By J.E. Warren
Contributing Writer
A local Dallas judge, Merrill Hartmann, of the 192nd District Court ruled on Sept. 15, 1999, that technology fees required by all seven DCCCD campuses were illegally imposed. The fees in question were charged between 1994 and spring 1999. The damages rewardable to students enrolled during that time could amount to as much as 12 million dollars.
Notices were mailed out to approximately 240,000 students around the middle of May 2000. According to the notice, students had to notify the court by June 2000 if they did not want to have any part of the proceedings. Only about 1,000 students dropped out of involvement with the case, and other students will not have another chance before everything is finalized.
The case is still tied up in court, and will probably stay that way for another year or more, according to Robert Young, general counsel for the community college district.
"We are essentially through at the trial court level," said Young. "The court has to make an entry of judgement, and then the case will be appealed."
Bruce Albright, one of the student plaintiffs, said that state law didn't authorize the $10 fee that the community colleges collected. He also said that state law requires the entire student body or student government to hold a vote on such issues.
"Out of seven schools, only three have student governments that are on record as having been consulted by the district," said Albright. "And many of the colleges were not in favor of the new fees."
Albright is retired now and majoring in computer science and technology. Before retiring, he spent 15 years in the technology industry as a computer operator. He worked for such giants as IBM, Mobil and Goodyear.
Albright has been the front-runner among his fellow plaintiffs in the case. He is also the original student who went in search of legal assistance.
Albright enlisted the help of Bill Bolton, a University of North Texas graduate, who used to be a legal assistant. Bolton "had connections," as Albright put it. He was able to bring matters to the attention of attorney Roger Mandel of the law firm Stanley, Mandel and Iola. Mandel now represents the original student plaintiffs.
Mandel is confident that, above and beyond the possibility of appeals tying things up longer, the final ruling will be in the plaintiffs' favor. He says he looks forward to seeing the students get their money back.
Albright said having an attorney of Mandel's caliber makes the playing field more level — considering the sort of representation the DCCCD can afford.
"A law suit wasn't my first step," said Albright. "I decided to take matters to court when my complaints to district administration weren't taken seriously."
Albright says that he approached district officials many times over a period of several months, but didn't appear to be finding any open ears.
John Tuohy, vice president of North Lake College's Administrative Services, describes Albright as a man on some sort of personal crusade.
"He drove around to all the colleges in the district," explained Tuohy, "and even went all the way to Austin so he could speak with the Attorney General."
There are, of course, two sides to this story and both seem to hold their weight in merit.
The DCCCD is appealing the judge's decision because it believes it was on solid legal ground when it changed or instituted the fees, and they still believe that, said Young. He holds that the district's case has plenty of room to win. But that doesn't mean he's downplaying the other side's ability to hold an equally well-worded argument.
"Back in February, the judge agreed with us also," said Young. "But then three weeks later he changed his mind."
Two-thirds of the community colleges in Texas handle fees the same way the DCCCD did. They, along with the Texas Association of Community Colleges, support the district in its appeal. No one is disputing the need for fees such as the technology fees instigated by the district. Not even those who filed the law suit.
"This is a mole hill that's turned into a mountain," explained Albright. "In essence, they have the right to initiate fees, but not without consulting all the student governments about it first — which they didn't."
An argument mentioned by both Tuohy and Young is that many student governments at the time of the decision were weak or barely existent. However, Young said he doesn't think that is an argument they will use in court.
Albright and his attorney say they doubt the district's position would stand well under the scrutiny of a judge and jury.
Because of the court's rulings, the technology fees have been discontinued and the amounts of those fees are now being collected as part of a tuition increase. By placing the fees under a different classification, they have become legal.
Dr. David England, president of NLC, commented on the semantic nature of the case.
"The lawsuit is based upon a technicality that really has no practical effect on students," he said.
