operate a program here in the state of illinois now much of the repayment of arguments the court will hear today or have read in the briefs deals with arguments  looking again at the first page of the analysis that the staff prepare and which soon became the decision of the board the first three paragraphs identified the proposed podium titles and identified the right page would institute made an application to operate in the state of illinois for programs of instruction already in the field of human development now elsewhere in the record it's clear that these programs are being offered under the authority of the state of wisconsin that had approved by its institution in wisconsin to confer these degrees they are so the question before the court was simply permission to operate in illinois there at the beginning the other thing that the board recognized at the beginning in its background in history was if the institution had originally submitted an application to both operate and to  degrees but later decided to withdraw the request to confer degrees and work on that more and instead to simply have the operational of curdie the order on page one indicates that its review is under the private the administrative rules that apply in all of the administrative rules that were promulgated and govern the requirements for this are set forth in the all oil ministry of code at the citation given will be referring to section ten thirty point three zero repeatedly throughout the briefs or argument against the staff recommendation and rationale identified three different programs that were being operated in wisconsin for which instruction could be the first deficiency the staff writer used to recommend to the board to deny yep a patient in the first one in ten thirty eight point three zero eight one requires that the objectives for the institution and the degree program be consistent with what the institutional name and degree programs imply so there has to be some connection between the institutional name and the name of the degree program for the degree programs here are vance degrees in human development and the name of the institution right redwood institute for human performance certainly is consistent with that and will address and that is found in that same general section r s ten thirty point three zero eight four and that criterion requires that the education experience and other qualifications of faculty staff and instructors challenge sure that students will receive education consistent with the objectives of the course of the program for study notably this criterion does not say that those have to be objective the degree that might be inferred and that's important because in this case the degree that might be conferred is not an illinois issue was not before this for if they also did this section goes on in its first paragraph to identified that the basis for this decision is based upon an under promulgated policy and procedures mean more for operating and degree granting referred to as the c i pico that c i p code comes from a federal classification system for statistical analysis of education problems we believe it has no bearing on this and it's an arbitrary classification to use but that's not the thrust of our argument here argument here is that that pico is something that is requested on the cover of the application for degree granting programs for degree as the breach of the or recognizes that application was amended and all of the requirements for degree granting that were before withdrawn that c r p code classification is not an element requested in the application for operational authority it simply is that it was on the cover sheet of the application and staff incorrectly continued to look at ect classification code because of that staff continued to ignore that the programs of study would be in the field of human development which was going to be a multi disciplinary program that covered various aspects of human development something yun just instructional program list the category of education that is of the program that's being focused on and conclude yes the programs in human development are not programs in education according to instructional not quite frankly there's bureaucratese for we want to have a decision that is focused on some arbitrary numerical system used for statistical analysis and make some substantive decisions about equality and content of a program of education that's being offered by an institution of higher education in the final paragraph under this particular section all and end all of the staff analysis leading the board to an erroneous decision that because education was listed in the original application this application for operation simply to offer some administration and coursework in illinois should be did not in the words brief there are at least eleven pages devoted to arguments about the disconnect between c i pekoe digitization on the one hand and coursework in human development and all that has absolutely no bearing because nowhere in the  requested for this particular kind of decision page eight of the court's brief argues that this application is more closely aligned with psychology or counseling and i agree the proposal  for education in the field of human development and the staff continued to every site to see ip code instead of looking at the substance of the application again leading the board t erroneous decision on page nine of the board's own brief recognition is given to the fact that during the application process and at the board hearing the right bridge would institute offer to the entire process was whether or not c i peacoat was correct now in looking at the second standard more analysis was given under any different statute in this case the academic degree again is to this the order of votes at least three pages of analysis to which are almost completely quoting and enlightening requirements of the academic degree and this is the act that empowers the board to give permission to confer degrees in the state of illinois in the original application of course it applied as we've reviewed however the decision issued by the board does not place any reliance on the academic react and quite rightly so epidemic degree act has absolutely no application until such time is right may choose to apply for degree and for an authority in the state of illinois again something under these rules are expected to do within three years after they began operations acted talk about degreed programs to be offered and faculty requirements for those degree programs a degree program is not your before the board of heritage occasion and certainly  not in this record the board went on to it in lies the c i p code of education and criticize the faculty for not having enough of a cluster of faculty with degrees in education and actually even the board's own brief then extracts and says during the pendency of the application process a number of fact the of tain higher degrees because time was passing and those degrees were in fact in education but they ignore that this focusing of course again back on the initial error of the staff analysis  reveals is that the true reason for finding a standard a four is deficient was a criticism that the faculty did not have in the staff analysis the appropriate degrees at least one level higher than the degree that was going to be conferred in other words wanting someone with a doctorate level degree teaching master's level courses some inconsistency of course because of the doctorate level there is nobody higher as was pointed out in the arguments before the or the representative of right identified that this is not part of the rules and faculty should have a completed degree in the discipline they will teach or for which they will develop grade curricula at least one level above the courses being taught or developed that language appears nowhere in the statu before voting on whether or not this criterion was met in the decision the port identifies from the staff analysis that the edge of faculty have various degrees in anthropology economics education philosophy psychology law all of this is consistent with the fields of human development in especially for the multi disciplinary approach this program suggested but the analysis concluded on the last page with the last sentence of the decision on the top of page eight and the the decision their state based on the faculty identified in the application application and misapplied a warlock he also says when on to not only do they ask but to invite the order to make a decision based upon an un promulgated policy guide instead of doing what it should with the institutional objectives that were conveyed to the board after reviewing rights application its proposed course descriptions and the correspondence between the staff right as well as looking at the  works with these fledgling institutions and this is a code that is used throughout higher education so it makes sense to figure out what your course areas going to be and what your programs going to be in because although he says  it is only used for statistical purposes and some arcane studies in washington d c in fact suppose or use for accreditation which is something that they claim they're going to be seeking in the future they're used for financial aid purposes so there are more purposes education and only when we pointed out the disconnect they dug their heels in and said well you know what we understand your position but we're sticking with education two of our faculty members recently got he agrees and we think education more you actually know your honor like i said this is a collaborative process and as a as the step noted they have not recommended denial of patients since nine hundred ninety seven so it's a very rare thing but they've had extreme frustration with working descriptions all fell within the area of psychology and they were claiming that this was an education program which is something that is normally used to train educators things like classroom technique out of their lesson plans things like that where where wright admitted that it's critical focuses on just three schools of psychology area next essential and developmental so there was this huge disconnect between what they were insisting that the program was about and what in fact it really was if i could look at the core script ins there all the things life nurturing him herself and personal power things that have much more to do with psychology and counseling than with education in the traditional sense and i should point out that the tone of the recommendation in addition to the the post horse head love with the descriptions of the courses and i quoted some of this in my brief but they said things like you know we're going to help you learn how to harness your personal power to improve every area of your life improve your dating life outward where most of these courses had to do with proving yourself as a person so it's more of a self improvement kind of agenda than a traditional psychology program so that's what the board was talking about when i talked about how you  it really just doesn't make sense educational program which is what they self identified as what they were going to be presenting out of their nine hard time faculty only three had educational degrees two of those having just received them within a few months of the of the board's decision to nine  application and even if they had been willing to switch their support to psychology and even as these courses were traditional psychology courses as recognized in the field there were only two other faculty that actually ha so the other four were trained in either anthropology economics law or philosophy which to stack qualified them to teach either education or a psychology course the other problem is as the court noted there is a common standard in higher education in fact he should have a degree in the subject that they're teaching and that the degree should one level above the course that they're teaching and this makes perfect sense you would not want someone with a history degree teaching a biology course and also you don't want someone with less knowledge or the same knowledge as the students teaching a course lot so you would let someone with a master's order bachelor's teaching doctoral student and that was an initial problem that the court had and that five of their faculty i mean masters but they were going to be teaching a doctoral program now between the time that the  teach graduate level courses and psychology deciding at the criteria were met and as to criterion a point in each of the three paragraphs devoted to they out the answer was your c i v code in education doesn't match of course this is a numerical number that we're talking about not the subject matter of the courses not the qualifications of faculty the pork's said decision on criterion a one was over the c i pekoe and then it was carried forward under criteria a four say your faculty don't have a high enough number who have a terminal degree it occasion down in the presentation before the board comparisons were made to similar programs also approved i think northwestern university was an example with the degree in human development were affected they had substantially the same kind of qualifications and that program wasn't approved in this case however the decision tells us what the board's brazening was and it was all focused on this c i piqua at the beginning of argument counsel suggested that there were numerous reasons why this happened cation simply can't be done the decisions in writing the staff analysis and it was adopted the motion was to a fruit that particular report the board didn't say there are many deficiencies the board said there are too and gave us the reasons why and case then why is it that when white said well change it if you'll tell us what classification number you want to use will accept anyone you want but that wasn't good counsel suggested that there's a lot of positive  giving taken this and it improves the application process as justice meyer stuff you know just the tone of this is harsh and the board's own brief tells us why in the past i think he said since nine hundred ninety seven whenever there was a negative evalu i don't know why motive should come into play but there's a strong suggestion here that the motive for this decision is that the staff got their noses out of joint because somebody disagreed with the staff analysis and had the temerity to actually ask the board make the final decision and the staff disagreed and that's why that argument is presented to you that batch what should have happened and that's reflected in the tone of the decision it's reflected in the tone of the chairwoman same isn't that the policy we have always followed now those are words that make it clear that there's a policy that's being applied that has never been promulgated it's not in any of these criteria it is one that simply the application guy for these reasons we have argued the administrative procedure it has been violated by enforcing a policy and using it as the very basis of the decision to deny any application when they head adopted that policy required by law and so when you review all this it keeps coming back to the board misapplying the law in failing to recognize that this is an suggested something that is not the written opinion or decision of the staff or the board if that's the case the board will have the authority to say we will not approve you to confer those degrees in illinois