Was the Wait for Satisfaction Worth It?

One of the most exasperating things about making a complaint to state agencies is that in many cases the officials involved have no policy of informing you what happened as a result of your intervention.

Maybe this reflects, in part, the embarrassment these bureaucracies feel over how long it can take them to resolve a valid complaint. Often, the agencies are terribly understaffed. Sometimes, legitimate due process considerations can hold things up a long while.

But, still, it is disappointing how even a small case can drag on for months and, then, when finally handled, the person who initiated the proceedings with what proved to be an accurate complaint is left there hanging, uninformed by state authorities of the outcome unless they question the agency anew.

The story here concerns Joei Aragon, operator of a National Bartenders School branch in Sherman Oaks, and the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education in Sacramento.

At the end of last year, Aragon began inquiring about the alleged failure, over a three-year period, of a competing school, the Professional Bartenders School branch in North Hollywood, to obtain registration, as required by state law. Aragon’s school was registered.

Registering costs $1,000 and certification lasts for three years. It is a necessary permit to allow each local branch of such a school to operate.

It took Aragon a while to find the right people, but, on May 14, a spokeswoman for the bureau confirms, it sent to Robert Barron of Colton what is known as a “violator letter” saying he could be failing to comply with the law as operator of the branch, and needed to set things right promptly.

The spokeswoman, Nancy Hardaker, says Barron did not respond to the first letter, so a second was sent June 8. On June 28, Barron called back and said he was under the impression since he had an “approval” to operate in Colton, he did not need another form, the registration, for North Hollywood.

Hardaker said Barron was told he did need a registration in North Hollywood. On July 20, Barron submitted an application for that branch and enclosed a check for the $1,000 fee.

But, Hardaker said, the application was incomplete, and “we were not [immediately] able to get back to him on what was still lacking, due to a staffing problem here. . . .

“On Oct. 13, we sent a deficiency notice to him that we needed additional information. He supplied that on Nov. 12.

“So, now his registration can proceed,” she said. But, as of this week, the registration had not been sent out, and Hardaker said she could not say when it would be. She cited another “staffing problem.”

It seems to me, now that Barron has paid and satisfied all requirements, he deserves to have the bureau send him the registration immediately.

In the meantime, his school in North Hollywood has continued to operate.

My attempts to reach Barron to discuss what happened were unavailing. He did not return several phone calls, and when I went to the school, I was ordered by a man who identified himself as Gino Leon to “leave the premises.” He said he had received orders from Barron’s wife to send me away.

Leon said that in an inner office, and out of sight, he had a valid registration. But he would not show it to me, and Hardaker reiterated no registration has yet been issued.

In the meantime, as the months went by, the state bureau kept Aragon mostly in the dark.

Nancy Stockman, who signed herself as “Education Administrator Enforcement and Policy” for the bureau, did write Aragon on June 16 that a review of the bureau’s records indicated the Professional Bartenders School had no “approval to operate” in North Hollywood.

Stockman added, “As a result, the bureau is handling this situation in the same manner [that] similar cases of noncompliance with the New Private Postsecondary and Vocational Reform Act are handled.”

Notice she is not explicit on what the bureau is doing. But she implies it will act to enforce state law.

On July 13, Stockman wrote Aragon again, advising her, “Depending upon each individual situation, the bureau’s investigation process can be escalated as follows: an informal investigation, a formal investigation, and pursue civil and/or criminal action. The degree to which each individual situation is escalated depends upon the relevant circumstances. . . .

“The bureau does not release specific details related to any particular situation to ensure information pertinent to the investigation is not jeopardized.”

This is highfalutin. The fact is, the bureau has records. It should know with very little inquiry whether a bartenders school has registered and then it should be able to act with little ado.

Aragon reports that when she called Bill Baca, an aide to Assemblyman Bob Hertzberg (D-Sherman Oaks), for assistance his advice was not to bother the bureau so much, and not to call a specific lady there for three months.

Hertzberg spokesman Paul Hefner said Baca felt the bureau was getting its back up and might expedite matters better if left alone. Still, he acknowledged, “This does seem to have taken a long time.”

I called Aragon to give her the news that Barron has at last qualified for a registration.

She wasn’t satisfied. “What disciplinary action will the bureau take?” she asked.

According to Hardaker, probably none. “We work with those who cooperate with us,” she said.

“We can take punitive action,” she observed, but she couldn’t cite a specific case of this kind in which any had been taken.

*

Ken Reich can be contacted with your accounts of true consumer adventures at (213) 237-7060 or by e-mail at ken.reich@latimes.com.