Record vs. Reality¶

A small set of concrete, document-linked discrepancies the site argues warrant independent review.

Scope & Disclaimers¶

• This page summarizes selected items; it is not exhaustive.
• Each item links to primary documents hosted on this site.
• Items labeled Pending or Referenced indicate records have been requested but not yet produced.
• This is not legal advice.
• Corrections are welcome via the Corrections page.

Methodology¶

This page documents discrepancies between the official record and the available evidence. Each entry follows a consistent structure:

Sources allowed:

• Primary documents hosted on this site (exhibits, correspondence, filings)
• Published institutional communications or public statements
• Official records obtained through TPIA or FERPA requests

Standards applied:

• Direct quotation or clear paraphrase of the official characterization
• Link to specific documents supporting the contrast
• Explicit labeling when documents are pending production
• Neutral framing: "the record shows" rather than "proves" or "exposes"

Status definitions:

Update policy: Changes are logged in the Change Log. Each entry includes a last_updated date.

Quick Scan: Top 5 Discrepancies¶

1. Hearing Discrepancies — The hearing recording has not been produced; characterizations cannot be verified
2. Missing Records — TPIA responses delayed or incomplete; escalated to AG
3. Procedural Gaps — Hearing request filed October 2025; no substantive response
4. Preservation Silence — Preservation notice sent October 6; no acknowledgment until challenged
5. Cost Barriers — Cost estimates contested; complaint filed with AG

Discrepancy Index¶

RR-01: Hearing Discrepancies¶

The characterization of the hearing may not match the documented record.

1. The Claim / Characterization¶

The official record indicates that the dismissal committee relied on specific statements and events during the December 11, 2023 hearing to justify dismissal. The site contends that the characterization of these events in official communications does not match contemporaneous documentation.

The site has not identified a single authoritative public statement from TTUHSC explaining its decision-making; this summarizes the characterization described in the Executive Summary and correspondence.

2. What the Published Record Shows¶

• A preservation notice was served on October 6, 2025 requesting preservation of the hearing recording and related materials (DOC-20251006-001)
• A "right to respond" request was submitted regarding hearing recording integrity on October 7, 2025 (DOC-20251007-004)
• The request for access to the hearing recording under FERPA was filed December 14, 2025 (Thread 37)
• A FERPA complaint was filed with the U.S. Department of Education on December 19, 2025, alleging denial of access to education records (Thread 38)
• Record review sessions occurred on September 13 and September 16, 2024 (referenced in Part I Reader; supporting documentation not yet published)

3. Why This Matters¶

• Record integrity: If the hearing recording does not accurately reflect what occurred, any decisions based on it may be unreliable
• Due process: Access to the complete hearing record is typically required for a meaningful appeal
• Transparency: Resistance to producing the recording raises questions about what it contains
• Institutional accountability: Public institutions are generally expected to maintain accurate records of disciplinary proceedings

4. Open Questions / What's Missing¶

These items are subject to pending FERPA and TPIA requests. See the Process Dashboard for current status.

5. Counterpoints / Alternative Explanations¶

• Possible benign explanation: FERPA regulations may legitimately restrict access to recordings that contain information about other students
• If institutional records are accurate: The discrepancy could be a matter of interpretation rather than factual disagreement
• Processing delays: Some records may simply require additional time to locate and produce
• Privacy considerations: Redaction of third-party information may be required before production

6. How an Independent Reviewer Could Verify¶

• [ ] Request access to the hearing recording under FERPA (as has been done)
• [ ] Compare the recording to any available contemporaneous notes or written summaries
• [ ] Review the FERPA complaint filed with DOE for specific allegations
• [ ] Check whether TTUHSC has responded to the FERPA request (see Process Dashboard)
• [ ] Review the site's Redaction Policy to understand what may be withheld

RR-02: Missing or Withheld Records¶

Key administrative records appear to be missing, incomplete, or withheld despite formal requests.

1. The Claim / Characterization¶

Standard administrative records related to dismissal proceedings should be available upon request under the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The site contends that responses have been delayed, incomplete, or require escalation to obtain.

2. What the Published Record Shows¶

• A comprehensive preservation notice was served on October 6, 2025 to preserve all relevant data (DOC-20251006-001)
• Multiple TPIA requests were filed beginning October 2, 2025 (DOC-20251002-001, DOC-20251002-007, DOC-20251003-001)
• A deficiency notice was sent on October 7, 2025 regarding non-acknowledgment of preservation request (DOC-20251007-002)
• The matter was referred to the Texas Attorney General on October 9, 2025 after responses were delayed or incomplete (DOC-20251009-003)
• Cost estimates for records production were contested (Thread 33)
• A supplemental cost complaint was filed with the AG on November 26, 2025 (Thread 35)
• FERPA complaint was filed with DOE on December 19, 2025 (Thread 38)

3. Why This Matters¶

• Legal compliance: Texas public institutions are required to respond to TPIA requests within specific timeframes
• Evidence preservation: If records are not preserved, they cannot be produced later
• Cost barriers: Excessive cost estimates can effectively deny access to public records
• Federal oversight: FERPA complaints trigger federal review of institutional compliance

4. Open Questions / What's Missing¶

See the Process Dashboard for current status of all requests.

5. Counterpoints / Alternative Explanations¶

• Volume considerations: Large records requests may legitimately take time to process
• Legal review: Some records may require attorney review before release
• Third-party information: Records containing information about other individuals may require redaction
• Clarification requests: Institutions may need to clarify scope before responding
• Resource constraints: Public records offices may face staffing limitations

6. How an Independent Reviewer Could Verify¶

• [ ] Review the Correspondence Archive for the full exchange between the parties
• [ ] Check the Process Dashboard for current status of each request
• [ ] Review Texas TPIA timelines (Government Code Chapter 552) for compliance standards
• [ ] Compare the cost estimates in Thread 33 to standard public records fees
• [ ] Monitor the Texas AG Open Records Division for any rulings

RR-03: Procedural Irregularities¶

The timeline suggests deviations from standard procedures regarding student rights and due process.

1. The Claim / Characterization¶

Standard operating procedures regarding student rights and disciplinary processes include notice, opportunity to respond, and access to the record for appeal purposes. The site contends that the documented timeline reveals procedural gaps.

2. What the Published Record Shows¶

• A request for a name-clearing hearing was submitted on October 19, 2025 (Thread 21)
• The stated deadline for response (October 21, 2025) lapsed without a response (Thread 32)
• Routing confirmation was received October 22, 2025 but no substantive response to the hearing request (Thread 31)
• The student was denied access to the full hearing record required for a meaningful appeal (see Executive Summary)
• Debt collection referral was made in December 2025 during pending records disputes (Debt Collection)

3. Why This Matters¶

• Due process: The right to respond before an impartial decision-maker is a fundamental procedural protection
• Stigma-plus doctrine: Dismissal from a professional program can carry reputational harm that triggers additional procedural rights
• Appeal rights: Without access to the hearing record, meaningful appellate review is difficult
• Timing concerns: Collection activity during pending disputes may create pressure to abandon claims

4. Open Questions / What's Missing¶

5. Counterpoints / Alternative Explanations¶

• Routing delays: Internal routing may explain timing gaps, not intentional non-response
• Policy interpretation: The institution may interpret its procedural obligations differently
• Standard practice: The procedures followed may be consistent with institutional norms, even if the student disputes them
• Debt collection timing: Collection referral may follow standard institutional calendars regardless of other matters

6. How an Independent Reviewer Could Verify¶

• [ ] Review Thread 21 for the hearing request and any response
• [ ] Check Thread 32 for deadline lapse documentation
• [ ] Review TTUHSC student handbook for stated disciplinary procedures
• [ ] Compare the timeline in Case Arc Timeline to stated institutional timelines
• [ ] Review the Debt Collection documentation for timing of collection referral

RR-04: Preservation Notice Non-Acknowledgment¶

Despite timely service of a comprehensive preservation notice, no formal acknowledgment was received until challenged.

1. The Claim / Characterization¶

Standard institutional practice would be to acknowledge receipt of a preservation notice and confirm that responsive records are being preserved. The site contends that no such acknowledgment was initially provided.

2. What the Published Record Shows¶

• A comprehensive preservation notice was served on October 6, 2025 via certified mail and email to multiple institutional recipients (DOC-20251006-001)
• No acknowledgment was received by the stated deadline
• A deficiency notice was sent on October 7, 2025 regarding the non-acknowledgment (DOC-20251007-002)
• Subsequent correspondence eventually addressed the preservation request (Thread 24)
• The litigation hold thread documents the full exchange (Thread 24)

3. Why This Matters¶

• Evidence preservation: Timely acknowledgment confirms that records are being preserved
• Chain of custody: Silence on preservation may create uncertainty about record integrity
• Professional standards: Preservation notices are routine in legal and administrative contexts
• Documentation: The exchange is now documented, establishing a record of the process

4. Open Questions / What's Missing¶

5. Counterpoints / Alternative Explanations¶

• Processing time: Initial silence may reflect internal routing rather than non-receipt
• Policy review: Legal counsel may have needed time to review the notice before responding
• Standard practice: The institution may not have a policy requiring immediate acknowledgment
• Eventually addressed: The record shows the matter was ultimately addressed in correspondence

6. How an Independent Reviewer Could Verify¶

• [ ] Review DOC-20251006-001 for the preservation notice content
• [ ] Review DOC-20251007-002 for the deficiency notice
• [ ] Review Thread 24 for the full exchange
• [ ] Check institutional policies on preservation notice response timelines
• [ ] Compare the timeline to standard legal practice

RR-05: Record Access Cost Barriers¶

Cost estimates for records production have been contested as potentially creating barriers to public records access.

1. The Claim / Characterization¶

Records should be available at reasonable cost consistent with Texas Public Information Act requirements. The site contends that cost estimates may exceed reasonable limits and effectively deny access.

2. What the Published Record Shows¶

• TPIA requests were filed beginning October 2, 2025 (DOC-20251002-001)
• Cost estimates were received and contested in correspondence (Thread 33)
• A supplemental cost complaint was filed with the Texas Attorney General on November 26, 2025 (Thread 35)
• The matter was referred to the AG for review of both TPIA compliance and cost reasonableness (DOC-20251009-003)

3. Why This Matters¶

• Access to public records: Texas law provides for access to public information at reasonable cost
• Statutory limits: TPIA includes provisions on allowable charges for copies and staff time
• Effective denial: Excessive cost estimates can effectively deny access to records
• AG oversight: The Open Records Division can review cost disputes

4. Open Questions / What's Missing¶

5. Counterpoints / Alternative Explanations¶

• Legitimate costs: Processing large records requests involves real staff time and resources
• Statutory compliance: The estimates may be consistent with TPIA allowances
• Scope reduction: The requester may be able to narrow the request to reduce costs
• Incremental production: Records may be produced in phases as costs are paid
• Third-party review: The AG will provide an independent assessment

6. How an Independent Reviewer Could Verify¶

• [ ] Review Thread 33 for the cost dispute exchange
• [ ] Review Thread 35 for the supplemental complaint
• [ ] Compare the estimates to TPIA statutory limits (Government Code Chapter 552)
• [ ] Monitor the Texas AG Open Records Division for rulings
• [ ] Review the Process Dashboard for current status

If You Only Read 5 Items¶

Status Legend¶

Contact & Corrections¶

If you believe any item on this page is inaccurate, please submit a correction via the Corrections page with:

• The specific text to correct
• Supporting documentation
• Your contact information (optional)

Substantiated errors will be corrected and annotated. TTUHSC or any other party is welcome to provide documented statements for inclusion.

Email: kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com

See also: Executive Summary · Process Dashboard · Case Arc Timeline · Guided Reading