Search News


Browse Archives

News

Head of Aid Group Charged

July 9, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Philip Day, the president of the national association that represents financial aid administrators, was charged Wednesday on a series of felony violations related to allegations from his previous job, as chancellor of the City College of San Francisco. The charges say that Day diverted college funds illegally to political campaigns that supported the college, such as bond measures. Such spending, if it took place, would violate California law.

There could of course never be a good time for the president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators to be face legal charges, but it would be hard to think of a worse time for the organization. Dramatic reforms in student aid and loan programs are currently being considered by the Obama administration and members of Congress. And the association's annual meeting starts in San Antonio on Sunday.

The association issued a statement Wednesday night noting that the charges are "unrelated to NASFAA, its members, or Dr. Day's tenure at NASFAA." The statement added: "Dr. Day has voluntarily requested an unpaid administrative leave from the Board of Directors leadership to deal with the situation so that this development will not distract the association from its essential work. The NASFAA Board of Directors leadership ... has granted his request. Regardless of these recent developments, the board leadership stresses that NASFAA has the capacity to continue its vital mission to expand access and remove financial barriers to higher education."

As of last night, Day and two senior officials at the City College of San Francisco who were charged did not respond to requests for comment. Previously, Day has said he did nothing wrong in the bond campaigns. The other two were Stephen Herman and James Blomquist, both currently associate vice chancellors.

Day has been in office at NASFAA less than two years. He arrived following the retirement of Dallas Martin, the end of whose tenure coincided with a series of scandals involving ties of some aid officials at various campuses (but not Martin) with lenders. Many aid officials had hoped that Day's arrival would give the group new influence in Washington, and the association has sought a higher-profile role in policy discussions. But in recent months, as the Obama administration has unveiled a series of programs to reform student aid, articles in the San Francisco Chronicle drew attention to questions about the spending on bond measures to support the City College.

According to that newspaper, Day could face nine years in prison and fines of $300,000 if convicted on all charges

Kamala D. Harris, district attorney of San Francisco, issued a statement about the charges: “Misusing public funds and laundering money for political purposes are serious offenses that jeopardize the integrity of the political process and weaken the public trust. The leaders of our public institutions must uphold their civic and fiduciary duties or face serious consequences.”

Here are details on the charges provided by the district attorney's office:

  • Day and Herman are each charged with one count of conspiracy, one count of misappropriation of public funds, one count of concealing an account of public money, one count of grand theft, three counts of using City College of San Francisco funds to support a political campaign, and one count of making a political contribution in the name of another.
  • Day is charged with a fourth count of using City College of San Francisco funds to support a political campaign.
  • Blomquist is charged with one count of using City College of San Francisco funds to support a political campaign, and one count of making a political contribution in the name of another.

The charges generally do not involve allegations that the individuals were trying to enrich themselves, but rather that they were trying to use money in ways that were banned by state law and were not authorized.

According to the complaints filed by the district attorney, several of the charges relate to bond campaigns by the college. In 2001, during a campaign for a $195 million bond measure for the college, City College of San Francisco and Pepsi negotiated a vending contract for Pepsi to sell Pepsi products throughout the campus and Pepsi had committed to paying City College a $75,000 signing bonus. According to the court documents filed by the district attorney, Day and Herman, without the knowledge of district trustees, directed Pepsi to pay $50,000 of the signing bonus to the bond committee instead of to the college.

Similar allegations are made concerning a payment by Bean Scene, which was awarded a contract to operate a cafe on the City College of San Francisco campus. The $20,000 signing bonus due to the college was sent to a campaign for a 2005 bond referendum, according to the charges.

Another $28,000 that Pepsi owed the college was diverted in 2006, the district attorney charges, for a statewide bond campaign for community colleges.

Some of the charges relate to the use of money for purposes other than campaigns. An additional $45,000 in Pepsi payments to the college was allegedly diverted to what the district attorney called a "hidden account" in the college's foundation. Day is charged with using these funds, according to the district attorney, "for expenses that could not, or were unlikely to be, reimbursed by City College, such as a City Club membership for himself, parking tickets, and alcoholic beverages at functions."

The college issued a statement late Wednesday saying that the "board and college administration cooperated fully with this investigation." The statement said that after allegations arose in 2007 about the 2005 bond campaign, two administrative investigations took place, leading to "explicit rules and guidelines concerning political activity and campaign finance." The statement added that "the new policies make clear that district personnel may not be involved in political campaigns in any way that uses public resources or public time."

A spokesman for the college, asked about the status of the two administrators who were indicted, said that Don Griffin, Day's replacement as chancellor, "is currently evaluating the college's administrative remedies relative to these employees. He has indicated that he will make a decision very soon."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Head of Aid Group Charged

  • Posted by DS on July 9, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • Well, at least there will be something to talk about at the NASFAA conference other than the usual whining about how overworked and underappreciated the Financial Aid Office is...

  • Dr. Philp Day indictment
  • Posted by feudi pandola , FAO on July 9, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • If these allegations prove to be true, they reflect an amazing level of naivete for a man appointed to one of the top positions in the national hierarchy of leaders of higher education. In Pennsylvania, the courts are about to sentence one state senator to as much as twelve years in jail for similiar, though much more lucrative (about $4.0 million), "pay to play" machinations. The actual charges do not appear to involve very much money at all to warrant a possible sentence of nine years...mere pocket change when you consider a U.S. Congressman remains a free man to this day after the authorities found $100,000 in his freezer about year ago. Or the cases of Jeb Bush and Bob Kerrey, both of whom who now sit on the Board of Tenet Heathcare after that company received the largest corporate fine in American history for Medicare fraud. White collar crime is a very peculiar animal...the degree of transgerssion seems to depend on whose ox was gored. Of course, this is not to defend any illegal actions by Dr. Day in any way, but rather to lend a degree of proportionality to this case.

     

  • Posted by Disappointed , DFA on July 9, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • NASFAA should seriously look at whether or not Dr. Day should continue with the association. His indictment casts a serious shadow over the effectiveness of the Association. The screening committee knew about these allegation but were told that the allegations were unfounded. Now, more than ever, we need a strong voice in Washington. Dr. Day can no longer be than voice.

  • Misleading
  • Posted by JS on July 9, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • Reading the sentence "[Day] arrived following the retirement of Dallas Martin, the end of whose tenure coincided with a series of scandals involving ties of some aid officials at various campuses (but not Martin) with lenders" one might infer that NASFAA was somehow involved with those "scandals" when, if fact, they involved a handful of individuals acting on their own.

  • Posted by FinAid Observer on July 9, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • Yes, the transgressions that JS talks about were committed by individual NASFAA members. But before they were discovered, Dallas was very vocal publicly in insisting that NASFAA and its members were "clean," and that the Cuomo and press investigations would turn up nothing. It was only after the transgressions came to light, and financial aid officers were forced to resign, that Dallas had to backpedal and admit that perhaps the NASFAA code of ethics was not as strong as it needed to be. So as the leader of the organization at the time he should bear some responsibility.

  • NASFAA Leadership
  • Posted by R.F. , FAO on July 9, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Dallas Martin is is no way culpable for what happened after the Cuomo allegations.

    Several individual FAO's acted on their own in spite of the NASFAA standards and rightfully paid the price. Dallas was rightfully defending the 99.99999% of FAO's who were following the ethics rules.

    People forget that the NASFAA standards were the result of many discussions over a period of years held in the profession by folks who wanted to ensure that violations would not happen, and who were uncomfortable with some of the developments happening before their eyes.

    NASFAA is not now and never has been a policing or accrediting agency. Their mission statement is available for all to see on their website, but here it is:

    Our Mission

    The National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA) promotes the professional preparation, effectiveness, support, and diversity of persons and organizations involved in the administration of student financial aid, and facilitates communication throughout its community. NASFAA encourages and promotes programs that remove financial barriers to ensure student access to postsecondary education.

    One other note: I realize that we now live in the post Cuomo world of innuendo where everyone is guilty until ...proven only slightly less guilty in the press, but Mr. Day has been charged by the San Francisco DA (which is more than Cuomo ever did), but has yet to have his day in court, no pun intended.

  • we need a brand new day
  • Posted by daylighter on July 9, 2009 at 9:30pm EDT
  • Interesting that the San Francisco Chronicle did not emphasize day's current position -- referring at the top of the story as now being in charge of a Washington lobby and only at the bottom identifying that lobby at NASFAA, and thus, rightfully emphasizing the fact that the complaint againstDay refers to his former position in SF. Would that news outlets like this one and the Chronicle of Higher Education had shown such restraint. It is quite unfortunate that this happens on the eve of the conference -- I do wonder about the timing of the indictment -- especially given the tale of woe in student financial aid administration in the past few years.

    On the other hand, NASFAA not naming someone in charge and running the place (to say nothing of handling government relations, sinc Day did both since he axed their longtime congressional relations official) is unconscionable. NASFAA's dues are expensive for schools and they have a right to know how such funds re being expended, which included the running of the organization.

    As to comments made here about Dallas Martin, he simply sought to defend the profession as a whole, although his method for doing so was politically insouciant. Had he initiated a more aggressive, politically-seasoned approach, it may very well be that the profession would have spared the scarlet letter it received from the obvious stupidity of the proverbial few.

    Federal student aid is at a sensitive time right now. The Department has not released NPRM to implement HEOA requirements, which it should have done by the beginning of this month, so btween this and items inserted in the recently enacted Higher Education Technical Amendments bill there is an orchestrated effort from the Department to steer it in a specific direction. This includes the obvious and overt steering towards direct lending, in spite of their clarifictaion in their recent letter to presidents (read: go over the head of the student aid office) that it's only giving schools a contingency. The student aid profession (stdt aid administrators specifically; not lenders, not guaranty agency officials - -maybe including somke state educ officials) need effective representation and advocacy now because it's obvious that Members of Congress do not all see the intricate nuances of the law (look at the year-round Pell fiasco or ACG/SMART/TEACH). It may well be that it's time for student aid adminuistrators to take back this association and start a concerted effort to advocate more forcefully against the heavy-handed water being carried lately in DC.In this sense, maybe removing Day from the picture helps to shed "day-light" for better federal student aid policy that assists those who cannot afford postsecondary education to do so.

  • Think
  • Posted by Thinker , Business Development at Public Good on July 10, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • Has anybody stopped to consider that Dr. Day and others may very well be innocent (in fact, legally, they are, until proven guilty), and that they have political enemies that want blood? THINK, and let the facts come out and shine light on what really happened.

  • Day
  • Posted by JJ on July 12, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • If he knew about the investigation and did not disclose it to NASFAA then he should be fired today. No leave of absence. If the NASFAA Board knew before hiring him, and they hired him anyway, they should all resign today. The NASFAA membership deserves an honest leader.