Board orders frequent progress updates after BRN finds 21 areas of non‑compliance at Pasadena City College nursing program

The Education & Licensing Committee of the California Board of Registered Nursing voted to require Pasadena City College’s nursing program to report progress at every upcoming committee and board meeting after a continuing‑approval visit identified 21 areas of non‑compliance, chiefly involving program administration and reporting structures. Committee Chair Hovita Dominguez and nursing education consultants said the issues had disrupted student clinical scheduling and program oversight.

Committee staff said the nursing education consultant (NEC) first met with the program in January 2025 as part of a routine continuing approval process and that follow‑up meetings identified problems when a campus administration decision excluded the BRN‑approved program director from program oversight. “There were meetings happening in absence of the program director and the assistant director,” supervising nursing education consultant Dr. Maryanne McCarthy said, adding that the absence of a BRN‑approved program director “pulled them out of compliance” and impeded NEC access to documentation needed to determine compliance.

Board executive officer Loretta Melby told the committee that the NEC and BRN leadership escalated the matter and met again with campus leadership; she said the college has since hired and onboarded a BRN‑approved program director who has acknowledged many of the problems and presented an action plan. Melby said BRN staff will plan a return continuing‑approval visit with the program director, assistant directors, faculty and students to gather the evidence needed to clear specific findings.

Students and alumni urged stronger measures. Student speaker Jesse Turretz, who said he graduated in December 2025 and has served as a student advocate, described long‑running equipment shortages, delayed clinical scheduling and alleged intimidation and retaliation when students raised concerns. “There is no transparency,” Turretz said. “Students fear retaliation and believe their concerns will be ignored.” He urged the board to consider revoking an individual’s license and to remove the school’s approval; the committee and staff underscored the difference between program oversight and employment or licensing discipline processes.

Melby and McCarthy explained how the BRN handles complaints about licensed individuals: complaints are confidential while under investigation and only become public records if an accusation is filed; employment termination and workplace culture are typically addressed by employers, though license‑related allegations can trigger BRN investigations if they raise statutory violations. “If a complaint raises to the level where an accusation is filed, that will become a public record,” Melby said.

Committee member Trisha Wyn moved that Pasadena City College return to both the Education & Licensing Committee and the full board with progress updates at the June, August, September, November and December meetings; the committee approved the motion. BRN staff said NECs will continue to work with the program between meetings and that a return visit will be scheduled to validate corrective actions and review evidence supporting closure of the areas of non‑compliance.

What happens next: Pasadena City College will submit an initial progress report for the June meeting and continue quarterly reporting to the assigned NEC until the BRN verifies compliance in the identified areas. Students who have complaints about an individual RN’s conduct were told how to file formal complaints for BRN investigation; the BRN reiterated that employment remedies remain an employer responsibility but that license and patient‑safety issues may trigger BRN action.