IN THE MATTER OF PBI CAREER CENTER, INC.
Docket No. 92-136-SP
Student Financial Assistance Proceeding
On January 28, 1993, I issued an Order Governing Proceedings and established a briefing
schedule for the parties to follow. On March 11, 1993, counsel for OSFA filed a Motion for
Dismissal of Proceeding and for Entry of Judgment against Respondent for its failure to meet
established time limits for filings. Based upon OSFA's Motion and the nonreceipt of
Respondent's brief, I issued a Show Cause Order on March 11, 1993, and advised Respondent if
it filed no response by March 26th, the appeal would be dismissed and judgment entered against
it. Victor Cianca, Respondent's President, filed a handwritten letter response basically requesting
that the instant proceeding be delayed pending the final disposition of the criminal case against
the Respondent and himself personally. The response, like its November 16, 1992 request for
review, were both prepared by Victor Cianca who throughout this proceeding has been the sole
representative of PBI.
On April 27, 1993, I issued an Order which denied OSFA's Motion for Dismissal of Proceeding
and granted Respondent a limited extension, until May 21, 1993, in which to file its brief and
supporting documents. I further stated that if no brief was filed by that time, I would reconsider
the Motion to Dismiss and act on the same immediately. Respondent was advised that no
extensions of the deadline would be granted unless extraordinary circumstances were presented
and sufficiently stated to my satisfaction.
On May 21, 1993, Mr. Cianca filed a letter in lieu of a brief stating that he has no financial
resources with which to secure proper counsel for presenting his defense. OSFA counsel, in turn,
has filed a further Motion to Dismiss the proceeding based on Respondent's failure to comply
with the outstanding Order.
Under the appeal procedures for audit and program review determinations, it is clear that
Respondent has the burden of proving its case. 34 C.F.R. 668.116(d). Yet, Respondent has failed
to offer any substantive argument or basis in response to the alleged violations discussed in the
final program review determination letter of September 28, 1992. Instead, it has only offered
excuses and proposed reasons why there should be a delay of the proceeding. Respondent's latest
letter raises for the first time its dilemma about securing legal counsel. There is no evidence of an
earlier effort to obtain counsel despite the fact that Respondent has been fully notified of the
pending violations since its receipt of the final program review letter. Moreover, Respondent has
already submitted three filings without benefit of counsel and never once indicated it could not
proceed without presence of counsel.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent's May 21st letter is unresponsive to the clear instructions of
my Order of April 27, 1993. It does nothing to dissuade me from ruling on the Motion to Dismiss
and entering a Decision against Respondent for failure to meet filing time limits. 34 C.F.R.
668.117(c)(3). Now therefore, is hereby ORDERED:
That this appeal of final program determination be, and is hereby DISMISSED. DECISION is
issued against Respondent holding it liable for the repayment amounts specified in the final
program review letter.
Judge Ernest C. Canellos
Issued: May 25. 1993