 03-cv-4 (N.D. Ga. 2003).
40. See Appendix No. 11, Complaint to DOE dated March 24, 2002 by Council Of New Jersey Chiropractors, 43 Newark-Pompton Turnpike, Riverdale, NJ 07457, against the CCE.
41. See supra FN No. 7, p. 168, "[t]he variance of chiropractic practice acts prohibits the achievement of IOM (Institute of Medicine) criteria for primary-care practice throughout the United States." [Parenthesis added]
42. See Appendix No. 10, Cohn affidavit.
43. See supra FN No. 38.
44. Id.
45. See Appendix No. 12, June 24, 2003 CCE statement of agreement with LUCC.
46. See Appendix No. 13, August 27, 2002, James S. Turner, Esq., letter to Dr. Reed B. Phillips, President of the CCE.
47. See Appendix No. 14, Spreadsheet of Site Team visitation member institutional origin.
48. See Appendix No. 15, Harrison letter dated August 7, 2003.
49.   Id.
50. See supra FN 45.
51. See Appendix No 16, September 16, 2002 letter from Paul Walker, Executive Voce-President of CCE, in response to DECE`s letter of inquiry dated August 27, 2002.
52. See supra FN No. 7, p. 175.
53. Id.
54. See supra FN No. 17.