{"content":[{"text":"80). SFAP alleges that these serious and multiple claims indicate that Jett has violated its fiduciary duties (34 C.F.R. § \n 668.82) and indicate that Jett does not have the administrative capability to properly administer the Title IV programs \n (34 C.F.R. § 668.16).","bbox":{"left":0.026144,"top":0.030447,"width":0.9274120000000001,"height":0.05430299999999999}},{"text":"In a show cause proceeding, the institution has the burden of persuading me that the emergency action is \n unwarranted. Pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 668.83(e)(4), the institution has met its burden if it shows that -- (i) the grounds \n stated in the notice did not, or no longer, exist; (ii) the grounds stated in the notice will not cause loss or misuse of Title \n IV, HEA program funds; or (iii) the institution will use procedures that will reliably eliminate the risk of loss from the \n misuse described in the notice.","bbox":{"left":0.026144,"top":0.098629,"width":0.9367640000000002,"height":0.088394}},{"text":"JETT'S CORRECTIVE PLAN","bbox":{"left":0.378752,"top":0.231205,"width":0.24209800000000004,"height":0.020212000000000008}},{"text":"Jett offered a plan to protect the Department against the likelihood of future losses and insists that there is zero risk \n because Jett's president is willing to cover the current disputed liabilities ($108,225) by way of offset of its Pell \n payments. In the alternative, he is willing to obtain a letter of credit to cover the alleged liabilities. In light of the \n programmatic deficiencies discussed below, I find that the financial measures Jett proposes are inadequate.","bbox":{"left":0.026144,"top":0.280447,"width":0.9214309999999999,"height":0.07134800000000002}},{"text":"Jett also engaged the services of a reputable reimbursement agent, Global Financial Aid Services, to work with it and \n prevent any further problems with Jett's reimbursement requests and the supporting documentation which needs to \n accompany them. Finally, Jett guarantees that it can avoid the problem of delayed and late filed audits because it has \n engaged the services of a local Memphis CPA, Mr. Pullen, to visit its locations every other week to ensure that \n violations will not reoccur. It intends to continue this routine from now until the pending termination action is finally \n decided. SFAP questions the value of Mr. Pullen's services if he must rely on inaccurate information and points to \n attendance records as a specific area for concern. SFAP further notes that Jett had contracted with him in the summer of \n 1996, yet deficiencies and late audits continued even through that monitoring period.","bbox":{"left":0.026163,"top":0.36378,"width":0.940353,"height":0.13953099999999996}},{"text":"Jett did not respond to SFAP's specific program concerns. Instead, Jett simply insists that the Department should not \n be backward looking and that the very nature of an emergency action is to be forward looking and futuristic. Jett is \n confident that its plan will work to avoid the likelihood of loss and provide the protections which eliminate the need for \n the emergency action. Jett referenced a similar plan offered in In re New Concept Beauty Academy, Dkt 96-58-EA, U.S. \n Dep't of Educ. (June 13, 1996), and submits this is the same kind of plan it would pursue. Jett asserts that if a plan \n offering protections against the loss SFAP fears can be accepted in one case, it is precedent for accepting it here.","bbox":{"left":0.026144,"top":0.517189,"width":0.9413719999999999,"height":0.10543999999999998}},{"text":"SFAP says this is not Jett's first experience with a servicer and cites to other servicers and the dates Jett used them. \n Given that Jett could not avoid past problems through the intercession of other servicers, the assurances it now makes \n that the new servicer, Global, will prevent mistakes and the resulting loss, is no guarantee. Because of the school's track \n record and its troubled relationships with past servicers, its present assurances are insufficient. Jett's plan does not give \n the Department any real guarantees and fails to satisfy Jett's burden of showing that these new procedures will reliably \n eliminate the risk of loss of future Title IV funds. Accordingly, I find that Jett's plan, as it applies to the scenario before \n me, does not provide adequate protections for Title IV funds.","bbox":{"left":0.026144,"top":0.634614,"width":0.939568,"height":0.12248400000000004}},{"text":"LOAN CERTIFICATION","bbox":{"left":0.396046,"top":0.769083,"width":0.20748999999999995,"height":0.020212000000000008}},{"text":"Jett is charged with the improper certification of loans using an incorrect Office of Postsecondary Education \n Identification (OPE-ID) number to certify loans for 43 students at its Southbrook Mall location, a school which was \n once eligible, but that lost its eligibility based on a cohort default rate disqualification. SFAP asserts that Jett \n fraudulently certified loans for its Southbrook students under an approved OPE-ID number which was assigned to \n another Jett school. SFAP claims Jett was on notice of its ineligibility to certify loans for its Southbrook students as of \n September 13, 1994. Moreover, SFAP contends that Jett chose not to appeal this ineligibility determination. Jett claims \n that its President, Mr. Holland, sent a letter disputing its loss of eligibility. However, the letter he submitted was not","bbox":{"left":0.026124,"top":0.82022,"width":0.93451,"height":0.12248400000000004}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}