Comment on FR Doc # E8-26550

Association of Independent Consumer Credit Counseling Agencies PMB 626 11350 Random Hills Road Suite 800 Fairfax, Virginia 22030-6044 By E-Mail January 13, 2009 Clifford J. White III Director, Executive Office for United States Trustees 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 8th Floor Washington, DC 20530 Re: EOUST Docket No. 104– Notice of Proposed Rulemaking -- Application Procedures and Criteria for Approval of Providers of a Personal Financial Management Course by United States Trustees Dear Director White: I am writing on behalf of the Association of Independent Consumer Credit Counseling Agencies (AICCCA). AICCCA members currently provide counseling and education to millions of U.S. consumers and presently serve about 500,000 clients repaying their unsecured debts through legitimate Debt Management Plans (DMPs). Together, these agencies are currently returning approximately $2.4 billion annually in consumer payments to the nation’s creditors while providing consumers with a financial restructuring option outside of the bankruptcy system. Many of AICCCA’s members have been certified by the EOUST to provide both pre-filing counseling and pre-discharge education services. AICCCA has championed fair pricing, stringent ethical guidelines, and consumer protection standards governing the activities of its members. Seven years ago, AICCCA’s self-regulatory approach was strengthened when it instituted independent agency accreditation requirements through the International Standards Organization. That accreditation to ISO-9001 includes thorough annual Code of Practice audits and represents the most rigorous, independent, audit- based accreditation and oversight in our industry today. This independent third- party accreditation is combined with an equally independent certification of all agency counselors by the Institute for Personal Finance-AFCPE as well as the Center for Financial Certifications. Together, AICCCA member accreditation plus counselor certification provide significant assurances for consumers needing credit counseling services that they will be treated fairly and competently. Overview and Executive Summary AICCCA has filed comments on the interim and proposed final Rule for Nonprofit Budget and Credit Counseling Agencies in September 2006 and April 2008 and is now pleased to provide input to the EOUST as it now considers the adoption of this proposed Final Rule regarding financial management education. AICCCA appreciates the open line of communication that the EOUST has maintained with us and we commend the EOUST for its diligent attention to the implementation of the credit counseling provisions of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA). The publication of this proposed Final Rule is further evidence of the EOUST’s dedication to the goal of making these requirements work in a manner that assures sufficient counseling and education resources. The comments below focus on those areas of the proposed Rule that raise concerns. Therefore, the remaining provisions of the proposed Rule can be deemed acceptable to AICCCA, with this important proviso – that the Rule in general is overbroad and exceeds the EOUST’s statutory authority. Section 111 of the Code sets forth standards and requirements for EOUST approval of non-profit agencies to provide pre-bankruptcy counseling and of financial management instructional courses for pre-discharge educational instruction. The EOUST has vastly expanded its statutory authority to approve courses into a broad Rule governing the conduct of providers of such courses, resulting in a Rule that, as noted in its own Discussion, “parallels the credit counseling rule in many aspects”. We believe that the proposed Rule is overbroad and exceeds the statutory authority conferred upon the EOUST. AICCCA has substantial concerns regarding certain aspects of the proposed Rule and therefore urge the EOUST to take the following observations into account prior to publication of a binding Final Rule: • There are to date no reports of insufficient approved credit counseling or financial education resources to carry out BAPCPA’s requirements. This is in major part attributable to the extraordinary and unanticipated reduction in consumer bankruptcy filings, until the commencement of the recent economic downturn, since BAPCPA took effect. However, current adverse economic conditions do appear to be resulting in a significant upswing in bankruptcy filings, and there is reason to be concerned that financial management education resource shortages could occur in select judicial districts should filing levels continue to increase substantially in response to the subprime mortgage situation and other major overhangs of consumer debt during the ongoing recession. • The best means of assuring continued growth in the ranks of approved financial education providers, and to prevent attrition among already approved providers, is for EOUST to clarify under what circumstances an approved provider may decline to provide free services to an applicant who appears to have ability to pay. Providers of such educational services generally operate within tight fiscal restraints and cannot be expected to provide pre-discharge educational instruction at a net financial loss over an extended time span. Yet the EOUST’s proposed guidance on the matter of a client’s “ability to pay” offers little prospect of relief and may indeed add to uncertainty. • The CCA sector continues to request clear guidance from EOUST as to what information regarding may be communicated in an approved instructional course to a debtor receiving pre-discharge education without crossing the line of impermissibly providing “legal advice”. The proposed Rule’s guidance on this matter is insufficient • The requirements relating to non-English proficient debtors as well as those with special needs may dissuade providers from participating in the program, and should be replaced by a notice requirement of availability of services to these population groups. • The proposed mandatory pre-approval requirement for a broad range of agency actions and decisions would convert regulatory oversight into micromanagement and could dissuade many providers from continuing or initiating their voluntary participation in the pre-bankruptcy counseling program. It should be replaced by a requirement that an agency provide notice to the EOUST of a material change in circumstances. • We appreciate the Rule’s clarification that prohibited referral fee arrangements do not include payments to locator services. • We question whether extensive client verification procedures are required for telephone and Internet counseling and seek guidance as to the permissible methods for their implementation. • The mandatory client disclosure requirements are overbroad and will impose a significant burden on participating agencies without making a meaningful contribution to the client’s understanding of key aspects of the financial education process. They should be pared back to only items of critical personal import to the client while excluding matters that go to the details of the criteria for course and provider approval by the EOUST. • The EOUST’s directions on approved advertising should be modified so as to eliminate doubts it may presently raise among debtors regarding the quality of an approved provider’s services. • The litigation potential under the proposed Rule may dissuade providers from participating; at a minimum, EOUST approval should confer a beneficial presumption in any such litigation. • The mandatory recordkeeping requirements should be limited to those that arise naturally within the context of providing education services and that do not place new observational or analytic requirements upon participating agencies. Discussion Bankruptcy Filing Levels and Growing Concerns About the Adequacy of Financial Education Resources Bankruptcy filings, which exhibited an extraordinary decline since BAPCPA took effect in October 2005, have begun to rise as the recession continues and deepens. Consumer bankruptcy filings in 2006 totaled 573,203 and in 2007 totaled 801,840, with that latter number only about forty percent of the record number of filings in 2005 and only about half the levels experienced in the years immediately preceding BAPCPA’s enactment. But new information indicates that 1,064,927 consumer cases were filed in 2008. It is too soon to say whether or for how long this trend of higher filings will continue. Further, Congress is currently considering changes in the treatment of loans secured solely by primary residences that, if enacted, could well result in the filing of a minimum of several hundred thousand additional Chapter 13 cases annually over the next two or more years, further clogging the courts and increasing the demand for instructional course resources. Thus, while the present number of approved financial management education providers appears adequate to satisfy the need for pre-discharge education at current filing levels, we have serious concerns about the adequacy of counseling capacity should there be a continued upward trend in filings during 2009 and into the future. While the Code permits the waiver of this requirement in districts with inadequate capacity, strong efforts should be made to avoid such an unfortunate outcome. Congress clearly intended that debtors should receive adequate financial education to assist them in avoiding the need to file for bankruptcy again. Therefore, this rule should maximize continued and expanded participation by providers of approved financial education instruction. The Proposed Clarification of “Ability to Pay” Every entity approved to provide BAPCPA pre-discharge education must charge a “reasonable fee” for counseling services, must provide services “without regard to ability to pay that fee,” and must provide to EOUST its “criteria for providing services without a fee or at a reduced rate.” AICCCA applauds these criteria, which are consistent with our own member accreditation standards. Unfortunately, the proposed Rule takes too rigid an approach in implementing these requirements. As we have noted in previous comment letters, approved CCAs have consistently been offering pre-bankruptcy counseling at a significant financial loss. All the information we have seen indicates that, for both AICCCA members and other approved agencies, the cost of providing a pre-bankruptcy counseling in accord with EOUST criteria is about $50, while the average payment from each debtor is about $32. Less than two percent of the post-BAPCPA effective date debtor population has even been eligible to enter a debt management program (DMP), and many of those nonetheless choose to file bankruptcy, so the opportunity for CCAs to offset the counseling loss with DMP income is negligible. This situation is simply not sustainable for non-profit entities that are already straining to provide services despite severe fiscal constraints. As we pointed out in September 2006, there are only two available remedies for this situation, short of a public or private sector subsidy. The first was for the EOUST to clarify under what circumstances an approved CCA may refuse to provide counseling to an individual debtor, or refuse to provide a certificate of completion to a debtor who has received counseling, where the debtor’s own financial information indicates that they indeed have an ability to pay a full or reduced fee. The second was to raise the average charge for a BAPCPA counseling session, which could well have the unfortunate result that some honest debtors would incur a higher fee to offset the refusal of another, perhaps better situated debtor, to pay the same fee. While an approved financial education course can be provided by a much broader range of entities, both for- and non-profit, that credit counseling, we believe that the costs of providing such education are similar given that both take about the same amount of time spent in instructing debtors. But the proposed Final Rule fails to identify those circumstances in which an approved provider may refuse to provide services to a debtor with apparent ability to pay based upon his own confirmed Chapter 13 plan, and also proposes that a client’s lack of ability to pay shall be presumed if his current household income is less than 150 percent of the official OMB poverty line. According to the Federal Register of January 23, 2008 the official poverty line for a family of two is $14,000 and for three us $17,600, so that 150 percent of those dividing lines would be a range of $21,000 - $26,400. Meanwhile, according to the most recent available Census Bureau data the median income for all U.S. households (average household size of 2.56 individuals) in 2006 was $48,201. Remembering that more than ninety percent of all post-BAPCPA enactment filers have earned less than the median family income for their states, we are concerned that the presumption proposed to be established by this Rule will sanction a larger percentage of consumer debtors as eligible to receive pre-discharge counseling at no cost, and that this will in turn result in a lack of adequate instructional capacity.. As we know of no credible evidence of any pattern of clients being unreasonably denied access to pre-discharge education due to inability to pay, we do not believe that this portion of the Final Rule should be given effect until the EOUST has performed much greater statistical analysis of the average cost of providing such instruction and the presumption’s potential impact on the availability of approved education providers.. The need for such analysis is exacerbated by the Final Rule’s proposed presumption that any fee exceeding $50 is not reasonable, and its requirement that a provider must obtain prior approval from the EOUST to charge a fee higher than $50; while this upper threshold will be revised periodically, that may be as seldom as every four years. In the interim we therefore request that the EOUST revise the upper threshold for presumed reasonableness to $60 so as to relieve those providers who believe that they must charge such a fee to remain active participants in the pre-discharge education program from the necessity of obtaining prior approval – a requirement that in itself will result in significant additional expense to any provider that elects to exercise it. We further believe that the actual cost of completing an application to participate as a provider is substantially more than the $500 estimate provide by the EOUST in response to Executive Order 12866, and that the client disclosure and statistical record keeping requirements that would be placed upon approved providers by this Final Rule will further add to the substantial cost of participation. All these factors argue for an upward adjustment of the fee amount presumed to be reasonable. In addition, we have significant concerns about that part of the proposed Rule that would allow a provider to waive fees in additional circumstances. We see no reason why this provision of the Rule is necessary and fear that these additional non-exclusive criteria may result in pressure being brought upon providers to waive fees in a non-discretionary manner. A debtor’s net worth, their receipt of government assistance, and the fact that they are receiving pro bono legal services have no direct bearing on their ability to pay a course fee of $50 or less. In addition, this provision’s reference to the debtor’s monthly income being equal or less than the amount specified in 11 U.S.C. 707(b) (7) – that is, state median income – suggests that the 150% of poverty level referred to above is not the upper limit for incomes that trigger fee waiver; the provision of free educational services for all debtors at or below median income would result in their being provided at no charge to the vast majority of debtors in bankruptcy. Therefore, we believe that all this specific criteria should be stricken from the Rule and that it should merely state that an approved provider may waive fees for other circumstances beyond those that require waiver under the Rule. What Constitutes “Legal Advice”? The proposed Rule prohibits a provider from providing “legal advice.” In September 2006 we stated, in the context of the rulemaking for pre-filing counseling services, that it would be extremely helpful to the credit counseling industry if the EOUST would, by regulation, provide a “safe harbor” delineated by the boundaries of what advice can be provided by an approved CCA to a counseling client regarding the availability and consequences of bankruptcy without crossing the line to providing forbidden “legal advice.” It would seem axiomatic that a counselor assisting a financially troubled debtor needs to be able to advise that individual that bankruptcy is one available option, that bankruptcy may offer either liquidation or partial repayment of his debts depending on his circumstances, and that a bankruptcy will remain on his credit report for a decade. These factual matters can be readily distinguished from the giving of advice regarding whether the debtor should file for bankruptcy, what Chapter would be most advantageous, and how the court would likely treat the petition. Similar considerations arise in the provision of financial education as it must provide some guidance regarding applicable consumer protection laws and remedies as well as of bankruptcy availability and consequences. Unfortunately, that suggestion was not acted upon and this proposed Final Rule also fails to provide such a “safe harbor”. It simply states that an approved provider may not provide “legal advice” as defined in Section 110(e) (2) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides: …legal advice…includes advising the debtor – (i) whether - (I) to file a petition under this title; or (II) commencing a case under chapter 7, 11, 12, or 13 is appropriate; (ii) whether the debtor's debts will be discharged in a case under this title; (iii) whether the debtor will be able to retain the debtor's home, car, or other property after commencing a case under this title; (iv) concerning - (I) the tax consequences of a case brought under this title; or (II) the dischargeability of tax claims; (v) whether the debtor may or should promise to repay debts to a creditor or enter into a reaffirmation agreement with a creditor to reaffirm a debt; (vi) concerning how to characterize the nature of the debtor's interests in property or the debtor's debts; or (vii) concerning bankruptcy procedures and rights. This definition, drawn from the Code’s provisions regarding acceptable conduct by non-attorney bankruptcy petition preparers, comports with our view that an approved provider’s instructors should refrain from offering the debtor any advice regarding the application of bankruptcy law to their specific and soon-to-be- concluded case. However, the proposed Rule still fails to offer any guidance as to what an instructor may say about bankruptcy law and other consumer protection statutes generally, especially in reply to the inevitable questions that some debtors may pose. The Rule’s failure to provide any “safe harbor” guidance may well result in instructors not fully responding to even elementary questions regarding options available under bankruptcy law and the scope of other consumer protections and may therefore fail to serve debtors’ best interests. Mandatory Pre-Approval Process The proposed Rule mandates that an approved provider obtain approval from the EOUST “prior to making any of the following changes”. The only one of the listed changes that would seem to require such pre-approval is the engagement of an independent contractor to provide instructional services as such a change goes to the establishment of provider qualifications that are the heart of the proposed EOUST approval process. However, the other listed items- such as a change in fee policies, expansion into additional Federal judicial districts, and changes in the instructional course - would seem to properly merit a simple notice requirement unless such change was both material in nature and would also result in the provider no longer being in compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements for approved counseling agencies. Further, there should be no requirement to obtain advance approval from EOUST for a change in fees or fee policies if the new fee remains at or below the amount presumed to be reasonable or if the policy remains consistent with the Rule. The power of the EOUST to assure compliance with those requirements should not be converted to the power to micromanage an approved provider’s day-to-day operations and decisions. We are concerned that retention of these broad pre- approval requirements, rather than their replacement by a mere notice requirement, will eventually result in an erosion of the number of providers voluntarily participating in pre-discharge instruction because such participation will be seen to carry a requirement of getting advance assent from the EOUST for a broad range of routine decisions that have no material impact upon its continuing satisfaction of the relevant requirements for participation. Referral Fee Arrangements We appreciate the proposed Rule’s clarification that prohibited fee arrangements, by which an agency pays or receives payment for client referrals, do not include payments to third party locator services. This clarification brings the proposed Rule in conformity with 2006 Tax Code changes speaking to the eligibility of credit counseling agencies for tax-exempt status. Services for Special Demographic Groups The proposed Rule requires providers to communicate, in writing and orally, with debtors in the languages of the major population groups served by the provider and to arrange for bilingual services in such languages. It also requires them to use their best efforts to direct non-English proficient debtors to approved providers who can provide a course in their language. While we have no objection to the best efforts requirement, we are concerned that the bilingual requirement may impose a significant burden on providers operating on a nation-wide basis, or serving urban areas with multiple non-English proficient population groups. While we agree with the goal of providing services to such populations we believe the Rule should only require providers to provide clear notice of those languages in which they provide their services. The proposed Rule also requires providers that provide education by phone to provide telephone amplification, sign language services, or other methods to assist hearing impaired individuals. While this goal is laudable the cost of providing such mandatory assistance may be prohibitive and result in the withdrawal of any telephonic educational services. Similarly, the requirement that providers arrange for communication assistance for debtors with special needs - including debtors who have difficulty making their specific service needs known - will be difficult and expensive to comply with and may dissuade program participation. Identification Requirements for Telephone and Internet Instruction The proposed Rule requires an agency that delivers counseling by telephone or via the Internet to have proficiency in employing verification procedures to ensure that the individual is indeed the debtor required to receive the services. It goes on to prescribe that this requirement be met through obtaining one or more unique personal identifiers from the client and then assigning an individual user ID, access code, or password at the time of enrollment – and then requiring the client to provide the assigned verifier along with one or more of the unique personal identifiers during the course of delivering the services. Since the pre-discharge instructional requirement is not a test that must be passed (indeed, the Rule explicitly states that a completion certificate cannot be denied to an individual who has failed it) but simply a procedure that must be complied with prior to receiving a bankruptcy discharge we have doubts that any significant percentage of debtors has or will seek to have a third party undertake the counseling on their behalf. Therefore, in light of the financial burden likely to be incurred by participating providers, we would request guidance from the EOUST as to the precise methodologies that will be acceptable for this verification procedure, with an eye toward keeping the cost and record-keeping burden to a minimum. Mandatory Disclosures to Clients The proposed Final Rule contains extensive new mandatory disclosure requirements to clients and potential clients. An approved provider must, prior to obtaining any information from or providing any services to a debtor, disclose: 1. its fee policy 2. its policy enabling debtors to obtain services free or at a reduced rate based upon ability to pay 3. its instructors’ qualifications 4. its prohibition against receiving or paying any referral fee other than those made to a locator service 5. its obligation to provide a certificate upon completion of the instructional course 6. the fact that it might provide debtor information to EOUST 7. the fact that the EOUST has only reviewed the provider’s instructional course and not the other services it may provide 8. the fact that the debtor will receive a certificate only if he completes an instructional course. Overall, we believe that these mandatory disclosures are far too extensive and will place a continuing and excessive burden upon participating providers without conveying meaningful information to potential students. Some of these disclosures may well mislead or confuse debtors and require the agency to spend a significant time answering questions about these disclosures rather than providing the financial education that Congress intended. Entities that have been approved to provide pre-discharge instruction by the EOUST have passed a rigorous initial screening program and are subject to continuing oversight and annual review and re-approval. While a few of the items that the proposed Rule would require to be disclosed are of personal import to the debtor – such as the ability to receive counseling at a reduced fee or for free, and the agency’s obligation to furnish a certificate of completion promptly – many of the others go to the minutiae of the agency’s compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. For example, need a debtor be given the qualifications of every instructor who might provide pre-discharge instruction or is it sufficient that the EOUST has been satisfied that an agency’s counselors satisfy applicable standards? We would strongly suggest that rather than requiring providers to furnish all potential students with a long and detailed document addressing matters that are of no personal concern the required disclosures should be pared back solely to those items that assist the individual in understanding the nature of the pre-discharge educational course and their ability to obtain such instruction. Additional matters relating to the provider’s overall satisfaction of EOUST- administered requirements should be alluded to with an advisory that additional information regarding such matters is available for inspection from the provider upon request. Litigation Potential The proposed Rule prohibits providers from taking any action that would limit, inhibit, or prevent a debtor from bringing a legal action or claim for damages against a provider under any applicable law. We fear that potential litigation stemming from program participation may inhibit the availability of instructional services and that, at a minimum, a provider’s approval from the EOUST should confer a presumption that it has been providing such services in an acceptable manner that does not reach the level of malfeasance. Permissible Advertising The EOUST requires all approved instructors, including CCAs, to comply with its directions on approved advertising, as stated in Appendix A to the application form. Those directions require that an approved CCA may state in an advertisement that it has been approved to provide credit counseling services in compliance with the Bankruptcy Code, but that any advertisement that makes reference to such approved status must be stated in only one particular manner: “Approved to issue certificates in compliance with the Bankruptcy Code. Approval does not endorse or assure the quality of an Agency’s service.” We continue to have strong concerns about the second sentence of this required disclosure, which would seem to apply to all CCAs approved to provide pre- discharge instruction. Advertising is commercial speech protected by the First Amendment, and any government-compelled speech must raise concerns. The second sentence of the EOUST’s required statements cannot help but raise doubt in the mind of a prospective counseling client regarding whether the EOUST’s approval means anything at all, and whether the agency placing the ad can indeed provide quality service. Yet the EOUST only approves a given CCA after it has met strict criteria consistent with BAPCPA standards, the sum total of which indicates that an approved agency treats clients fairly and ethically, employs experienced personnel, and provides an objective and impartial analysis of the debtor’s financial options. These are all significant qualitative measures, yet the EOUST’s required disclosure implies that its review process and approval mean little. We again strongly urge the EOUST to delete the second sentence – leaving only the factually correct statement that a CCA has been approved to issue pre-filing certificates and can provide one to an individual considering bankruptcy – or else to substantially amend the disclosure statement so that consumers are advised that agencies must comply with rigorous standards to merit EOUST approval. When BAPCPA was first enacted, many agencies believed that being approved by the EOUST would confer a “Good Housekeeping seal of approval.” Instead, this direction forces an approved agency to either refrain from mentioning its status in an advertisement or to do so in a manner that raises questions about its quality of counseling and educational instruction. This is hardly an incentive for agencies to remain in or apply for the program. Mandatory Record Keeping Requirements We understand the need for approved providers to maintain adequate records of their activities and keep them available for EOUST inspection. However, given that most providers will be offering instructional services at a net cost that may be less than the average fee paid per instructional session, the EOUST should be sensitive to the need to keep these requirements limited so as to impose the minimum additional financial burden upon the entity’s financial and human resources. Hence, we would urge the EOUST to review the proposed requirements and pare them back to requiring accurate records of the type that would naturally accrue in the course of providing instructional services and that do not require additional data gathering, judgment and analysis. For example, we have concerns about such requirements as maintaining a count of the total number of clients and potential clients with limited English proficiency and special needs, and of hearing- impaired clients, along with details of the provider’s best efforts to provide services to such clients, and further supporting or justifying the failure to provide services to such clients, as such aggregate records would not naturally accrue in the course of providing counseling services and this type of requirement places additional observational and explanatory burdens upon the entity. Likewise, it seems reasonable to require agencies to maintain records of all clients who received services at a reduced rate or for free but does not seem reasonable to require that the agency disclose which of such instances were “voluntary”, particularly since under the proposed Rule the provision of free services to certain clients will be mandatory. Appeals Process The EOUST has proposed to establish an appeals process for those providers who have had their application for approved status denied, as well as those approved providers who have their status revoked. The process requires that an agency seeking such review submit its documented appeal within twenty calendar days of the denial or revocation notice. It also permits the Director to seek additional information from the appealing entity, and requires the Director to issue a written decision no later than sixty days after receipt of the agency’s request. That decision deadline can be extended if the provider agrees to the extension or if the Director extends the period on his own volition. The Director’s ultimate decision constitutes final agency action. We believe that this proposal, while welcome, needs to be clarified to make clear that the provider’s time period for filing an appeal begins to run upon its receipt of the EOUST’s decision, rather than from the time it was made. That clarification would mirror the day of receipt trigger for the start of the time period in which the Director must take final action, and would assure that no entity has its appeals right prejudiced by a delay in the communication of that decision. We would also urge that the proposal be modified so that the Director may only extend his review period in exigent circumstances, as a provider is entitled to expeditious review of its appeal by the EOUST rather than be kept in limbo for an extended period. Finally we would note that, for this appeals process to be meaningful, the Director must limit the use of interim directives to the minimum except in extraordinary circumstances required to protect the public interest. Likewise, in implementing its new appeals process for agencies which have been denied approved status or which have had that status revoked, the EOUST should strive to adhere to its proposed deadlines for action and should refrain from extending that review period absent extraordinary circumstances. Conclusion The AICCCA appreciates this opportunity to provide input to the EOUST on this proposed Final Rule. We recognize the continuing dedication of the EOUST to the proper implementation of the required credit counseling and educational instruction provisions of BAPCPA, as well as your open line of communication with our Association and its individual members. We are hopeful that you will be responsive to the concerns raised in this letter before the proposed Final Rule is put into effect. Sincerely, David C. Jones, Ph. D. President