DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION 

AFFORDABILITY AND STUDENT LOANS COMMITTEE 

 SESSION 2, DAY 3, AFTERNOON 

November 3, 2021 

 

 

 

 

1 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/03/21 

On the 3rd day of November, 2021, the 

following meeting was held virtually, from 1:00 p.m. 

to 4:00 p.m., before Jamie Young, Shorthand Reporter in 

the state of New Jersey. 
2 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

P R O C E E D I N G S 

MS. MACK: Alright, welcome back from 

lunch, everyone, my name is Kayla Mack and I will be 

facilitating this afternoon's session. We are talking 

about aggressive recruitment in Borrower Defense and the 

concept of that being added to our red text. Hands are 

still up. So David, I'm going to ask the to kick off our 

conversation again. 

MR. TANDBERG: Yeah, thank you. I 

believe when we left off, we were discussing Daniel's 

points around subjective what he viewed as subjective 

items in the list of aggressive evidence of regressive, 

aggressive recruitment. And I'm I'm concerned, given my 

experience in Pennsylvania is trying to crack down on 

some aggressive recruiters that it would be very 

difficult to anticipate every definable, measurable, 

perverse action that might be taken in the recruitment. 

That's why we kind of landed on the language we did in 

the items that Joe shared. And my alternate Suzanne 

brought up an important point in the in the in the chat, 

which is that the the institutions would have opportunity 

to to address any claims against them. And so there would 

be a kind of an adjudication of of what is being alleged 

that the institution did that was wrong and that that's 

an important point. It's not just going to be that we 
3 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

take a complaint and judge it aggressive without the 

opportunity for institutions to respond. And so I would 

be open to something like a list of here are some 

examples that and with a clear indication that other 

actions can and will be considered aggressive recruitment 

that it. But I don't think we can get in the business of 

trying to identify every potential item because there are 

these actors are amazingly creative and they're highly 

motivated. And so I would be comfortable with the 

language as it is if we need to as a matter of compromise 

with some examples that are more definable, that's fine, 

but it can't be seen as exhaustive. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, David. Next in 

line, Emily, please. 

MS. DEVITO: Well, good afternoon, and 

I apologize if this is just jointed, piggybacking off 

some comments from before lunch and I also lost the chat 

during lunch, but I wanted to reiterate. I believe Justin 

had shared some of the language that that we're sharing 

and also I believe it's integrated with with Joe's 

proposal that is from the Department of Defense 

Memorandum of Understanding that pretty much is echoed in 

in statute that's passed earlier this year that governs 

GI Bill dollars. But both of those agreements, which are 

preponderance of institutions, probably your institutions 
4 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

on this call are have agreed to or are held to by 

accepting GI Bill dollars, have historically and do 

address aggressive recruitment and misrepresentation for 

service members. In ways, our community, which we're 

thankful for for the closure of the 90/10 loophole, but 

has historically been aggressively recruited. So just 

want to share that context and understanding that even 

some of that is the proposal is maybe a little bit more 

generous. Specifically, even regarding unsolicited 

contact. We're. I'm sorry, I'm losing where I wanted to 

piggyback specifically Daniel's concerns and also what 

the points that that Josh was making, were there some 

room for things to be specific but we also need to be a 

little bit more general in order to support students, but 

also deter bad behavior. And I believe Joe shared, you 

know, we can still encourage good recruit recruitment and 

not limit it through just unsolicited contact. I believe 

the proposal is unsolicited contact for students who have 

previously requested not to be contacted, but it's also 

would be important for us to see some sort of limitation 

on time, which I believe or a limitation a number of 

times that someone could be contacted, which I believe 

will be addressed here and is addressed in the DOD, MOU 

and through statute. Again, this proposal would be much 

more, much more generous. And then to echo off David as 
 

5 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

far as being amazingly creative. That was one example I 

wanted to give as far as unsolicited contact and just 

being forward thinking in what institutions will create 

as the definition for contacts? Does that mean a third 

party lead generator? Does that mean an ad? Does that 

mean search engine optimization? That basically just 

resets the clock on what is unsolicited and what's the 

definition of unsolicited to be moved? 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Emily. Let me 

move to Joe, and before I do, I just want to acknowledge 

that Daniel is back at the table. Welcome back, Daniel. 

Joe, please go ahead. 

MR. SANDERS: Hi. So a couple of quick 

things. One, the proposal that I just sent around people 

did send me a bunch of really specific examples of what 

constitutes aggressive recruitment, so I encourage 

everybody to take a look at that. You know, some examples 

of things that people sent me were comparing 

accreditation or ownership status of the institution to 

that of any other institution. So a recruiter saying, we 

have the same accreditation as Harvard, we're just as 

good sign up today, that kind of thing. There's a bunch 

more like that in there. So take a look at those for some 

specific examples. And then to Alyssa's comment, or I'm 

sorry, Emily's comment about limitations on the number of 
6 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

times we did locate a Massachusetts regulation with some 

help from the legal services organizations and my 

constituency partners in Massachusetts that does limit 

the number of times per week that people can be 

contacted. That's in the latest proposal with a with a 

site to that. So again, try striving to find demonstrable 

standards to use in this in this definition. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Joe. Daniel, 

please. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: Thank you, and thanks 

Joe for stepping in, sorry about that. That's the problem 

with only having limited time and a meeting over lunch. 

So to respond, first of all to Emily, I, I support 

looking at the DOD language, I think the MOU speaks to my 

concern, which is that it is and I've copied some of the 

language I've gone through. The my role is both Head of 

Financial Aid and Head of VA benefits so I'm very 

familiar with the VA part of the work as well. And I 

think the DOD standards are very helpful because they are 

specific. And so I would I would strongly encourage us to 

take a look at them, and I've copied some of them in the 

language. I also, to David's point, I have no problem 

with including, but not limited to. I think the the 

issue, though, is that once we start specifying 

particular acts, then institutions will be resistant to 
7 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

engage in those acts. That's the point. That's why we're 

doing this work. We want institutions to refrain from 

them and when they are general and not specific, then 

that raises concern. So again, the more specificity we 

can provide and examples, the better. I understand the 

tension between wanting not to provide every single 

example because there's a concern that institutions will 

then go beyond those examples and the concern I ask also 

to balance that with the desire not to be overly general 

because by being overly general, institutions may rule 

out behavior that is perfectly legitimate for fear or 

concern that it might be viewed the wrong way. So but 

again, you know, I would go back to Emily's point. I 

think the DOD language is very helpful and very specific. 

And again, we tried to incorporate some of this in the 

language we put forward for consideration. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Daniel. Josh, 

please go ahead. 

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks just on this 

point of kind of general versus specific language. I 

don't think this is an issue that's unique to this 

specific situation. I mean, you look at some states 

consumer protection laws and they very generally ban 

unfair, deceptive, abusive conduct because it recognizes 

that actors will find new ways to circumvent specific 
8 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

restrictions and to manipulate people. And so, you know, 

I hear the concern. It's just one that I think, you know, 

the law more generally has accepted as, you know, it's 

okay to impose and utilize broad prohibitions just in 

recognition of how actors will change. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Josh. I'm going 

to go to Emily as she has her hand up, and then I'm going 

to ask Jen if we can return to the two page document and 

continue walking through the aggressive recruitment 

section. Emily, please go ahead. 

MS. DEVITO: Thank you, actually. 

Daniel, your comments are help help me clarify the point 

I wanted to make and also bless you for for your work in 

that space processing the benefits. I know that's that's 

important and very difficult and arduous work, so we 

thank you. I think you made an interesting point about 

the DOD MOU language that would definitely be a point of 

contention in this space where I think people would argue 

it's one of the it's a document with so many 

interpretations that makes it difficult for schools to 

understand. So an example I would want to give is 

specifically this unsolicited contact and then also 

piggybacking off what Josh said and the ability to be 

creative. Again, if a school believes, if they have that 

contact, then it's inherently not unsolicited. That 
9 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

becomes not necessary and then being forward thinking. 

And I appreciate it, I think Joe included text messages 

and some other language that is a little bit more forward 

thinking in how this recruitment is happening. But if 

schools are able to be like, okay, well, I'm not going to 

do these three things you said, so I will just engage in 

aggressive behavior that's more innovative and reset the 

clock on being able to engage in contact or even the 

language that Joe provided if someone has requested not 

to be contacted, but then they click a Facebook ad or 

they put their information into a third party lead 

generator. Is that now they've solicited contact? So I 

think sometimes it seems like it's clear, and maybe it's 

overly clear to the point that it's allows for too much. 

I think amazingly creative, I liked that the verbiage 

from David. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Emily. Can we 

all refer back to the two page document perhaps share it 

on the screen? And Jennifer, I'll ask you to continue 

walking us through it. 

MS. HONG: Thank you for the 

discussion. What I'm hearing again, I'll repeat that I 

I'm hearing that everybody seems to be in favor of the 

concept of including aggressive recruitment into the 

regulatory language. The discussion is mostly centered 
10 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

around the construction of that language, the general 

versus the more specific, what's implementable, etc. And 

I'm just going to quickly go through options three and 

four. And if you could speak to that issue specifically, 

you'll see a lot of overlap with the concept. Perhaps 

it's framed a little differently. So let me just go 

through that. Option three was actually lifted from the 

twenty sixteen regulation on the section on a way to show 

reliance, but we realized we could use it here instead as 

aggressive recruitment. So aggressive and deceptive 

recruitment tactics or conduct include, again include, 

but are not limited to, demanding that the borrower make 

enrollment or loan-related decisions immediately. Again, 

this is framed a little bit more concretely. I don't know 

if Daniel feels differently about this language, placing 

an unreasonable emphasis on the consequences of delaying 

discouraging the borrower from consulting an advisor, 

excuse me, family member or other resource. Failing to 

respond to the borrower's request for more information, 

including about the cost of the program and the nature of 

any financial aid. Falsely presenting the number of slots 

available or otherwise unreasonably pressuring the 

borrower or taking advantage the borrower's distress or 

lack of knowledge or sophistication. Option number four 

is aggressive and deceptive recruitment tactics, and this 
11 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

has taken from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

definition of abusive. Materially interfering with 

someone's ability to understand a product or service, 

taking unreasonable advantage of someone's lack of 

understanding, taking unreasonable advantage of someone 

who cannot protect themselves and taking unreasonable 

advantage of someone who reasonably relies on a company 

to act in their interest. So again, a lot of the same 

concepts just framed a little differently. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Jennifer. Now 

that we've reviewed those two additional options, please 

raise your hand if you have additional comments or 

questions. Daniel, I see your hand first, please. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: So since Jennifer 

called me out, I appreciate the chance to speak in 

response. I will say option three addresses many of my 

concerns because it is specific. So again, I have no 

problem. I'll speak for me personally, not for the group. 

I have no issue with the language that's included in 

option three. To me, it is much more specific and 

provides reasonableness, and it does include the language 

include, but are not limited to. And again, just to give 

the context, we've presented in option five and the 

reason was a timing one once again. So we delivered that 

and had the negotiation or conversation caucus wise prior 
12 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

to the delivery of these pieces. So, you know, if we can 

at some point look at our definition as proposed. But 

again, I have conferred with and in support of option 

three on the table. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Daniel. Joe, 

please go ahead. 

MR. SANDERS: Yeah, I would just, you 

know, voice support for three and four, I think, you 

know, four in particular, I think, you know, when I put 

together and the people who work with me, we're in line 

with the Department on use of the use of standard. That's 

that's great. However, you want to phrase that, that's 

cool. And then I think everything in three, you know, we 

have encompassed somewhere in ours. So I think it's you 

know, happy to happy to wordsmith on these, I think these 

are all the right concepts and we just need to boil them 

down to the the best final language that we can come to. 

Also, Daniel, I'd be happy to talk with you offline 

around your definitions. And, you know, maybe we could 

find some areas where we or we have agreement. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: I'd support that 

thanks, Joe. 

MS. MACK: On that note, I do just 

want to mention if before our sessions or during lunch 

folks ever want to meet in a private breakout room to 
13 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

chat about these things, we're happy to utilize the 

platform and move you so that you can be having these 

kinds of conversations along the way. Please don't 

hesitate to let us know if that would ever be helpful to 

you. Thanks for your remarks, Joe. Justin, please. 

MR. HAUSCHILD: Apologies getting my 

virtual buttons mixed up here. Just wanted to say, I just 

want to say, I think I think similar to Joe, that three 

four, I think broadly are workable here. There's 

particular categories in each that that that we find that 

we find favorable. But I think, broadly speaking, we're 

going to be more inclined to look at something that's 

closer to what Joe is for. And then I think I also want 

to address this idea of whether this is a non-exhaustive 

or exhaustive list. Just to be clear, you know, when 

we're talking about Joe's proposal, maybe this has been 

addressed already. I'm not necessarily reading that, you 

know, as an exhaustive list, but maybe I'm interpreting 

that incorrectly. So I would be fine and I don't I would 

be fine if Joe's listed and do something more 

specifically saying that this is not not exhaustive, but 

I'm not sure it's necessary. So I just want to throw that 

out there for discussion if folks felt differently on 

that point. Thank you. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Justin. Heather, 
14 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

please go ahead. 

MS. JARVIS: Thank you. So I just 

wanted to add a couple of comments, I think there's been 

quite a bit placed in the chat and there have been some 

things by email and then I think Joe said people 

responded to him. I'm not sure we all saw everything that 

went back to Joe. So I think that it would be helpful to 

spend the time getting all of that together because I 

think that we all agree that there are pieces and maybe 

each of these that could build a comprehensive list of 

included, but not limited to. And I think once we get to 

that point, the next question for me would be, are some 

of those items actually misrepresentation or are they 

still falling under aggressive and deceptive recruitment 

tactics? And I think under three, falsely presenting the 

number of spots available, I'm assuming that that's 

referring to in an academic program? And if so, is that 

more misrepresentation than aggressive and deceptive 

recruitment? It maybe it doesn't much matter how it gets 

categorized. But I would like to see the comprehensive 

list that everyone has because I think that's addressing 

some of what Daniel has shared and gives institutions 

good guidance of what behavior this is intended to 

capture and hopefully can help establish good practices 

along the way as well for recruitment. 
 

15 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Heather. 

Marjorie, please go ahead. 

MS. DORIME-WILLIAMS: I agree with 

everything that's already been said. Just in terms of 

thinking about the language, another way that we could 

look at, I guess, support for more descriptive language 

rather than less is that it can be really helpful for 

students to understand. And if there is more language 

provided as to what aggressive recruitment looks like, 

then we might allow students to have a better 

understanding of either they were or were not in this 

situation and understanding of what aggressive 

recruitment means to the Department, as well as to 

schools. And so my, I guess suggestion or argument would 

be that limiting it may not necessarily benefit all 

parties in this situation. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Marjorie. 

Justin, please. 

MR. HAUSCHILD: Yeah, I want to just 

kind of add on to two things that were just mentioned. 

First Marjorie's point I think is a great one why 

illustrative examples are important. Particularly when it 

comes to affirmative communications that the Department 

is issuing to folks that may be eligible for this kind of 

relief. And then I also want to circle back to something 
 

16 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

that Heather mentioned, which I think was just how I took 

it was kind of the very fluid nature of of what's 

happening right now around aggressive recruitment and, 

you know, proposals that are being shot out and 

communications that are happening, I would tend to agree. 

I don't I don't necessarily think where we are is a bad 

place but I'm curious if folks would be amenable to maybe 

returning to this later in the week in some form after 

we've had some time to digest this. But but intentionally 

revisiting this topic later in the week again, after 

we've had some more time to review all the proposals that 

have come in very, very quickly here. 

MS. HONG: I think from the 

Department's standpoint, we haven't been able to review 

the newer proposals either, so certainly we will go back 

and review what we think sounds feasible and come back 

with other language. I don't know that we could do that 

before the end of the week, but I think this discussion 

bears revisiting, time permitting during this session as 

well. So yes, to your question, Justin, at our end. 

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you, Justin, 

thank you, Jennifer. Daniel, I see your hand. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: Could we perhaps and 

I'm trying to move the conversation forward and be 

respectful of time. Could we perhaps and I think we're 
17 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

all in agreement, but maybe we just need a temperature 

check. Could we take a temperature check on the inclusion 

of aggressive recruitment as a reason for Borrower 

Defense to Repayment? Again, I think no one on the on the 

at the table disagrees with that. But maybe I'm being 

presumptuous and it really is more the definition 

specifically. And that might be helpful for the 

Department. Because I've heard Jennifer say several 

times, you know, she's made the assertion that that she 

hears that we're all in favor, but I'd like to get on 

record for that purpose to help the Department move that 

conversation forward. 

MS. MACK: I think you want my job, 

Daniel. That's exactly what I was going to take us to 

next. I wanted to ask Jennifer, do you believe that from 

this robust dialog thus far, the Department has 

everything it needs, at least for the time being. 

MS. HONG: Yes, thank you. 

MS. MACK: Perfect, then I would love 

to do what Daniel just suggested, and let me be clear, so 

there's no confusion. We're just taking a temperature 

check for tentative agreement on inclusion of the 

concept. There are a number of proposals and language 

pieces that we need to review, but solely on inclusion of 

the concept. Can I please see your thumbs for a 
18 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

temperature check? Thank you very much for holding them 

up front and center, I believe that I saw everyone's 

thumbs and we do not have any down thumbs, so we would 

have in fact been in consensus on adding that concept. We 

will in fact return to it. Thank you for that. I am going 

to ask us to switch gears for a moment away from Borrower 

Defense to our esteemed advisor Raj, so that he can come 

on and share with us a presentation that was already 

emailed out to you. Raj, do we need to watch for an 

additional login at this time? No. Okay, perfect. I'm 

going to turn it right over to you. Thank you. 

MR. DAROLIA: Can you guys all see 

that? Are you seeing two screens or just the one screen? 

MS. MACK: We are seeing large slide 

and then an indication of the next slide of it small. 

MR. ROBERTS: Yeah we're seeing 

presenter mode right now, Raj. 

MR. DAROLIA: Probably not but. How 

about now? Alright, thanks, so thanks, everybody for 

having me to talk about closed schools. What I going to 

present today are just some counts of schools that have 

closed over time. It's a little ambitious and 

overpromising maybe what could be done in a short amount 

of time with getting student enrollment and demographic 

information linked up to these schools. And I'll talk a 
 

19 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

little bit about that here in a minute when I get into 

the data. But the punch line from all this is really 

going to be that the GAO report, which I talked about 

before in the first session, is really going to be the 

best source for this information anyway and I'll talk 

more about why that is. And so what I did was kind of 

duplicate slides that I presented in the first session at 

the end of this report, just so everybody has it sort of 

in the same place. So what I'm going to show you are some 

graphs of the number of closed institutions over time 

from 1984. Until most recently, this is actually from a 

report that comes out weekly. I took the data from the 

end of September, and so it comes out weekly, so there's 

actually a few more closed schools in this year. But for 

all intents and purposes, this is this is accurate up to 

date. So on the left hand side here, what I'm showing 

here is your closure on the bottom and the number of 

closed schools on the y axis. And as you can see, there 

was kind of this big spike in the early 1990s, late 1980s 

lowers and then since about 2005 or so a big increase and 

then a decline in recent years. The numbers are maybe a 

little small on this, but it actually puts on that the 

number of closed schools in each of those years as well. 

Happy to provide the source data it's also the bottom 

line. On the right here is just the same graph, but it is 
 

20 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

split out now by the sector of the institution. And what 

we have available kind of easily is just public 

institution, private nonprofit institution, proprietary 

institution. And so those three colored lines with the 

different types of markers are the different sectors. And 

so if you were to sum up those lines from the graph on 

the right, you would get to the graph line. Now, let me 

stop here and just mention a little a bit about some of 

the data challenges in doing this work and talk to some 

of the comments that Carolyn and Daniel made yesterday, 

which Carol, who is the alternative for Proprietary 

Institutions and Daniel, the Financial Aid 

representative, mentioned yesterday. It has to do with 

this thing called the OPEID. So the OPEID OPEID is Office 

of Postsecondary Education Identification Number. So what 

I've listed here in this first slide is what we call the 

eight digit OPEID. So the eight digit OPEID is kind of 

the full identification number for an institution, but 

it's really made up of two different parts. The first six 

digits are an identifier for an institution and then the 

next two digits, sometimes we call that a suffix, are an 

indicator for whether it's a branch institution or what 

we might call the parent or main institution. So this is 

going to have everything. To give an example of what 

everything means in here, when we talk about something 
21 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

like in 2016 ITT closing, what is going to be included in 

the eight digit OPEID is effectively every branch that 

ITT Tech has listed for that. So we can think of the 

parent institution for ITT Tech having a six digit 

identifier in this case, zero zero seven three two nine 

and then the last two digits being zero zero. We call 

that the parent ITT Tech. And then each of those branches 

or other locations, are going to have that same first six 

digits, but then they'll have a different suffix or last 

two numbers. Right, so when we think about this then, 

this is sort of the the most generous or largest way we 

can think about the number of closed schools. And if you 

go to the closed school search file, which I'm sure all 

the financial aid administrators on this call are very 

familiar with, this is the level in which we're going to 

be able to see this. Now, there's another way that is 

commonly used to think about schools, and that's called 

the six digit OPEID. So when we do that, we would not use 

that suffix and so instead, just kind of consider the 

first six digits as a way to think about the institution. 

So in the ITT Tech example, instead of counting ITT Tech 

as every single branch of individual school, we would 

consider that OPEID those first six digits as the unique 

identifier. So, and what we can see here, then, is 

obviously that that's going to reduce our number lot 
 

22 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

because basically we're kind of including all of the 

branches with that parent institution. So here's the 

trend, the corollary trend graphs in this second chart 

using the six digit OPEID. And then finally, this other 

way to measure it is what we call the parent institution. 

So in this case, we're just going to take the parent 

institutions and look at the number of institutions that 

have closed over time, who are the parent themselves. Now 

this is the smallest of those in some years and in most 

years and that's because this is saying, this is really a 

count these graphs are really a count of just when the 

parent institution. Right. So that would mean the 

institution. Usually that means all the rest of the 

branches will close, too. But that's going to be a lower 

number than either of the two graphs before. The reason I 

point this out or bring up this sort of data 

complication, I've been trying to keep people from having 

to get into the data weeds with me is a couple different 

reasons. One is, when the question comes up, how many 

schools closed? It really depends on how you look at the 

data, right? Kind of in the purist level based on, you 

know, not making any danger transformations to the data. 

It's the first definition, the kind of eight digit OPEID. 

But the problem becomes when we're thinking about kind of 

how many institutions are sorry, how many students are 
 

23 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

affected, where these are, some of these branches can be 

quite small. Sometimes they're not really that active. 

And so it might overstate in some ways kind of a number 

of institutions that are really, you know, in full 

operation and are substantively large that are closing. 

And so researchers and in different reports will kind of 

interpret the data in a different way. And I'm going to 

kind of after this move to the GAO report and try to 

translate what they did into these figures as well. But 

these first three or first three slides are all just to 

show you sort of different kind of reasonable ways to 

count institutions closing over this time period. And 

again, kind of in total kind of a maximum, is about 

17,836 institutions down to the minimum of about 4,000. 

So again, kind of depending on your preferred definition. 

Now I'm not going to go over the GAO report in detail 

because we did that in the first session, I did repeat 

the slides, but I did want to give you a little bit of a 

translation between sort of the closed school data that I 

just showed you and the GAO report. So what the GAO 

report effectively did is something similar to what I did 

on that six digit OPEID slide, which is they collapsed 

institutions that have a same six digit that had the same 

six digit OPEID. And so again, we can think of that 

really as an OPEID or an institution kind of rolling up a 
 

 

24 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

lot of the branches with kind of the parents, and we can 

think of that all together, and that closed within the 

same calendar year. Again, there's some other data 

complications without not really getting into the weeds 

about it, but actually, if we take that ITT Tech example, 

six digit OPEIDs, ITT Tech, actually there was multiple 

closures across different years, and so in the GAO 

report, at least based on their footnotes, they would 

have counted those separately. The other thing that the 

GAO report did, which I'm not going to be able to do in 

this data, is they didn't include institutions that were 

reported as closed, but that they did not have records of 

borrowers attending. So they they kind of site in here, 

seventy one hundred OPEIDs that they kind of excluded 

because they did not have records of borrowers attending 

those institutions. I tried to back into this and I 

couldn't. I'm sure they did it correctly. I just don't 

have data access to be able to do this. So what I'm going 

to suggest is for questions about kind of how many 

students were affected and especially their borrowing 

outcomes and their experiences. That GAO report really is 

going to be the best way to look at it. If for no other 

reason, even if I was able to kind of link this to 

another data set, which somebody may be familiar with 

called IPEDS, may be able to pull in from some 
 

25 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

information about enrollment and student demographics 

there. That's going to be for the whole student body, and 

it's really not going to provide insight of the 

borrowers, which are really the kind of the subject of 

this conversation. So that GAO report had access to the 

borrower level data that they got privately from the 

Department of Education. So that's going to be really 

again to kind of think about who is affected with some of 

these closures. I'm going to really kind of stress 

looking at this GAO report, given that it's again, I 

think the best evidence we're going to have, especially 

in short time. So again, I'm not going to go through 

these slides. The next few slides in this presentation 

are things that I've talked through before. This headline 

on this first slide, I'll just mention because it was 

brought up in the group chat. About two hundred and forty 

six thousand borrowers enrolled in eleven hundred and six 

colleges that closed. What they're looking at is just 

about the past 10 years. And so because of that, you 

know, there's only a portion of that kind of time sample 

that I showed on some earlier slide. But you know, again, 

what are some highlights from that report and shared that 

with you on an earlier session so I'm not going to go 

over that. So that's what I have on closed schools right 

now. Again, a pretty quick presentation, I'm happy to 
26 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

stay on for any questions. 

MS. MACK: Let's do that, let's open 

it up to any questions from the committee members for Raj 

based on what was presented. Any questions? You must have 

done an extremely well and thorough job, Raj. Anything 

else Raj you wanted to share before we continue on? 

MR. DAROLIA: Nope, that's it. 

MS. MACK: Okay. Thank you all for 

that, and if questions come up happy to get those those 

back to Raj. Okay? I'm going to keep us moving with our 

agenda. So I know again, I've asked you to switch gears a 

couple of times, but we are in fact going to go back to 

Borrower Defense. Earlier this morning, there are three 

papers that you would have all received. We have worked 

our way through the shorter one on misrepresentation, and 

we have worked our way through the two page document that 

specifically referenced aggressive recruitment. So I'm 

going to have you refer you back to the big document. 

Jennifer, I think we were on page five, but I see your 

hand up, why don't you get us started? 

MS. HONG: I'm sorry, before we get in 

I'm a little slow on the draw here, just I, I realize 

there weren't any comments on closed school. Can we can 

we just go back to that real quick? So we just had a 

question for Jessica. Daniel, I know that Daniel had put 
 

 

27 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

something in the chat. If you do, you can you guys do 

have the exact schools or liabilities that you're 

concerned about here with regard to closed school 

discharge? I know that you've expressed some reservations 

previously in our previous discussion. We just we just 

want to move this discussion forward. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: No, I appreciate that. 

And again, I referenced Dixie's comment earlier, which 

was very helpful. And thank you, Dixie, for your comments 

yesterday. I if I if I can respond, I want to jump ahead 

of you, either. Do you want to say something before I go 

forward? Okay. So, you know, this validates the concern I 

had, which is based on Raj's presentation, if you look at 

the numbers, there are 17000 campuses that closed from 84 

plus right? Of that, though it was only a thousand 

institutions that had their main campus closed. So my 

concern goes back to the way that I read this and I want 

to be very specific. I put this in the chat, but I'm 

going to say this publicly. The closure of a branch 

campus may not be a significant event for an institution. 

I value and support that it may be a very significant 

event for the students attending that campus. So I just, 

you know, I want to again center and bring up the 

centrality to Dixie's point of the student experience and 

validate that. That said, the way I read the the proposed 
28 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

regulation e-campus closure would actually entitle anyone 

on any campus of that institution to submit a Borrower 

Defense Repayment claim. And I'm not sure that that 

really is the intention. So that's that's one concern 

because of the way the definition is written. The second 

concern I have is about liability. So there's a section 

within the the frame that talks about the borrower having 

who submits an is successfully given a Borrower Defense 

to Repayment discharge requires that borrower to 

participate in actions against the institution. But 

there's nothing specifically stated about what are the 

liability issues for those institutions and so that that 

specificity of language would help. So it's really it's a 

twin of those two issues. Number one, I think that we 

need some specificity about closure and when a branch 

campus closes, is that open to anyone at that institution 

to submit a Borrower Defense to Repayment, even if 

they're not impacted by the campus closure? And secondly, 

what are the liability issues as envisioned by the 

Department for for campus closure, which now is included 

as institutional closure? 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Daniel. Ladies, 

I see your hands will get you momentarily, Jennifer, was 

that responsive to your your question so that I can move 

on to additional comments? 
29 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

MS. HONG: Yes, go ahead and go on 

I'm, thank you, Daniel. I'm contemplating it, everything 

you just said. 

MS. MACK: Perfect. Okay, Dixie, 

please. 

MS. SAMANIEGO: Yeah, I really 

appreciate Raj's time and his presentation. And I also 

just want to make sure that us as negotiators in the 

committee, we can make best use of this expertise. Could 

the Department share a bit more about the data access and 

the resources he is able to pull from? Mainly because 

this is just really in response to like the data requests 

that we've made. And personally, for me, I know that the 

data requested I had made in session one was super niche, 

and not a lot of data is done on adjuncts and lecturers 

and stuff like that. So I understand that, but really, I 

just want to make sure that we're able to best use Raj's 

abilities and his expertise that he brings to the table 

to the best of all of our abilities so that we can come 

to the table with as much information. And so if the 

Department could share more about what kind of access he 

has to data and the resources he's able to pull from, 

that would be really helpful for me and I know from four 

other negotiators as well. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Dixie. Jessica, 
30 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

please go ahead. 

MS. BARRY: Thank you. Jennifer, I 

didn't respond right away because I was still digesting 

it. I didn't get a chance to look at all that data before 

it was just presented, so I was still thinking through 

it. But just the two other examples that we shared in the 

carve outs that we had suggested. I just want to make 

sure that first one, when I talked about a school system 

having a location in New York and Florida, I was 

suggesting that if that New York campus closed, obviously 

that would be subject to closed school discharge. I was 

talking about this Florida campus, so there are some 

school owners own multiple systems and they could take 

that Florida campus under their eight digit OPEID and 

move that to their other system, and those students 

wouldn't be impacted at all. So that was the situation 

that I just want to make sure was under consideration. 

And then just when I think I gave this example too, you 

know say you're renting a classroom that's just down the 

street and you're using that from a local college and 

that you end up over time, not needing it anymore and you 

stop renting that classroom, that can open your school up 

to close the school discharge. So we're just kind of 

these these situations that I think this data does show 

that they're happening more than what we think. 
31 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Jessica. Noelia, 

please. 

MS. GONZALEZ: I just wanted to 

piggyback a little bit on what Daniel was saying and what 

Jessica just said, is that sometimes campuses will open a 

location for a very specific core group of students and 

teach, for example, a master's in public administration 

program at a at a location 30 miles away. And then once 

that cohort is done, graduated, we shut that down. So we 

want to just make sure that that that type of closure 

isn't included. It was a very specific opening of of a 

location for a very specific cohort of students. And when 

that's done and over with, it's closed and and we may 

open up another cohort of another cohort of the same 

program, but in a different location to serve a 

different, a different population. So I just want to make 

sure that those types of programs aren't subject to the 

closed school. 

MS. MACK: Thank you very much. Oh, go 

ahead, Jennifer. 

MS. HONG: Yeah, just a point of 

clarification regarding Daniel's and Noelia's comment, 

remember that we've always defined for closed school. 

This is existing language in terms of the branch campus. 

School means a school's main campus or any location or 
32 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

branch of the main campus, regardless of whether schools 

or its location or branch is considered eligible. So 

that's not, you know, that's not language that's being 

proposed, that's current language. So, to Daniel's point, 

the issue was whether students have been impacted by the 

branch closure that they're attending. We, so we're you 

know, I understand the risks, we understand the risks 

here, but we want to error on the side of capturing the 

borrowers that would be affected by a school closure or 

branch campus closure. For Noelia's question, I mean, 

remember, the idea is if they were able to complete their 

program, it's not a close, they wouldn't be eligible for 

closed school discharge anyway. So I think in your 

example that they would, you know, that would they would 

be (inaudible). So I just wanted to get back to Daniel on 

that point. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Jennifer. Let me 

go to Heather, please. 

MS. PERFETTI: You know if I could 

direct this to Raj around the data, I'm just trying to 

make sure I understand University A and University B 

consolidate. How is that captured in the data on closed 

school? 

MS. MACK: Raj, are you able to, there 

he is, perfect. 
 

 

 

33 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

MR. DAROLIA: Yeah, sorry, I'm just 

munching on a carrot I'll swallow really quickly. Yes. So 

typically when we think about closed schools and I'm sure 

there might be somewhere in the Department you're going 

to find on this as well. But in the data, if one ceases 

to operate, you know, whether that's because of a merger 

or something else. Typically, that would be kind of 

leaving the data from a data perspective. I believe that 

ends up then on the closed school list. So we should 

confirm this. But but that's my understanding of it. 

MS. MACK: Heather, did you have a 

followup there or did that get to your question? 

MS. PERFETTI: I think that it goes to 

the closed school discharge and just the importance of a 

definition of closed school, we've added or suggested 

adding a number of definitions in all of the other areas 

of the regulatory language, and it just seems odd that a 

regulatory item titled Closed School Discharge doesn't 

have a definition of closed school. And so I think that's 

part of what I've been trying to encourage and get us to 

think about. And that's, I think, what led us down the 

path of these different, the different mechanisms or the 

different ways that schools close, even if they have the 

same impact on students, there are distinctions. And if 

the closed school discharge is really intended to be 
34 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

broad and capture them all, then the definition would be 

worth reflecting that. So I think it's really trying to 

get at when we speak about closed schools in the 

environment that we all exist with this with the 

complexity and changes and legal transactions and 

consolidation efforts. Is there a definition that could 

be embedded of a closed school for consistency purposes 

and maybe to help with conversations about what that 

means as well? 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Heather. Let me 

move to Michaela, please. 

MS. HONG: Can I can I just chime in? 

MS. MACK: Oh please, Jennifer. 

MS. HONG: So yeah, Heather, I know 

you've raised this and we appreciate the fleshing out the 

issue with the mergers and the consolidation. 

MS. HONG: So I mean, as we think of 

it, the the the definition of closure is embedded under 

A2 romanette 1 where we talk about closure date. If I 

just so it's it's what we're proposing is the closure 

date being earlier of the date that the school ceases to 

provide educational instruction in most programs as 

determined by the Secretary or a date. This is again 

proposed language or date chosen by the Secretary that 

reflects when the institution had ceased to provide 
 

35 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

educational instruction for most of its students. So it 

is encompassed in that. I understand that there may be 

more that you would like to see there. Just wanted to 

point that out. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Jennifer. I'll 

also note that Jen has joined the table on behalf of 

student loan borrowers now, Michaela, please. 

MS. MARTIN: Yeah. So first, you know, 

this doesn't mean that just because it falls under those 

that they will automatically be considered the type of 

closed school that would be considered for forgiveness, 

there is like kind of an adjudication process in which 

the Department of Education would make those more 

complicated decisions. Right, so like, I'm not seeing how 

narrowing this is going to prevent some of that. And then 

also Daniels mentioned a few times that, you know, 

there's potential of having more people apply that 

should. But I don't think that we're going to be able to 

regulate out the potential that that potential. I don't 

see how that's going to be alleviated through the 

proposed changes that this group has has come to. 

MS. MARTIN: I just think that we 

should allow that process for the Department to make 

those decisions as those complicated situations arise and 

not try and prevent people from being able to access when 
36 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

they should have that ability. And then also like, I know 

that there's a lot of folks that want to comment on this, 

but like we have like about like what like an hour and a 

half and we haven't gotten through Borrower Defense. And 

so I just would really encourage folks so that we can go 

and talk about these group processing claims and that 

maybe we could circle back to to this issue also after 

we've gotten through some more issues. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Michaela. 

Bethany, please, 

MS. LILLY: I'll be very brief because 

I think Michaela is right about our timing issues right 

now, but I just wanted to say that I speaking on behalf 

of people with disabilities, there are a lot of reasons 

why someone might select a branch campus or other 

campuses specifically related to accessibility, 

specifically kind of where it is in terms of public 

transportation and ability to get there. So I understand 

the concerns that folks have in terms of branch campuses 

being slightly different. But there are also reasons why 

they are different for students, and I would definitely 

not support not getting them here. I think that's really 

important and I just want to echo that. 

MS. MACK: Thank you very much, 

Bethany. Justin, please. 
 

37 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

MR. HAUSCHILD: Yeah, I'll try to be 

brief too, so I guess I want to get to a very specific 

point that I think Daniel has raised twice now, which is 

this idea that a branch campus's closure could entitle 

folks at a main at the main institution, the main campus, 

which is not closing to some type of relief here. And I 

and I and I just want to get a sense and maybe the 

Department can circle back at this at some point, but get 

a sense for the Department of whether or not they think 

that this this language does that. And it seems to me 

that to the extent that it might, that that is a pretty 

targeted and should be a relatively easy thing to 

address. So I just want to throw that out there and 

appreciate if the Department could circle back on that 

specifically whether or not they see this language does 

that. To the extent it does, seems like it should be 

easily remedied. Thanks. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Justin. So I see 

two more hands will get to Jen and Josh, and then we'll 

do what I suggested earlier and circle back to our 

Borrower Defense issue. Please go ahead, Jen. 

MS. CARDENAS: Thank you. I also 

wanted to bring the same perspective as Bethany. I think 

the idea of these branches is that students pick them 

specifically because they know what is offered at that 
38 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

branch and they get to go there for transportation. Maybe 

it's close to their daycare, maybe it's close to their 

home. There's these little things that we're we're still 

existing, we're still living, we're still trying to do 

all these things and we choose these branches so that 

they have those opportunities to get what the school 

promised and then when they don't, what's this idea that 

now they have to change their whole life and try to go to 

main campus. These schools make promises. So then these 

branches are important for students to be able to opt out 

of. Anyways, sorry, Kayla, I was trying to go really 

fast, and that's it. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Jen. Josh, 

please go ahead. 

MR. ROVENGER: Yeah, I'll also be 

quick. I just want to underscore a point that Jennifer 

made that we're only assuming is only going to be 

entitled to closed school discharge relief if they're not 

able to complete their program. And so if a school 

emerges and nothing changes in the student's life, 

they're going to finish their program and they wouldn't 

be eligible for a closed school discharge relief. And I 

don't think as as a practical matter, students are in 

that situation are just dropping out so that they can get 

the discharge if they wanted to continue on and get their 
39 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

degree. 

MS. MACK: Alright. Thank you all for 

for those comments and again, thank you, Raj, for the 

presentation and information. Again, a copy of that is in 

your emails. If I could then refer you back to Borrower 

Defense. Again, we're in the long packet that you have, 

and I think we walked through and we're within 685.401. 

But Jennifer, I'll turn it over to you to tee it up to 

where you'd like us to begin and where we should share 

the screen. 

MS. HONG: That's exactly right, 

Kayla, we're on page four where we're actually on page 

five at the end of 401, so I'll just briefly review the 

general section, then we could take a temperature check. 

But I do appreciate the discussion on closed school. One 

thing that we keep coming across is that the connectivity 

of all these different issues on table one, they are 

related and we're very intentional when we're drafting 

proposed language to ensure that we get it right in each 

issue so that students that are eligible for discharge 

can have that avenue available to them versus having to 

go through the BD process, for example, to alleviate all 

and open up all pathways and options for students. So I 

just I want you to think about how all these issues 

connect with each other and how our proposed language is 
40 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

again considered all these options and are intentional to 

to ensure the best options for borrowers. 

MS. HONG: Now going back, we just 

discussed aggressive, deceptive recruitment that was 

going to be the insertion at the bottom of page five. 

Just to review and then we can take a temperature check 

on this section, which is the general principles of 

Borrower Defense to include a federal standard. And just 

to review that, that federal standard includes five five 

ways in which a borrower may assert a defense to 

repayment. We looked at and we discussed 

misrepresentation, omission of facts, which we're 

currently trying to flesh out. 3, breach of contract, 4, 

we just finished the discussion on aggressive, deceptive 

recruitment tactics, and the fifth one is the judgment 

against a school. And so if we could take and we 

discussed some of the definitions, including the the term 

of the provision of educational services, which Joe 

chimed in on. How are people feeling about the federal 

standard and the Borrower Defense general provisions with 

the definitions and the five bases on which a borrower 

may assert a defense to repayment? 

MS. MACK: Are we ready, Jennifer, for 

a temperature check on what you just outlined for us? Let 

me ask if everyone's clear on that or if there are any 
 

41 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

additional questions or comments that need to be made 

before we would take that potential temperature check. 

Joe, I see your hand, please. 

MR. SANDERS: Yeah, Jennifer, I guess 

I'd just like some clarity on, I know I briefly introed 

our attempt at a compromise on consideration of the State 

Law standard and, you know, you had said, let's put a pin 

on that and we'll move on. Is that something we're being 

asked to temperature check on now? 

MS. HONG: No, I'm sorry, exclude the 

State Law standard for the time being. We're going to get 

to that when we get into the adjudication piece, if you 

wouldn't mind. So but definitely keep that, Joe's 

presentation in your brain. 

MS. MACK: Does that address your 

question, Joe? Ok, great, Jessica. 

MS. BARRY: Thanks. So my question is 

if we are introducing new rules, say with aggressive 

recruitment, how do we apply those to conduct that 

happened before July 1, 2023, if the the institution of 

the person who did the misconduct didn't know that that 

was misconduct at the time? How do we reconcile that? 

MS. HONG: So, Jessica, you're 

referring to the pending applications before the 

Secretary? So I just want to be sure, because remember 
42 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

these these these rules are applicable to those that are 

applications that are received either on or after July 1, 

2023 or those pending before the Secretary. 

MS. BARRY: But even, yes, definitely 

depending. But even the applications, if the conduct 

happened before the rule was in place, how do we how do 

we justify holding them accountable for that? 

MS. HONG: I'm going to take that 

back. Jessica, thank you. 

MS. MACK: Thanks, Jessica, and feel 

free to place any questions or concerns in the chat as 

well. Justin, please. 

MR. HAUSCHILD: So I guess maybe I'm 

not sure if I should raise this here or not, but 

MR. HAUSCHILD: we'd like to you know 

at some point make a you know, discuss whether or not 

settlement should be involved. I don't know, Joe, if 

that's part of the state standard or whatever, but we'd 

like to see 

MR. HAUSCHILD: some additional 

discussion about what we're talking about when we're 

talking about judgments, what else might be needed there. 

So I'm not sure if this is the appropriate time for that. 

I guess maybe I've made that statement now anyway, but 

it's out there, and maybe I'll return to it. Thanks. 
43 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

MS. MACK: Thanks, Justin. Todd, I saw 

you raise your hand. Did you want to speak to that? 

MR. DAVIS: Actually, I was going to 

go back to Jessica's question previously, and I know this 

isn't an answer that is will satisfy everyone on the 

panel, but I mean, I think this is the Department's part 

of the Department's effort to bifurcate the two 

processes, one the borrower to fit the borrower's claim 

and the ability to you know provide some recompense to 

the borrower who was you know, preyed upon by a 

particular item versus what the Department feels it can 

legally achieve in terms of recruitment from a potential 

school or enforcement action against the school, so that 

that's really a big part of our understanding here is 

that the Department feels like you know they will have to 

look at the rules that were in place at the time of the 

conduct. With regard to its ability to pursue the 

enforcement action against the school as opposed to 

whether, but we want to make sure that we're using that 

single federal standard to get the borrowers themselves a 

better outcome. I think that's, you know, if we look 

closely at this, that's I know everyone has different 

positions on this, but that's what we're what the 

Department is trying to do here. 

MS. MACK: Thank you for that, Todd, 
44 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

appreciate it. Misty, let me go to you. 

MS. SABOUNEH: Yeah, so before we take 

a temperature check, I wanted to see if this is the right 

time to 

MS. SABOUNEH: talk about breach of 

contract. 

MS. SABOUNEH: We haven't really 

touched on that yet, but I guess my comment there would 

be, I'm curious if we could define better what that 

contract is, so for schools that don't have an enrollment 

agreement, it becomes a little more fuzzy, whether it's 

through catalogs, bulletins, handbooks, regulations, just 

so that there's little clarity. And so the other thing, 

right? Just an example. During the pandemic, a lot of 

institutions had to move from going on campus to moving 

to online. Technically, if you signed up for a branch 

campus and had to go online, that would be a breach of 

contract. So I would say at a minimum defining that and 

then maybe adding like a Acts of God clause so not trying 

to circumvent, but just making sure that in this go 

forward state where there could be additional variants of 

COVID that that's captured. 

MS. MACK: We're going to continue to 

encourage everyone to share their ideas, solution and 

proposed text in the chat and via email so that we all 
45 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

have those. Any other questions, comments at this time? 

Okay, Jennifer, would you for clarity purposes, outline 

specifically what you want us to take a temperature check 

on here? That way, everyone's clear and we're on the same 

page? 

MS. HONG: Alright, if we could just 

take a temperature check on just the start on page four 

and five. The inclusion of the five biases for claims for 

Borrower Defense to Repayment and the definitions that 

you see before you. I know that we've already taken a 

temperature check on inclusion of aggressive recruitment, 

but also the concept and misrep, but just as as a whole, 

just these general ideas. If we could take a temperature 

check on those. 

MS. MACK: Thank you for teeing that 

up. So a general consensus. Let me, I misspoke. General 

temperature check on the addition of these concepts. I'll 

get it out there. Alright. Please let me see your thumbs 

on what Jennifer has just asked us to take a temp check 

on. Hold them up there so that we can see them all. Okay, 

I see Misty, Jessica, and Heather as down, if I missed 

any other thumbs down, please, please let me know. But a 

few ladies would feel comfortable very briefly 

articulating why you were down and then we'll continue to 

move on. 
46 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

MS. SABOUNEH: As I just stated, just 

went further clarification on what the actual contract 

is. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Misty. Jessica? 

MS. BARRY: Yeah, I still have 

concerns with retroactivity. No proof of reliance. I have 

some concerns about the group process, too. I know we 

didn't talk about that a whole lot today. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Jessica. 

Heather? 

MS. PERFETTI: Thank you. I would just 

echo what Misty had shared, I had questions about the 

reference to the terms of a contract with the student as 

well as wanting to see how the aggressive recruitment 

language comes together in the cross, references to 

misrepresentation and omission of fact and the 

development, as has been suggested about judgment against 

the school. 

MS. MACK: Okay. Around those 

concerns, again, I encourage everyone to share their 

ideas, solutions, proposed text, you can do so in the 

chat. Keep in mind for the chat will be an addendum to 

the transcripts that are ultimately made public and 

shared with everyone. So that's helpful there. But also, 

if you send the FMCS team any ideas that you have, we 
47 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

will circulate them via email to the full group. 

Jennifer, do you have everything that you need on that 

point so that we can move on to the next section? 

MS. HONG: Yes, I think we can move on 

to good process. So you're in luck Jessica, we can 

discuss this further and I'm happy, especially for 

Borrower Defense, we we you know, we've got our legal 

counsel here, Todd Davis ready as well so to the extent 

that it's a legal question, Todd is prepared to address 

those. So moving on to group process, you will see that 

we have a Secretary initiated through process. So the 

Department can initiate a process to determine if a group 

of borrowers identified by the Department has Borrower 

Defense claim. And we have put in here that we will 

consider actions by the Federal Government, State AGs or 

other state agencies, officials, or law enforcement. 

Lawsuits related to educational programs or judgments 

against schools or individual Department clients pursuant 

to section 685.403, which we will talk about after group 

process. The state we also have provided a process for 

states to initiate a group process. 

MS. HONG: And so we will consider a 

request to form a group upon request from some states, 

state AGs, and state AGs must submit an application to 

the Department, to the Department to identify the group. 
 

48 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

Again, through a school name, description of the conduct, 

and dates of conduct, provide any other info to to the 

Department. And we will aim to respond on whether we will 

respond to whether the Department will form a group upon 

the state AGs request. If the Department chooses not to 

form a group, why it didn't, in other info needed to go 

forward with group formation request from state AGs. 

State AGs can petition the Department to reconsider 

formation of the group. The reconsideration request, a 

group formation must be received within 90 days of the 

initial decision. And again, I don't think I mentioned 

this, once we provide a response, we'll provide a 

response to any state initiated group requests within 180 

days. And then within 90 days to the reconsideration 

request to the group formation. The borrower status after 

group formation, the Department will designate a 

Department official, borrowers who had a (inaudible) 

application pending will be encompassed in this group 

formation and put put in forbearance for staff collection 

status as applicable. So that was kind of fast, but I see 

a lot of hands. 

MS. MACK: Thanks for walking us 

through that, Jennifer, so in the group process section 

685.402, Josh, I'll begin with you. 

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. I have two 
49 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

significant concerns with this section. First, I cannot 

overstate my disappointment that the Department has not 

included a route for other third party groups, whether 

they be consumer advocates, legal aid organizations, 

organizers, to have a route to petition for a group to 

discharge. Borrower Defense as 

MR. ROVENGER: it now exists would not 

would not exist if it was left to the Department. It is 

the result of work of organizers like the Debt Collective 

and legal service organizations, and it's frankly 

insulting that third party organizations are not included 

in this list. I think as a practical matter as well, not 

all attorney attorneys general are doing this type of 

work or have the view that they're allowed to represent 

borrowers outside of their states. And so a lot of 

borrowers in states where attorneys general are not 

engaging in this type of work wouldn't have any access to 

petition for a group discharge under this provision. And 

then as a practical matter, I have to imagine that this 

would also assist the Department, you know, legal service 

organizations put together a group application, we're 

going to do a lot of work, we're going to do a lot of 

investigation on our own and it's going to end up saving 

the Department resources. So that's number one. Number 

two is, I think where I struggle with this regulation is 
50 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

that it is almost over complicating things. I view this 

as akin to essentially a class certification process 

where the Department isn't actually making a decision on 

a group discharge application, but is just making a 

decision on whether to form a group in the first place. 

And then later on, we'll make a decision on the Borrower 

Defense claim. And I don't understand why that is. I 

mean, to my mind, the easy, like, very straightforward 

route and regulation here would be third parties be the 

AG's, legal service organizations can submit a Borrower 

Defense application on behalf of a group and then the 

Department within 180 days or a reasonable time that we 

agree on would decide the Borrower Defense up or down one 

way or the other with without prejudice to individuals 

potentially asserting their own claim with additional 

evidence or evidence or information related to their own 

unique circumstances if the group discharge was denied. 

So those are those are my two big concerns with respect 

to this provision right now. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Josh. Jessica, 

please go ahead. 

MS. BARRY: Sure. So my first 

questions and I'm not an attorney, so I don't know the 

answer to this question, but several stakeholders have 

asked if the Department has authority to group borrowers 
51 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

together. So I was hoping that General Counsel could give 

us some information on that question. And then this is 

where my issue really lies with reliance. So if if 

borrowers are grouped together, some of those borrowers 

might not even know that the misrepresentation happened. 

And so and they might not have relied on it at all. They 

just have some common similarities, and that's why they 

were grouped together. So that's why I would like to see 

that reliance be a part of this. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Jessica. 

Michaela, I see your hand next. 

MS. MARTIN: That reliance piece would 

be incredibly difficult to prove, if not impossible. How 

do I prove to you that I the information that I saw was 

the reason I chose something right? Like this is kind of 

a multifaceted thing and we heard from folks that talked 

about about these about these experiences, right? And I 

think the reliance is a really, really difficult thing to 

prove, especially evidentiary when you talk about it in 

contracts to detrimental reliance. And how do you how do 

you show that like is really what I think it begs the 

question Jessica because how would you propose somebody 

proves whether or not they relied on something that 

internal, you know, processes of reliance is is 

practically impossible to show there. And I think for 
52 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

these group, grouping them up, makes sense because they 

experienced a similar thing. And to acknowledge the how 

do we know if everybody relied on them or not? First, I 

challenge that because I don't think we could know 

anybody actually relied on it, but also that. 

MS. MARTIN: I'm sorry, my words are 

failing me already this morning. Whether or not somebody 

knows that that that they were the victim of a crime, I 

don't think makes it any less necessary for them to be 

able to have a remedy. So like whether or not I know that 

I was defrauded if it comes out that like I was in fact 

lied to and somebody else finds that lie before I become 

aware of it, I still think that that person should be 

should, you know, should be able to have relief for for 

what was done. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Michaela. 

Jennifer, I saw your hand, did you want to speak to one 

of the comments or questions that have come up? 

MS. HONG: Yes, real quickly. I just 

wanted to touch back on Josh's question about broadening 

the group, and we we do understand the desire to do so. 

I'm wondering about an option to offer a path where the 

state continues to bring the request for the group claim 

it can have other organizations be on state sign on. That 

way if there are legal services, legal service 
53 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

organizations that represent a state not covered by an AG 

they could be considered. If we, you know, if we do 

consider a broader set of organization, we just we would 

need to make sure that what's being provided in terms of 

information is sufficient because we want to make sure 

that we are able to consider submissions where there is 

enough evidence submitted for each part of the claim. And 

your other point about the drafting of the regulations, 

again, we're open to suggestions. I think the idea here 

was to kind of clearly delineate the group formation 

process and the adjudication process for better clarity. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Jennifer. Joe, 

please, I see your hand next. 

MR. SANDERS: Yeah. Just to chime in. 

You know, the state AGs are supportive of the concept 

that Legal Aid Groups could join applications that we 

made as just laid out by Jennifer. Jennifer. 

MS. MACK: Thanks, Joe. Josh. 

MR. ROVENGER: Sorry. Just a 

clarifying question on what is the idea I guess, I guess 

what would happen in a state where the state AG is like 

doesn't do this type of work and would never submit a 

borrower (inaudible) in that instance is the idea that 

third parties could initiate them, or it's only in states 

where the AGs are doing it that legal aid organizations 
 

54 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

could sign on? I guess I'm just confused as to the 

proposal. 

MS. HONG: So it's not the state AGs 

that would bring it forward it would be the state with 

the sign on from the respective legal aid organization or 

whatever organization, third party that would like to 

sign on to it. 

MR. ROVENGER: Yeah, I don't I don't 

think we could would be amenable to that because I don't 

think it resolves the problem of states that are not 

interested in doing this type of work and or legal aid 

organizations that, you know, we're in states where AGs 

and legal aid organizations are dividing and conquering, 

trying to do simultaneous work against various bad 

actors. More fundamentally, though, I guess I just don't 

understand the concern for restricting third-party 

organizations. I mean, I understand fully recognize that 

legal aid organizations don't we don't have CID authority 

and so our our investigative tools may not be the same as 

a state. But I think the success in class actions against 

schools and success and class actions against the 

Department of Education at doing the legal aid 

organizations are very, very capable of pursuing relief 

on behalf of classes of borrowers. And again, I'll just 

reiterate that we would not be here today talking about a 
55 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

Borrower Defense process, but for the debt collective and 

legal services attorneys. And so I I'm happy to draft up 

language that resolves both of my problems, but I don't 

think that proposal would do it. 

MS. MACK: Go ahead, Jennifer. 

MS. HONG: So I guess even if so, for 

example, on one state, actually, let me hold off, let me. 

MS. MACK: You sure? No problem, I'll 

move to Bethany next please. 

MS. LILLY: I really just want to echo 

Josh's point here because we are talking about folks who 

are not going to have the easiest time accessing legal 

representation and any type of restrictions on who can 

bring these cases to me is is actively harming borrowers 

and students, and I don't see that as acceptable. I mean, 

we need to give them access to those many tools. And I 

don't entirely understand why the Department would not 

want to include third party third party groups like this 

just doesn't honestly make a ton of sense to me. Like, 

there are other state agencies like the Protection and 

Advocacy Network that serves people with disabilities 

don't bring these cases generally because they leave them 

to legal aid and the AG's, but like to Josh's point, like 

they trade off on what thing people are focusing on and 

like if there's an ADA claim, like, I want my as many 
 

 

56 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

folks to take those cases as I can possibly get because 

they're complicated cases and we need to sort them out. 

And so I also see it as a deterrence for bad actors in 

the system if third party groups can bring cases because 

it discourages them from being bad actors, if you know, 

for instance, they're targeting low income folks who are 

going to go to legal aid when they start having problems. 

That's a good thing. I think that's a very good thing. So 

just to echo Josh on all of this, I'm a little confused 

as to why they aren't included. 

MS. MACK: Justin, please. 

MR. HAUSCHILD: Yeah, and honestly, 

Josh has hit so many of the points that we were going to 

make, so I'm not going to comment on those again. But 

just like Bethany expressed support for those. But I 

think too, you know, this idea that really the only two 

thing that I'm taking in here from the Department in 

terms of why they wouldn't consider third parties, 

especially the legal aid organizations, one that state 

AGs that could do this. I think Josh has given a number 

of reasons why that's not necessarily a great line of 

reasoning, but two, that that they want all the pieces, 

all the necessary elements covered when something is 

filed. And I just I mean, I guess I have faith in the 

legal aid organizations that can make that happen. I 
 

57 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

think they've demonstrated that over the past several 

years. I mean, I don't think maybe I misinterpreted what 

the Department is saying, but I just don't think there's 

a reason to be concerned about legal aid organizations, 

especially being able to get through each one of the 

necessary components of an application or claim here. So 

thank you. 

MS. MACK: Ok, thank you, Bethany and 

Justin, for those comments. Jennifer, let me ask, does 

the Department have enough feedback or what it needs on 

this section for now? 

MS. HONG: Yeah, I think what I'm 

hearing is concern regarding inclusion of other third 

parties exclusively rather than by way of a state 

initiated process. That's what I'm hearing, mostly. I 

don't know other things I haven't, I know that there was 

questions about the drafting and the the the the 

separating out, the identifying the group process. And I 

see Joe's hand up. So yes, I think generally if that's 

what if what I'm hearing is correct. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Jennifer. Joe, 

did you have something to add to that? 

MR. SANDERS: I just want to voice 

some support for some big big picture concepts that have 

been included here that I just want to recognize the 
58 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

Department for. Number one, having a group process, 

again, specifically in here is a really good big picture 

thing. Getting a response, a written decision, I think 

that's really good. The timeframes, I think those are 

good concepts. So I just wanted to voice support for some 

big concepts that are in here as we work through some of 

the finer details. 

MS. MACK: Thank you for that, Joe. 

Alright, I do want to give you a quick break before we 

do. Would a temperature check around section 4.2 be 

helpful to indicate where the group is at now? Jennifer, 

would that be informative for you? 

MS. HONG: Yes. 

MS. MACK: Ok, perfect. Can I then 

just honing you all in on Section 402 group process for 

Borrower Defense? Take a temperature check for tentative 

agreement and see your thumbs? Alright, there are a 

number of thumbs down. Let me ask you, folks, is there 

anything additional to share about what gets you from 

here to here that has not already been identified for the 

benefit of the full group? Jeri, I see your hand. 

MS. O'BRYAN-LOSEE: I mean, I think 

the arguments been made, but the the concept of it just 

seems like by not including legal aid were targeting 

students for are in particular situations who would 
 

59 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

normally go to legal aid for help. And it just seems like 

we're really targeting students for this. 

Thank you for that, Jerry. Any other 

final comments, suggestions on what gets us to here or 

here group? Okay. Todd, did I see your hand? Please. 

MR. DAVIS: Yes, you saw my actual 

hand. 

MS. MACK: Your actual hand, yes, 

thank you. 

MR. DAVIS: Wasn't quick enough on the 

draw there. Maybe for everyone on this third party issue, 

I just want to give you something to think about. You 

know, there's obviously a lot of support for that from 

parts of the group and would be kind of interested to 

think about how the third party. What is the relationship 

between the third party and the students they represent? 

Is there, how would on the legal side, right, I think 

Josh and Joe may have some thoughts on this that are 

probably well formed that we have not considered about 

attorney client privilege with the student, consent from 

the student, what would the students’ rights be if it 

feels like they are not adequately represented, if they 

were to lose their claim? You know, those kind of there's 

some back in things I think we would be interested in 

thinking through here, if, as the Department thinks about 
60 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

this, this item again. So. It's just putting those on 

your radar when we go to break. 

MS. MACK: Thank you for that, Todd. 

Alright. Let's take a break and step away for just a 

moment. I have to 2:27 on my phone does a solid ten 

minutes coming back at 2:37 work for everyone? Ok? I will 

see you at 2:37. Thank you. 

MS. MACK: Welcome back from break 

everyone, I do want to mention that we are getting closer 

and closer to our public comment hour, so I'd encourage 

folks again to log in early. That way, we can get you 

sorted and get through as many folks in that portion of 

our agenda as possible. I am ready to move us into 

Section three individual process for Borrower Defense and 

have Jennifer walk us through that. Before I do, I do see 

a hand. Josh, please go ahead. 

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. I just wanted 

to briefly touch on on Todd's comments and I suspect 

further conversation will be necessary, and I just also 

wanted to flag that I intend to just draft some proposed 

language with authorities for discussion. I'm just very 

big picture, though I actually don't think that the legal 

aid organization or community organizer, or what have 

you, would be acting in any different capacity than the 

state AG or the state itself. In that the application 
61 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

wouldn't necessarily even have to like the application 

for a state initiated process wouldn't even necessarily 

have to have borrowers names listed, it would be for a 

group who attended a specific school at a specific time. 

And so I don't, I guess I don't see the same, I don't see 

any kind of potential legal hurdles with that type of 

framework, particularly if a borrower, if that group 

claim is denied, has the ability to apply based on their 

individual circumstances. And so there's no preclusive 

effect. But I look forward to further discussion on that. 

MS. MACK: Perfect. Thank you, Josh, 

for that. Alright, Jennifer, if I can hand it over to you 

to walk us through 403? 

MS. HONG: Sure. 403.685 .403 is the 

individual process for Borrower Defense. If a group 

formation doesn't apply to an individual borrower, 

individuals can file a BD claim and the process involves 

submission of an application to the Department, providing 

evidence that supports application and to provide 

evidence or other information to the Department upon the 

Department's request. The individual borrowers status 

after we received a complete application package is that 

the Department will designate a Department official. We 

will notify individual borrowers that it will adjudicated 

under the individual process. We will put borrowers in 
 

62 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

forbearance or stopped collection status. Just to note, 

if a borrower is not in default, we place all the 

borrowers loans in forbearance. You'll see our comment 

bubble there. We believe we have to do it for all the 

loans because we may not be able to differentiate those 

loans that were specifically related to the BD claim. We 

will also notify the borrower that they can decline 

forbearance and availability of ICR and IBR. There'll be 

no interest on the borrower's loans for 180 days from 

initial grant of forbearance if we don't make a 

determination on the BD claim. Stop collection, we will 

suspend collection activity on all loans again, all the 

loans until a decision on the BD claim comes through. 

There's no interest on the borrower's loans for 180 days 

from initial grant collection status. If we do not make a 

determination on the BD claim. We will notify the 

borrowers suspension of collection activity. Collection 

activity will not resume until 90 days, 90 days after 

final adjudication of BD claim, and we will also notify 

borrowers of their option to make voluntary rehab 

agreement or repayment agreements, and I will pause their 

discussion. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Jennifer. Please 

raise your hand if you have specific questions or ideas 

around this section, Josh. I saw your hand first. 
 

63 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. So a few 

comments. First, with respect to subsection B or the 

individual process, I know we talked about we discussed 

this issue paper that the application itself constitutes 

a form of evidence. And I'm concerned, I don't, I don't 

think this was the intent, but I'm concerned that by 

separating those two out subsection or romanette II in 

subsection B imposes a requirement of additional evidence 

beyond the application itself. And so I would recommend 

just striking romanette II or putting in some other 

language, clarifying that the application itself can 

constitute sufficient evidence on which to grant a 

Borrower Defense. So that's point one, and point two, in 

subsection D, I guess I still have the same question I 

did when in session one, why interest only stops accruing 

180 days from the application? Just reiterate the point I 

made before that upon the submission of a Borrower 

Defense, a borrower is saying that the loan that they 

have taken out is invalid from the beginning. There's no 

reason that a borrower who is stepping forward and making 

that claim should be subject to any accrual or interest 

while that application is pending. And then number three, 

what I one thing I didn't see in here, which I also 

talked about in the last session, is any remedy to 

address a borrower's harm if the Department unlawfully 
64 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

collects during this forbearance? I don't really feel the 

need right now to walk back through all of the 

circumstances that led to the Department and the prior 

Secretary of Education being held in contempt of court 

for unlawfully collecting on borrowers. But I am 

concerned that just given the structure of the student 

loan system that it is very difficult for the Department 

to ensure that collection is actually in fact stopped. 

And that there needs to be some sort of remedy placed 

into this provision that addresses the real harms that 

borrowers suffer in the event of such an unlawful 

collection. I'm happy if it's helpful to draft specific 

proposed regulatory language on that. But I do think it's 

an important concept that should be incorporated in this 

section. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Josh, for your 

remarks, I would like to acknowledge Carol has joined the 

table on behalf of Proprietary Institutions. Welcome, 

Carol. Daniel, please. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: So I will second 

Josh's comments on the issue of interest. I don't think 

that it's appropriate to charge a student interest while 

the Department is determining whether or not it's a 

legitimate claim. And even if the claim is not determined 

to be legitimate, it still should be a pause in the 
65 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

collection of the loan until that determination is made 

without penalty to the borrower. And I could have just 

said +1 to Josh and moved on, but my concern is I don't 

see similar language mirrored in this section to the 

group process. So my concern would be what's happening to 

the students in the group process? Are they also, I hope, 

subject to these same pauses in their collection and 

payment, but that's not specifically called out in the 

group process. So I wonder if that was an oversight or if 

there is if there can be a reference to those who are 

submitted to the group process under this same pause on 

payment, removing them from default, etc. And Jennifer I 

don't know if you want to comment on that, but it seems 

to be missing from the group process section. 

MS. MACK: If you have an immediate 

response, happy to have it, if not, Daniel if you could 

note that in the chat and I'm happy to return back, 

Jennifer. I see her off off mute. Did you have something? 

MS. HONG: Yeah, yeah the pause 

applies to the group process as well. We just made it 

explicit in this section, but we could do it in both. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Daniel, thank 

you, Jennifer. Bethany, I'd like to move to you. 

MS. LILLY: Isn't Joe ahead of me? 

MS. MACK: I do not have Joe on my 
 

66 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

list ahead of you. 

MS. LILLY: Okay. Well, he he's got 

his hand up ahead of me on my screen, but it may just be 

me. I wanted to ask, Oh, Joe's camera is off, that's why, 

so maybe. 

MS. MACK: I was going to say, I'm not 

seeing Joe even so there, there we go. Joe, I'll get to 

you. Glad you're on screen. Go ahead, Bethany. 

MS. LILLY: So I wanted to tie this 

back to the discussion we had during the Public Service 

Loan Forgiveness piece, especially since all of the 

borrowers loans are getting tied up on this. It seems 

quite conceivable to me that some of those loans might 

not be for the Borrower Defense claim and may be related 

to something else. This is another reason why I would 

encourage the Department to consider forbearance and all 

payments during forbearance as an offer an option for 

counting towards public service loan forgiveness. 

MS. LILLY: And if they're not going 

to go that far to include these payments, you know they 

aren't going to be payments. But those forbearance is in 

this context because I could see those circumstances 

arising and we wouldn't want to say, discourage folks 

from going into, you know, bringing a Borrower Defense 

claim. If, for instance, they, you know, we're worried 
67 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

about what's going to happen to their other loans. So I 

just want to name that as something you guys should be 

thinking about. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Bethany. Carol, 

go ahead. 

MS. COLVIN: Building off of Josh's 

and Daniel's comments, not only to request that there be 

some language added to cease interest accrual and to stop 

all collection attempts, but also to make sure that 

especially due to the length of this process, that no 

matter the outcome, that for these defaulted borrowers, 

that they're not being allowed any additional collection 

fees to be accrued during this time, even if the decision 

is not in favor of the student. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Carol. Jaye and 

then Joe. Jaye, please go ahead. 

MS. O'CONNELL: I think I had a flavor 

of these comments in session one. So all the borrowers 

loans is that intended to cover non direct loans? That 

would be one clarification, as it does today, we do get 

notices of forbearance. And if Pell is included, any kind 

of interest limitation will have implications for Pell 

holders and Pell regulations because we don't have 

subsidized forbearance. 

MS. MACK: Ok, thank you, Jaye. Joe, 
68 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

please go ahead. 

MR. SANDERS: Yeah, just a question 

for the Department, and it could be that I'm missing 

something fundamental here, so that's the case, please 

let me know. What happens to the borrower who makes an 

individual application, is denied, but then a group 

application that would encompass the borrower borrower 

follows post that denial? 

MS. HONG: Well, I would assume that 

that would get picked up by the group process. Could you 

could you talk more about that? 

MR. SANDERS: Yeah. 

MS. HONG: What would happen in terms 

of standing loans? 

MR. SANDERS: Yeah. Well, okay, I'm 

just going to give an example. So, it comes out in July 

of 2018, I think that the art institutes wasn't 

accredited and everybody, you know, is public and 

everybody hears about it, and I'm sure that there was 

like a rush of individual applications in that instance, 

when this news breaks, right? And that's not I'm just 

using this as an example because it's a concrete example, 

but that often happens, right? If there's news of 

something bad happening, you're going to have this 

potential rush of students applying. My office did make a 
69 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

group application, but we took, I mean, probably, under a 

year, so like 10 months or so to gather evidence, put 

together the application and send it over to the 

Department. In that instance, I think all the borrowers 

did get captured. I'm just concerned about what might 

happen in the in the instance where, you know, all the 

evidence isn't necessarily out right away, and if those 

borrowers get denied, are they able to get picked up in 

the group? That's a little more flesh on my concern. 

MS. HONG: Certainly nothing in their 

proposed text precludes that option. In fact, we would 

probably encourage that. And if it's I mean, if it's 

something that the state initiated and brought before us, 

we would we would make the attempt to encompass those 

students that were affected in that claim. 

MR. SANDERS: That's helpful. No, 

that's helpful, thank you. 

MS. MACK: Perfect. Thank you, Joe, 

thank you, Jennifer. Seeing no other hands raised, 

Jennifer, let me ask you before we may do a potential 

temperature check on section 403, does the Department 

need to address anything or hear anything else from the 

committee before we do that? 

MS. HONG: I think what I'm hearing 

under this section is relatively minor. You're right, we 
70 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

did talk about the application itself constituting 

evidence, so I know Josh is proposing to strike some 

language there. I think that is just kind of to ensure 

that if there's any additional evidence or supporting 

information that we would need, that we would be able to 

ensure that the borrower can provide that to us. And then 

I also heard that the concerns about the 180 days. But, 

just to review. 

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you for that, 

Jennifer. Joe, I saw your hand, is it something 

additional to share? Okay. Bobby, I saw your hand go up 

and down, did you have something before we get to this 

temperature check? Okay. And Josh, I now see your hands 

something before we do this temp check on 403. 

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks and just so it's 

not just because it was encapsulated in that summary. 

Also, the concern about unlawful collections during 

during a period of forbearance while the application is 

being considered. 

MS. MACK: Thank you for that, Josh. 

Alright, let's take a temperature check for tentative 

agreement on section 403, individual process for Borrower 

Defense. Please let me see your funds again just on this 

particular section. And hold them up there so that we can 

all see. Okay. I think I see one thumb down. If I missed 
71 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

you, please let me know. Jaye, if you could speak to why 

you are down and what potentially would get you to at 

least a sideways thumb, that would be helpful. 

MS. O'CONNELL: So I put my question 

in the chat that I raised earlier, I think it's just 

understanding if we're if we have to offer subsidized 

forbearance, like how does that work and and does it 

include foul, or not? Actually, that's the first question 

and then if if Pell is included, how that interest 

limitation will work? 

MS. HONG: But if it's excluded, then 

you're not a thumbs-down. 

MS. O'CONNELL: Right. 

MS. MACK: Perfect. Thanks for talking 

us through that, Jaye and Jennifer. Great. I'm going to 

move us on to the next section. This is Section 404 group 

process based on prior material final actions. Jennifer, 

could you walk us through this piece? 

MS. HONG: Sure. You may recall we 

talked about this during session one. This is a new 

process that we are introducing a group process based on 

prior secretarial final actions. And so for purposes of 

the Department forming a group, we may consider final 

actions, including final program review determinations. 

And failure to meet administrative capability that relate 
72 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

to the provision of educational services, loss of 

eligibility due to high CDR, fines, limitations, 

suspension, emergency actions related to misrep, 

aggressive recruitment, omission of facts, and other 

Department final actions. I guess it's kind of 

characterized as a fast track option if the group is 

formed under this fast track option. There's already an 

institutional response built into the final program 

review determination or the final audit determination. So 

again, the institutional response process would not apply 

in this circumstance. And we welcome any other discussion 

on on final actions by the Department for group process. 

It could include other future actions that we have not 

taken. We have some, you know, we do have another table 

that we're going to be negotiating gainful employment, so 

it could include future actions such as such as those as 

well, so I open this up to discussion. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Jennifer. 

Daniel, please go ahead. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: So listen, I am all 

for lots of regulations and more regulations, the better. 

That's a joke for my fellow negotiators. So my only 

question, Jennifer, is but why the need to call this out 

separately other than and maybe you answered it in terms 

of the fact that there is no institutional response. It 
 

73 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

would seem to me this would fall under what's already 

defined under group processes. So I'm just trying to get 

a better understanding of what the intention is because 

the undersecretary initiated federal group initiated 

group process that includes actions by the Federal 

Government. And wouldn't these be actions by the Federal 

Government? Or does there need to be a specific out in 

this section other than the institutional response 

already having been provided in whatever the final action 

is? 

MS. HONG: Right. You are correct, it 

could be encompassed under the general language we have 

under 402 and that would be less verbiage. We did want to 

make explicit since we have not relied on these final 

actions. Before we just wanted to make that explicit that 

we would be looking at program reviews. And to your point 

that if since there's already an institutional response 

built into that process, that this fast track process 

would not require an institutional response. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: And I appreciate that, 

and it may be that, in fact, I don't have any issue with 

calling out the specific examples. Again, I'm just trying 

to understand, I support, in fact, using these specific 

examples as triggering events to take group action. I 

just I'm trying to understand the rationale for writing a 
74 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

separate subsection. And again, as opposed to just 

enumerating them under what might be considered federal 

action. But I'm open to it either way, if it may, if it's 

clarity you're after and that's the goal. I understand 

it. I'm just trying to get a sense of what the rationale 

is. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Daniel, thank 

you, Jennifer. I want to welcome back Jessica to the 

table on behalf of her constituency group. Josh, please 

go ahead. 

MR. ROVENGER: Sure, and I think this 

may get a Daniel's point, I think, to give this real 

teeth and meaning. I think, or it would be helpful to 

understand why the Department has this as a may consider 

rather than a shall consider for the Department official. 

Because if, so, the Department of Education is one of the 

key oversight bodies for schools. If the Department makes 

a determination that the school has acted improperly in 

such a way that it would implicate the same standards 

that are ultimately adopted for a Borrower Defense 

application, it doesn't make sense to me why the 

Department shouldn't have the obligation at that point to 

say, okay, we made these findings against the school, now 

we have to see if groups of borrowers are entitled to a 

group discharge as a result of those findings. And so I 
 

75 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

think I would continue to urge the Department because 

it's regulating the Department official to make that a 

mandatory consideration for final actions that relate to 

section 685.401 B, rather than just keeping it in this 

discretionary way. 

MS. HONG: Just to respond to Josh, 

that the concern is the “may” and the “shall”, but not 

the idea of explicitly providing this process. 

MR. ROVENGER: Correct. So we're very 

much in favor of including this specific provision of the 

regulation. It's just the may versus shall language. 

MS. MACK: Thanks, Josh. and Jennifer, 

for clarifying that. I want to welcome Suzanne Martindale 

for State Regulators and now I'll move to you, Joe. 

MR. SANDERS: Thanks. I put my 

question in the chat earlier, but would this be 

retroactive in terms of, would the Department be able to 

go back and rely on old actions, final actions, to 

discharge loans? 

MS. HONG: You mean, Well, this whole 

section, applicability of these sections are for loans 

that have been received on or after July 1st, 2023 of 

those pending before the Secretary. Does that answer your 

question? 

MR. SANDERS: Yeah, so I mean, I'll 
 

76 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

give a specific example. The Department withdrew title 

for eligibility from a school in Illinois, the Computer 

Systems Institute. They made a 12 page finding that the 

school had falsified job placement rates by sort of 

making up employers out of whole cloth and you know, I 

have complaints from students that attended that school 

during that time period, we'd love to see the Department 

take action and I certainly believe that what the school 

did would justify discharge. Certainly under these 

regulations, and so I know that we've been considering 

retroactivity. For other pieces of this as to the 

students loans and so, you know, to the extent that 

that's been done in other areas, I would encourage the 

Department to do that here as well. 

MS. MACK: Okay. Thank you, Joe. 

Jessica, please. 

MS. BARRY: Sure, I just have a 

clarifying question. So does the Department intend to use 

more minor compliance findings like miscalculating in 

R2T4 to support a claim? 

MS. MACK: Any immediate response to 

the Department? If not, I can ask Jessica to place that 

point of clarification in the chat. 

MS. HONG: Yeah, no immediate response 

other than what we are having, we provide some kind of 
 

77 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

illustrative examples in the proposed rent tax. 

MS. MACK: Okay. Thank you, Jessica, 

thank you, Jennifer. Daniel, I see your hand. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: Thank you, and I'm 

going to speak. I'm going to clarify or provide context 

as well to what Jessica just said. My concern about this 

particular now that I look at it, sub1 actions arising 

from a final program review or a final audit 

determination. Sometimes those can be substantive and 

significant, and sometimes they can be minor and 

illustrative of a particular mistake. So, for example, 

NSLDS enrollment reporting, which is one of the most 

common errors that is cited in program review regulations 

and audit determinations. And specifically, it's an issue 

of timing reporting within, not within the 30 days as 

required, but 35 days or 36 days that could and does come 

up on final program review and final audit 

determinations. I would be hard pressed to suggest that 

the delay in reporting is the grounds for Borrower 

Defense to Repayment or the mistake in (inaudible) 

calculation. Or I could go on and on and on because the 

text is so complicated and the administration of Title IV 

aid, I don't think the intention here is to use that as 

grounds. So, you know, perhaps there needs to be some 

clarity about the seriousness of the issue. And having 
78 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

gone through this, I'll give you another example. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: At my institution, we 

received a final audit determination around delay in 

returning funds that were (inaudible) funds to the 

Department. We were trying to get them to the students, 

they were funds the students deserved and were refunded 

to the students. Students didn't cash them in a timely 

manner. And so as a result, we continue to try to contact 

students to get them to have a chance to actually deposit 

those checks. They were their funds, but we ran afoul of 

the Department's timeframe. So under the way this is 

written, that would be or could be, especially if again, 

my concern here in concert to Josh's comment that it 

should be shall not may. If we move to a shall language, 

then a final order determination would in fact lead to a 

group process. And I don't know, you're shaking your head 

no, Josh, so clarity would be helpful here. I appreciate 

that. So, you know, again, I have concerns, significant 

concerns about shall in concert with what can be a very 

trivial, not that it's not important, but a very trivial 

finding that isn't necessarily directly related to 

student well-being in a particular example. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, David. Or 

Daniel, excuse me, Jennifer, please, I saw your hand and 

then Josh, I'll get to you. 
79 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

MS. HONG: Just real quickly for 

Jessica and Daniel, remember, everything in here must 

relate directly to the federal standard that we discuss 

under 401 B. So I think that takes care of your concerns. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: Thank you. I 

appreciate that. 

MS. MACK: Josh, I'm guessing that 

addressed what you were going to share, did you have 

anything additional? 

MR. ROVENGER: No, that's exactly what 

I was going to say. 

MS. MACK: And someone else's hand 

went down, too. So maybe that was crystallized that for 

you, too, Justin? Okay. Alright. Then seeing no other 

hands. Let me check in quickly with Jennifer. Anything 

else? The Department was hoping to get feedback on or 

discuss in this section before I would move us to a 

temperature check. 

MS. HONG: Nope. 

MS. MACK: Perfect. Alright, thank you 

all for the discussion. In terms of section 404, group 

process here, based on those final actions, can I please 

see your thumbs? And hold them up there. Okay, thank you, 

that's informative. I believe everyone is either side or 

up for that particular section. Let's move on to 405, 
 

80 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

Institutional Response, Jennifer, can I turn it over to 

you? 

MS. HONG: Sure. Let me just get 

myself--. Institutional Response-- So briefly, the 

Department official notifies the school of the basis of 

the BD claim and requests a response from the school. And 

the notification, the Department's notification waives 

any limitation period under which the Department may 

recover from the school. We request a response within 60 

days and an affidavit signed that information is true and 

correct under penalty of perjury. Again, we talked about 

this during session one, but if there's no response, the 

Department shall presume the school does not contest what 

the borrower is alleging. I open that up to discussion. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Jennifer, for 

walking us through that. Any questions, ideas, comments 

from the committee on section 405? Misty, please. 

MS. SABOUNEH: Just to clarify, so I 

agree, we want to get responses out quickly as possible, 

does the 60 days refer to individual and group claims as 

it's written today? It does, okay. But 

MS. MACK: Thank you for the question, 

Misty. Any others? And you know what's coming? I'm going 

to ask for a temperature check on just section 405 but 

Joe jumped in there just in time, please. Joe, go ahead. 
81 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

MR. SANDERS: Yeah, so, with is the 

institutional response the only way that the Department 

can gather evidence from a school regarding a Borrower 

Defense application? 

MS. HONG: You mean, in addition to 

what we just described with the fast track, the group 

process--,? I mean, we built in that process so that we 

could use information, not that we could use, that we 

could always use it to make explicit our use of that 

information that the Secretary has on hand. You're saying 

anything is in addition from that? 

MR. SANDERS: Right. So let's say you 

get a, you get an application and you want to, could you 

subpoena the school and say give us this information? Or 

is the only way that you can get information through an 

institutional response? 

MS. HONG: I'm going to defer that to 

our--and we can even, if you want to come back to it 

Todd. 

MS. MACK: I saw this motion, Todd. 

Does that mean we can circle back to it later? Okay. 

Alright. Thanks for the question, Joe. Alright, based on 

that dialog 405, can I please see your thumbs to indicate 

a temperature check for tentative agreement around this 

single section? Hold them up there high for me to see 
 

 

82 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

everyone. Appreciate it. Okay, I believe I've captured 

everyone as a thumbs up or a sideways thumb, so no thumbs 

down on section 405, as is. I'm going to move us 

immediately into 406 and turn it over to you, Jennifer. I 

just want to take this opportunity, though, to remind 

folks who have signed up for public comments, to please 

start accessing the meeting via the link they were 

provided in logging in so we make sure you are ready to 

roll at that time. Jennifer, will you walk us through 

406? 

MS. HONG: Yes, and you know, maybe 

this would be a good time to jump back to the language 

that Joe provided in terms of the compromise with the 

state standard. So Vanessa, that would be that document 

that we used earlier on aggressive recruitment with the 

first paragraph being the violation of state law. I want 

to be sure that we come back to here. So this section is, 

section 4, section 685.406, proposed, walks us through 

the adjudication of Borrower Defense applications. We had 

talked during session one about ensuring that we have a 

strong federal standard because that makes the process, 

the adjudication process, much more streamlined for 

borrowers and to kind of cut down on the time that it 

might take to be in the queue. 

MS. HONG: So during the intervening 
83 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

weeks, we had some back and forth with state AGs to find 

a way to kind of capture a circumstance where, which we 

now conceive would be very limited, given our inclusion, 

proposed inclusion of, you know, misrep, the aggressive 

recruitment and all the elements that a robust state 

standard might also include. However, we wanted to, just 

to be sure that we grab everything, this is the the 

process that Joe described-- is something that they've 

proposed in the event that a borrower or group of 

borrowers is denied initially for full relief under the 

federal standard. So Joe summarized it well earlier, but 

basically states would need to submit, submit the 

application, for example, from (inaudible) and or 

individuals, but also include the state standard that 

they're alleging was violated. Did you have anything else 

to add to that, Joe? So I guess we haven't, we're just 

teeing that up because this section on adjudication is 

pertinent to this proposal. And it is not currently 

included in 406. So I just want you to kind of think 

about this and have in the back of your mind as we go 

through section 406. 

MS. MACK: Thanks for teeing that up, 

Jennifer, I'd remind everyone that that language is on 

that two page document, I also want to welcome Greg to 

the table for Dependent Students. Joe, please go ahead. 
84 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

MR. SANDERS: I'll be very brief 

because I spoke on this earlier. I think the meat of the 

proposal here is in subsection A. And it allows the 

Department, for the borrower, what it does, is it gives 

them a path to state standard review that doesn't require 

reapplication. But it allows the Department to only 

consider the state standard if, in fact, they've already 

denied under the federal standard. So again, trying to 

balance the interests of borrowers with the 

administrative capacity that the Department needs in 

order to adjudicate these in a timely manner. We think it 

does a good job of that, and we'd ask for people's 

support on this proposal. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Joe. Daniel, 

please. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: I am generally 

supportive of this Joe, and I appreciate the clarity and 

information-- where I'm, where I'm stuck a little is in 

the addition of the clause that relates to the making of 

the loan for enrollment at the school. So this introduces 

a new set of standards that I don't believe is anywhere 

else in Borrower Defense to Repayment. So far, we've 

talked about provision of educational services and that 

includes misrepresentation and aggressive recruitment and 

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So I need to understand 
85 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

a little more what the rationale to the language as 

indicated that relates to the making of the loan for 

enrollment at the school refers to that wouldn't 

otherwise be covered by the provision of educational 

services. 

MR. SANDERS: We pulled this directly 

from the 2016 rule in an attempt to use an existing 

standard. It's not perfect from my point of view either, 

but we're trying to get some language that everybody can 

agree with. If there's something that we missed here or 

if the language from 2016 has now changed in this latest 

issue paper, I'm happy to consider changes that would 

conform to what the other proposals on the table. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: If if you're willing, 

I would suggest striking that clause so relates to the go 

from attended by the school that relates to the provision 

of educational services because otherwise I don't again, 

Jennifer, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any 

other reference to making of the loan anywhere else in 

the document. 

MS. HONG: Yeah, I think all that that 

clause was intended to convey was the loan, the federal 

direct loan that was taken to, you know, avail themselves 

of the provision of the educational services, that's it's 

just meant to be very clear that that was the purpose of 
86 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

the loan. I don't think there's a whole lot more to it, 

but your point is well taken that it's a lot of words. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: Well, and it 

introduces a concept that is not defined anywhere else in 

the statute or the regulation. So I'm just I'm trying to 

understand. The making of the loan could include the 

signing of the promissory note, the provision of entrance 

counseling, the, you know, all of the filing of the 

FAFSA. So all of that is regarded to making of the loan, 

you know, is the intention to include all of those 

processes as an act or omission or is, is again the 

intention to drive to the provision of educational 

services, which is what we've so far discussed. 

MS. MACK: Todd, I saw you came off 

mute, did you have something you wanted to add? 

MR. DAVIS: Just echoing what Jennifer 

said there that I don't think we thought about it that 

way, but we will, the point is well taken, Daniel, that 

we may have vertically, you know, introduce something we 

didn't intend to, so we will reconsider that, at least. 

MS. MACK: Ok, thank you, Daniel, 

Jennifer and Todd. Joe, I see your hand. 

MR. SANDERS: Yeah, that phrase does 

appear in the current proposal. It's 685.401 section (a) 

(2), the definition of a Borrower Defense to Repayment. 
87 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

MR. BARKOWITZ: Thanks for that. 

Again, maybe it's just a question that that has not yet 

been defined in any of the conversation. 

MS. HONG: Yeah, thank you for that 

point. I think it is intentional, and I think it's just 

again, I don't think it's anything more than to convey 

that is within the scope of the provisions governing the 

direct loan program. That's it. 

MS. MACK: Okay, thanks for the 

clarification, Jennifer. Justin, then I see your hand. 

MR. HAUSCHILD: Yeah, it's going to be 

quick, I don't think it probably matters one way or 

another here, I mean entirely, I think I just don't think 

it probably matters, but I will just say, I mean, it's 

our understanding that misrepresentations or omissions 

along any number of the lines or items, again, you 

mentioned very well may be, you know, a part of the 

Borrower Defense process here. Again, considering the 

fact that we don't have not non-exhaustive list, so the 

fact that we're talking about the making of a loan and 

misrepresentations or omissions with regard to that, I'm 

not entirely sure. I think it's not. I think it's 

probably all wrapped up one way or the other. So I don't 

know how much matter, but thanks. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Justin Heather. 
88 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

MS. PERFETTI: I just wanted to add 

here, although it may not necessarily be most relevant 

here the question about communication with the 

institutions and creditor if there are state laws that 

are being incorporated into Borrower Defense, in 

particular violations of state law. That is one of the 

areas that a creditors should be informed about, as it 

also applies to the standards and expectations that a 

creditors have. And that's a separate kind of 

consideration and potential action above and beyond the 

borrower's defense provisions for students. So I just 

wanted to mention that if there were some specific 

provisions directing notification to the creditor, that 

that could be helpful somewhere, if not here. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Heather. And 

Joe. 

MR. SANDERS: I just want to make one 

point about state law and what's captured in the federal 

standard, as we have it now. First of all, you know, we 

want to thank the Department for having state law in 

here, period, we think that that big concept is great and 

we're just trying to refine that. Number two, to 

Jennifer's point about, making a more robust federal 

standard, a couple of things that are not currently 

included in the federal standard, and I've shared some of 
89 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

this with the Department state law and fairness claims. 

These are claims that my office and other offices have 

often used when litigating and investigating violations 

of state law. Some of the examples we provided were 

schools that will make loss later loans that they know 

the student will default on in order to get the federal 

dollars. And we think that there's a nexus there around 

the federal money that makes it that an applicable 

Borrower Defense. That's not really considered the 

federal standard right now. The definition of omission, 

I'm going to be talking with my constituency today at 

4:00 Eastern around some of this, but you know, for an 

example, we talked about state that the use of knowingly, 

we don't think that that's the sort of the highest state 

law standard possible regarding an omission. So the more 

that, the closer the access we can bring students to 

these claims, you know, we think we're capturing some 

important student protections. So just for my take on 

where we are vis a vis the the federal standard and what 

all isn't that right now. 

MS. MACK: Go ahead, Heather, please. 

MS. PERFETTI: Thank you, if I could 

just ask a logistical question with regard to the group 

process, if in that group there are borrowers from 

multiple states. How does the state law provision apply? 
90 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

MR. SANDERS: Jennifer, do you want me 

to address that or do you want to address it or? 

MS. MACK: If you have some thoughts 

Joe, to go ahead. 

MR. SANDERS: Yeah, so I think if 

we're talking about a group process. There's there's two 

ways to look at it, and we've presented both of these 

ways to the Department in existing group applications, 

so. One way to look at it is the State has a claim. Where 

the parents, (inaudible), we have the power to get 

restitution for borrowers, and so we have that, right. My 

jurisdiction would be Illinois borrowers. And so it 

wouldn't necessarily capture a borrower from Vermont, 

which pertains to what the Department and Josh were 

talking about with group claims for legal aid 

organizations that could, you know, if Josh represents 

borrowers in Ohio and I've got an application out there 

and he says, Oh, well, this happened in Ohio, too, and he 

wants to jump out of that, that would capture some of 

that. The other way to look at it, and I don't know, 

maybe Todd can shine some light on this as to the 

Department's position on this, but the other way to look 

at it is that it's not the state's claim, but it's the 

borrowers claim themselves. And those are two different 

things under most state law. And so there, if I had the 
91 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

evidence that, you know, borrowers in Cleveland had been 

harmed by this process, it's conceivable that the 

Department interpret the evidence that I submitted to, 

even though I'm from Illinois and my jurisdiction. 

Illinois, if they interpret it as an individual claim 

that those borrowers could be wrapped in. I'm just not 

sure where the Department stands on that on that question 

right now. 

MS. MACK: Is there an immediate 

response or will we need to circle back to that piece 

later in the conversation? 

MS. HONG: We can take that back. 

MS. MACK: Okay. Thank you, Jennifer. 

We are just a couple of moments from public comment. So 

in terms of looking at 406, Jennifer, anything else that 

we need to chat about there so the Department has what it 

needs on this section? 

MS. HONG: So we'll pick up on there 

so that we just started with the state standard piece, 

but we still need to review everything under 

adjudication. I'm sure there will be a discussion 

regarding that piece. 

MS. MACK: We still have a couple of 

minutes. Would you like to walk us through any of those 

pieces? And Todd I see your hand's raised. 
92 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

MR. DAVIS: I just want to go back to 

right at the end, if I could, just to try to clean up. 

I'm not, we will come back, Joe, on that last piece I 

think that's important and Heather there. But the 

question earlier about what can we do about what's our 

sort of power to get force institutional responses? We 

were all we were on the right track there. In the past, 

we requested such responses, but we did not really have 

the authority to force the responses. The Department 

itself, aside from the inspector general, does not have 

subpoena power in that in that way. Obviously, there's 

always a program review, but that's considerably longer 

than 60 days. So just wanted to make sure I think that 

Daniel, I don't know where that exactly came from back a 

little while ago, but just wanted to revisit that a 

little bit. 

MS. MACK: Ok, thank you, Todd. So 

anything else on 406 to be helpful for us to just quickly 

touch upon before we move into public comments? 

MS. HONG: Yeah maybe, maybe we should 

save this for tomorrow and start off with it since it'll 

take me a minute to go through it. 

MS. MACK: Sure. So we will pick up 

then with section 406 first thing in the morning, work 

ourselves through Borrower Defense and then we'll be 
 

93 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

moving on to issue number nine, Pre Dispute Arbitration. 

Alright, I'm going to once again invite those who have 

signed up for and been confirmed and the waiting list of 

public comment to please start logging in because we only 

have a few folks logged in thus far. And so I believe we 

are right on time. Brady, I'm going to ask that you admit 

our first individual so that we can begin our public 

comment portion. 

MR. ROBERTS: Sure. I'm admitting this 

Andrea Smith, who's here representing Legal Services 

Center at Harvard Law School. 

MS. MACK: Alright. Welcome Miss 

Smith. 

MS. SMITH: Hello, sorry, I wasn't 

sure if I had my mute on or off, I apologize. 

MS. MACK: We can hear you now. If 

you'd like to turn on your camera, you are welcome to do 

so that we can see you. If not, that's okay too. But as 

soon as you begin, your three minutes starts. 

MS. SMITH: Alright. Well, my name is 

Andrea Smith, I have been in the process with Borrower 

Defense for almost three years. Well, actually just over 

three years, I think. It's been a grueling process, it's 

been hard, it's been frustrating. I applied. Uh. Received 

it, received almost no communication for a long time, and 
94 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

then when I did get communication this year, April of 

this year, I was told that I 100 percent was approved for 

discharge and that the tax returns that had been taken 

from me to pay those loans would be refunded. That still 

hasn't happened, I was told October, and that still has 

not happened. When I do call Borrower Defense, they told 

me to call my loan, my loan servicer, my loan servicer, 

then who is supposed to represent Department of 

Education, at least that's my understanding, then tells 

me the call back to the Borrower Defense. So there's 

there's a strong lack of communication, unfortunately, 

and it's frustrating not really getting any answers or 

being directed to call a bunch of different places. 

MS. SMITH: You know, I'm a mom of 

five, I have a granddaughter, I work full time as an 

administrator in my company. You know, I have a lot to 

do. So my my frustration comes in this has turned into 

full time work almost trying to contact someone just to 

get information. So that's probably been my biggest 

frustration with the Borrower Defense situation. I went 

to school, I went to Everest Institute, which is one of 

the Corinthian Colleges. In an attempt to further my 

education, I'd been doing medical career for a long time 

and wanted to move up and move further, I thought this 

would be a great opportunity. I also wanted to being a 
 

 

95 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

single mom for a long time, I wanted to show my kids that 

it's never too late to go back to school and get an 

education and, you know, get get ahead in life and have 

that education, which I still absolutely fully believe 

in. I just I want my kids to do better than I did 

MS. MACK: You have 30 seconds, Ms. 

Smith. 

MS. SMITH: Thank you. For so many 

reasons. And unfortunately, this process has been very 

frustrating. And you know, my family sees that and it 

puts the sour mouth in everybody or puts a sour taste in 

everybody's mouth. 

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you for your 

public comment today. 

MS. MACK: Brady? 

MR. ROBERTS: I'm admitting Jarrod 

Thoma, who's here today representing himself, 

MS. MACK: Alright, Mr. Thoma, can you 

hear me? 

MR. THOMA: Yes, can you hear me? 

MS. MACK: We can if you would like to 

turn on your camera, you are more than welcome to do so. 

Otherwise, as soon as you begin speaking, you'll have 

three minutes. 

MR. THOMA: Alright, thank you. Good 
96 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

afternoon. My name is Jarrod Thoma, I'm a veteran of the 

U.S. Army in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Thank you for 

the opportunity to offer my testimony today. I'm here to 

tell you why from my own experience the United States 

Government needs to regulate bad schools that take 

federal taxpayer dollars like the GI Bill. I earned my 

education through years of service and sacrifice during 

my enlistment. After my discharge from the Army, I was 

eager to pursue my lifelong passion for electronics by 

earning a degree in engineering. With that in mind, I 

decided to enroll in DeVry University. After my 

enrollment at DeVry, it didn't take long for me to 

realize that this for-profit college was failing to 

deliver on many of the promises recruiters had made to 

me. In particular after transferring from one DeVry 

campus to another, it became clear to me that the school 

was implementing cost saving measures that negatively 

impacted the quality of education being delivered. I saw 

that the quality of course materials and equipment used 

for instruction were subpar and not as advertised, and 

that the standards varied from branch to branch. And I 

realize the dramatic reduction in quality I learned in my 

professors and then school staff members. Although DeVry 

was more than happy to cash in and all my GI Bill 

benefits, my complaints about the quality of materials 
97 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

and instructions fell on deaf ears. When I tried to 

transfer, I was told by both public university and 

community college that they would accept only my general 

education credits, even though the variety stated that 

their credits would transfer. As I was starting to 

accumulate debt, including $52000 in additional student 

loans, I made a decision to complete my engineering 

degree at DeVry. 

MR. THOMA: However, upon entering the 

job market, I quickly found a degree from a for-profit 

college was not worth the paper is printed on and it 

actually hurt my job prospects. Through hard work and a 

little luck, I was finally able to secure an engineering 

position after two and a half years. Given these 

challenges, along with many of the other hurdles that 

veterans already face, I cannot stress enough the need 

for regulatory protections for not just military 

connected students, but all students for predatory 

practices by these terrible education corporations posing 

as colleges and universities. Not long after I graduated 

from DeVry with what turned out to be a worthless degree, 

subpar training, other bad schools went bankrupt and left 

other students and veterans in even worse spots than 

myself. Education companies like ITT Technical Institute 

and Corinthian were run into the ground despite having 
98 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

taken millions of taxpayer dollars. This shows the need 

for regulations to protect students like myself from 

lies, fraud, predatory recruiting, and marketing tactics. 

MS. MACK: You have 30 seconds. 

MR. THOMA: While my loans have been 

placed in forbearance, they still have a financial 

burden. This is not the position I envisioned myself or 

my family after serving this country and sacrificing to 

earn my benefits. If you want to support men and women in 

uniform, I ask that you take a hard look at schools like 

the DeVry that takes taxpayer dollars, including veteran 

benefits, but don't deliver on the quality of education 

that is promised. Thank you for your time. 

MS. MACK: Thank you. 

MS. MACK: Brady, who are we bringing 

in next? 

MR. ROBERTS: I'm admitting Mr. Chris 

Glock, who's here representing himself. 

MS. MACK: Welcome, Mr. Glock, can you 

hear me? 

MR. GLOCK: Yes, I can thank you. 

MS. MACK: Perfect. 

MR. GLOCK: Can you hear me? 

MS. MACK: We can hear you loud and 

clear if you're comfortable with it, you can come on 
 

99 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

camera. If not, that's okay, too, but you'll have three 

minutes as soon as you start your comment. Please proceed 

when you're ready. 

MR. GLOCK: Okay, sounds good, thank 

you. Good afternoon, my name is Chris Glock and I'm a 

veteran from Colorado. I joined the Marine Corps 

following 9/11 and I served as an intelligence analyst. 

After leaving the service, I fell in love with the 

restaurant industry and the person that it allowed me to 

become. For years, I managed restaurants in Hawaii and 

Las Vegas, but eventually I found myself back home in 

Colorado, where I decided to combine my analytical skills 

along with my passion for the restaurant industry and my 

love for computers. My goal to design it excuse me to 

design a universal, easy to use system for the small mom 

and pop restaurants that are often left behind in the 

technological world. So I enrolled in ITT Tech using my 

GI Bill. I was about a year and a half into my computer 

programing degree, when the school closed abruptly 

interrupting my study and causing me to reconsider my 

future. At this point, however, my benefits were nearing 

their expiration and after taking time to consider my 

options, I eventually decided to enroll in Colorado 

Technical University in 2019. I was told that I would 

learn all that I needed to know about getting a computer 
100 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

programing job, that I would be able to design websites 

and understand programing languages. For the first few 

semesters, everything seemed okay and I thought I made 

the right decision. But then came the online courses and 

I found that the classes were low quality. I was often 

doing so YouTube videos and not really being taught 

anything of substance. Although I experienced these 

issues, 

MR. GLOCK: I stuck with it because my 

benefits were expiring, and I genuinely thought that I 

would bring it all together at some point. I graduated in 

September of 2021 and I have not been able to get a job 

in my field and the school has provided me with no career 

counseling at all. I don't know what they were talking 

about when they promised me that recruitment, but it is 

completely non-existent. I was also told that my GI Bill 

would cover all of the tuition for the program and I 

would have nothing to pay out of pocket. However, I was 

charged various fees that were not covered by the GI 

Bill, including extra fees for taking classes online 

during COVID. Because of these additional fees, I am left 

with bills for thousands of dollars for YouTube videos 

and online course materials that I can no longer access. 

They promise me so much just to get me in the door, and 

none of it was true. The sad part in all of this is that 
101 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

looking back, even even ITT Tech took care of their 

students in the school's final moments. However, 

unfortunately with college, there is no money back 

guarantee and transferring schools become slightly 

complex. CTU not only wasted the governments money and my 

time but they destroyed my passion to achieve my ultimate 

goal. Now I'm left with bills, a worthless degree and an 

uncertain road ahead. I just wanted to share my story 

with the committee to ensure student veterans like me are 

considered during this process. Thank you for your time. 

MS. MACK: Thank you for your comments 

today. 

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, I'm admitting 

Ms. Kyra Hahn, who is the founder of the group Librarian 

4 PSLF. 

MS. MACK: Ms. Hahn, welcome. Ms. Hahn 

welcome, can you hear me? 

MS. HAHN: Yes, I can hear you. Can 

you hear me? 

MS. MACK: We can hear and see you, 

you have three minutes for your public comment. 

MS. HAHN: Okay, thank you. Thank you 

for the opportunity to speak with you all today about 

student loan for student loans and affordability. The 

comments that I have are one of the things I would like 
102 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

to see is a definitive ruling on the full time work 

requirement of 30 to 40 hours. Earlier in the program, it 

was promoted as 30 or more hours, but some employers 

their definition between full time and part time 

benefited vary depending upon the market. And in some 

instances, there are reports of employers declining to 

sign off on paperwork. So I would like to see a 

definitive ruling on that. Secondly, I would like to 

request that repayment calculations for income based 

repayment plans be based solely on borrower income. 

Currently, they are based on household income, and that 

artificially inflates the repayment, for women, for 

married borrowers, particularly for those that are trying 

to participate in PSLF because not everyone in the 

household works in public service. And so that's 

artificially inflating the repayment amounts that are 

given to those that do work in public service. 

MS. HAHN: Additionally, I would like 

for an interest rate cap to be considered. In a lot of 

instances for borrowers that hold student loans, you're 

seeing situations where the interest is exceeding the 

initial amount that was borrowed. And so I think that 

there's a lot of room for improvement on that where a cap 

should be instituted once it meets or exceeds the amount 

that was borrowed. Also, I would like to add a comment in 
103 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

relation to Parent PLUS Loans. Right now, I feel like a 

lot of the policy or improvements that have been 

released, including with the recent PSLF waiver are kind 

of piecemeal and I would like to see that process 

simplified. And then lastly, on the new PSLF waiver you 

have, it has been asked that borrowers provide proof of 

qualifying employment with supplemental bylaws and 

letters from employers. If someone has multiple 

employers, I have concerns about the upload limits for 

those documents. I can tell you for certain that at my 

current employer that I am at now. 

MS. MACK: It's time, Ms. Hahn. Thank 

you for your comment. 

MS. HAHN: Okay, 500 pages, one 

upload. I don't think we have capacity for that. 

MS. MACK: Thank you. Brady, who are 

we moving to next? 

MR. ROBERTS: I'm admitting 

Representative Alma Adams, representing North Carolina's 

12th Congressional District. 

MS. MACK: Alright. It looks like we 

are working on connecting to audio. Representative Adams, 

can you hear me? 

MS. ADAMS: Yes, can you hear me? 

MS. MACK: We can hear you and see 
 

104 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

you, yes ma'am. You have three minutes, please proceed. 

MS. ADAMS: Thank you very much. I'm 

Congresswoman Alma Adams, and I proudly represent the 

12th Congressional district of North Carolina. Student 

borrowers need to be protected. No individual should be 

penalized with crushing debt for seeking higher education 

opportunities, and no service or institution of higher 

education should be preying on student loan borrowers. At 

the outset, let me say, I want to Be clear that I am 

Distinguishing good faith actors in the higher education 

space from predatory actors. I understand that many 

institutions and services are working with students on 

pathways forward to help manage their student loans, and 

I commend them for doing that. But when it comes to 

services, in September 20121 the Department of Education 

reversed the previous education Secretary's notice to 

loan services, and this notice stated that state laws 

which protect borrowers from services to false and 

misleading practices were preempted by The Higher 

Education Act, and that the loan servicers did not have 

to respond to questions raised by state enforcement 

agencies. And so in its recent announcement, the 

Department of Education clarified that HEA does not 

prevent states from holding servicers accountable if they 

mislead and harm borrowers and colleges who defraud 
 

105 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

students must be held accountable for their actions. For 

Title IV funds that have been paid out to these 

institutions must be recouped when these institutions 

close.so both student borrowers and the taxpayers are 

made whole. Student loan borrowers who have been 

defrauded by college or university Or career 

schools must have the option to petition for forgiveness 

of these loans. We acted swiftly through legislation last 

year to temporarily protect borrowers from outside 

effects of the pandemic, and so I urge the Department to 

continue with the momentum of Congress's efforts. I'd 

also like to comment on the closed school discharge 

provision to protect student borrowers under these 

provisions of HEA, students have no further obligation to 

repay the loan, and adverse loan history will be deleted 

from the credit report. So when delinquent accounts 

appear on credit reports, these have a noticeable and 

negative impact on credit scores. I'm concerned about 

black student borrowers because they are more likely to 

take on school and student loans at 

MS. MACK: You have 30 seconds, 

Representative Adams. 
106 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, I'm admitting 

Representative Josh Harder, who's here representing 

California's 10th Congressional District. 

MS. MACK: Representative Harder, can 

you hear us? 

MR. HARDER: I can. 

MS. MACK: Perfect. We can see and 

hear you so you have three minutes. 

MR. HARDER: Perfect. Today, I want to 

talk about one of the most critical challenges facing my 

community in the Central Valley, which is access to 

health care. Right now there are 157 medical doctors for 

every 100,000 residents in my area. Just over the 

Altamont in the Bay Area, there are 411 physicians per 

100,000 residents. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to 

explain why the wealthy folks in the Bay Area have more 

than two and a half times the number of doctors as my 

(inaudible) community in the valley has. This disparity 

just crushed my community during the pandemic. This 

winter, our ICU bed capacity was at zero percent and the 

peak of COVID. It wasn't because we didn't have the bed 

space, it's because we didn't have the doctors to 
107 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

actually care for the folks who were sick. In my 

community, people wait months to see specialists and then 

when they finally do get an appointment, they have to 

drive hours to their doctor's office. That makes getting 

care simply out of reach for thousands of hard working 

families. So I'm here today to advocate for a common 

sense and tremendously impactful solution to the doctor 

shortage my community is facing. This isn't a pie in the 

sky, a Hail Mary type pick, this is easy. We know how to 

do it, and we know how many doctors this will bring. 

MR. HARDER: The Public Service Loan 

Forgiveness program was created almost 15 years ago to 

encourage people with student debt, especially doctors, 

to enter high demand fields in the public service. For 

doctors, it says, if you work at a nonprofit hospital for 

10 years, we'll forgive your student loans. For 

communities like mine that are facing crippling doctor 

shortages that just make sense. But it doesn't happen 

right now in California or Texas because of an accidental 

oversight and a regulation that limited the eligibility 

for the program. The regulation applied to doctors 

directly employed by hospitals, which is not always the 

case for doctors working in nonprofit hospitals in both 

California and Texas. In fact, it's actually illegal, 

precluding any doctor here from getting the student loan 
 

 

108 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

forgiveness. When the average medical student has more 

than two hundred and fifty thousand dollars of debt, 

that's a major deterrent to practicing medicine in the 

valley. I'm here to tell you, you have the power as an 

agency to fix this. With a stroke of the pen, you could 

change the rule, let doctors in California and Texas get 

their student loans forgiven and bring thousands of new 

doctors to communities like mine. That's why I sent a 

bipartisan and bicameral letter to the Department of 

Education in September, signed by sixty seven of my 

colleagues, pushing the Department to rectify that. 

MS. MACK: 30 seconds Representative 

Harder. 

MR. HARDER: I have a bill in Congress 

that provides the framework for how to make this fix and 

will codify that change in the law. But first, I'm asking 

you to fix it within your agency today. If we do this 

together, we'll bring 10,000 new doctors to California 

over the next 10 years and deliver health care to so many 

folks who need it. That's what our community and so many 

others need. So let's get this done. Thank you. 

MS. MACK: Thank you for your comment. 

Brady, who are we bringing in next? 

MR. ROBERTS: I am now admitting this 

Lindsay Baker, who is the Executive Director of Maryland 
 

109 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

Humanities. 

MS. MACK: Welcome, Ms. Baker. You 

have three minutes for your public comment. 

MS. BAKER: Thank you. Can you all 

hear me okay? 

MS. MACK: Yes, ma'am, we can. 

MS. BAKER: Great. First of all, I'd 

like to thank the committee for listening to my testimony 

today. My experiences navigating the student loan process 

has always been a lonely one, and I appreciate that there 

is an effort to better understand the difficulties that 

borrowers face. My name is Lindsay Baker, I'm the 

Executive Director of Maryland Humanities, I'm also a 

mother of two small children, a homeowner and an active 

member of my community. I've worked in public service 

since 2008. In 2002, I started my undergraduate education 

at Goucher College, not knowing the difference between a 

loan and a grant. My parents had recently divorced and 

declared bankruptcy, but I was determined to attend my 

college of choice and navigated the financial aid each 

year by myself. Each year, I sat down with the financial 

aid officer to figure out how I would get the loans 

needed to attend school. I ultimately graduated early due 

to issues with financial aid. By the time I graduated 

with a master's in 2008, the news had broken that the 
110 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

financial aid offices had once been receiving kickbacks 

for steering students away from things like Pell Grants 

towards private loans. 

MS. BAKER: I was one of those 

students and remember distinctly asking about Pell Grants 

and being told they were limited and I should pursue 

loans through Sallie Mae. From the time PSLF program 

program was created, I have plugged away at my loans, 

hoping always that I was in the right payment plan, but 

honestly, never sure. As each time I called, I was told 

something different. In my career I've always been an 

executive director. I'm someone who understands 

processes, but I have never been able to understand this 

one. Fast forward to 2021 when I have been making 

payments on my consolidated loans for over 11 years. I 

have 70 plus qualifying payments and 70 plus unqualifying 

payments. I've been employed by qualifying employers for 

that entire time, making payments diligently each month. 

The news recently came out that federal loan federal 

student loan servicers are being investigated and sued 

for intentionally misleading students about the 

forgiveness program and the payment plan options. So 

again, I realize my troubles navigating this process, 

like before, are a reflection of a larger national issue. 

With a new waiver, I felt renewed hope in the plan. I 
111 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

felt that my government was working as it should be to 

protect its citizens from large corporations whose only 

concern is making money. 

MS. BAKER: When I resubmitted my ECF 

and forgiveness forgiveness application, it was denied 

and no new payments were added. I have no idea why right 

now, and in order to get any real information, I will 

need to submit a Freedom of Information Act request. My 

understanding is that that request is the best way to get 

real information because we cannot trust the work of 

those servicing our loans. My experience, my experience 

with the student loan industry has been broken from the 

beginning, but I am a story of one of many. With that in 

mind, I'd like to respectfully, respectfully suggest the 

following changes. Cap the payment at five percent 

discretionary income, standardized the definition of full 

time, make periods of deferment and forbearance count at 

least temporarily, fix the interest so that it's set at 

two to three percent at most and set clear communications 

from loan services and more oversight with a system to 

file complaints as requirements. Thank you for listening. 

I know you all have many speakers to hear from. Thank 

you. 

MS. MACK: Thank you for your comment, 

Ms. Baker. Brady, who's next on our list? 
112 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

MR. ROBERTS: I'm admitting Ms. Naomi 

Claxton, who is representing herself. 

MS. MACK: Ms. Claxton, can you hear 

me? 

MS. CLAXTON: I can hear you. Can you 

hear me? 

MS. MACK: We can. You have three 

minutes for public comment. I can't hear you now, 

unfortunately. Can you try once more to see if we can 

hear you? Brady, let's move on to the next person, and if 

you could reach out to Ms. Claxton. 

MR. ROBERTS: Yeah, we'll come back to 

MS. Claxton. Alright, I'm letting in Ms. Lisa Elliott, 

who is representing herself. 

MS. MACK: Alright. Alright, can you 

hear us Ms. Elliott? 

MS. ELLIOTT: I can. 

MS. MACK: You have three minutes for 

public comments. Please proceed. 

MS. ELLIOTT: Okay. Alright give me 

one second, okay. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

I grew up hearing from my dad that I absolutely must go 

to college. He found himself struggling his whole life 

and he didn't want that for his daughter. When the time 

came for me to go to college, I learned that my dad 
113 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

though he would have loved to send me to college was not 

financially capable. So I found a way to get through 

school on my own. That included a lot of hard work 

scholarships, grants and obviously loans. In my field of 

psychology and counseling, a bachelor's degree alone 

would not prevent me from living in poverty. I had to go 

to grad school. I also got married and had four beautiful 

children. As my kids got older, I was able to go back to 

school for my master's in counseling, but then needed to 

work three years postmasters under supervision to be 

state licensed, which included a very low salary, but a 

lot of fulfillment in the work. I found a residency 

program for this in a spiritual care and counseling 

department in a nonprofit hospital. This job was amazing 

and turned out to be my passion. But the pay would not 

meet our needs without advancement. I had to return to 

school yet again to pursue my endive and chaplaincy. The 

great news is that it worked. I was blessed with a 

promotion as the first female pastoral care coordinator 

during the history of our department. This is a huge 

blessing. It also carries with it a fear, what will my 

student loan payment be now? Now I'm a single mom with an 

uncertain future. 

MS. ELLIOTT: I'm thankful for my 

education that has allowed me to provide for my family 
 

 

114 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

into escape poverty. However, the black cloud of a 

mountain of student loans threatens to cancel out the 

income earning power that that very education has earned 

me. Within the next four years, I should be able to 

receive loan forgiveness under PSLF except that I am 

being caught like many on the loopholes of deferment and 

forbearances. In order to survive at times, financial 

hardship, forbearance as where necessary as the loan 

payment plans that I was offered over the years were 

impossibly high. At other times, I was placed into inschool deferment. I did not understand the consequences 

of these different influences at the time. I assume I 

must have signed some sort of acknowledgment, and I must 

own that for myself. What I'm asking for now, for myself 

and so many others is mercy. I'm asking that you modify 

the program rules such that those who have earned who 

have served in these qualifying areas be granted 

forgiveness solely on the basis of their years of 

service, regardless of deferment or forbearance. Please 

do not disqualify us due to actions we took to try to 

keep our accounts in good standing and to still be able 

to provide for our families. In short, please remove the 

barrier of the qualifying payments and allow the payment 

periods placed in deferment or forbearance to count 

towards forgiveness. Thank you for your consideration and 
115 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

may God bless you with wisdom as you deliberate. 

MS. MACK: Thank you for your public 

comments today. 

MS. ELLIOTT: Thank you. 

MS. MACK: We are going to try to go 

back to Ms. Claxton. 

MR. ROBERTS: I admitted her, her 

backup. Let's see. I see her. 

MS. MACK: Ms. Claxton, can you hear 

us now? 

MS. CLAXTON: I can thank you and I. 

MS. MACK: We can hear you perfectly 

too so you have three minutes for your public comment. 

MS. CLAXTON: Thank you very much. I 

apologize. I am unable to change my name, but I am an 

assistant attorney general who has been working as in 

public service for the last eight years. I graduated in 

2011 and at the time that I graduated into a recession, 

there were not very many positions available. I worked as 

a special assistant attorney general, which is to say an 

unpaid assistant attorney general for some time. During 

that period, I was advised by fed loans that my payments 

would not that I would not qualify for PSLF because I was 

not being paid by my agency. I believe that that is a 

circumstance that many borrowers experienced and one that 
116 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

the Department should take into consideration, especially 

for those of us who were working full time in those 

positions that were full that were, excuse me, qualifying 

positions, except for the fact that they were unpaid. The 

second issue, and one that I have attempted to address to 

address with my fed loan several times is for anyone who 

has experienced identity theft and has a lock on their 

credit report or a PIN that is required to file their IRS 

taxes, you cannot link your myfed loan recertification 

annually to your taxes. You cannot. Every year, when I 

submit my recertification, it takes longer by three to 

four weeks to process the normal, and I usually submit 

within the first or second week that recertification is 

open. What happens is, is that they then push me into 

forbearance 

MS. CLAXTON: I've lost over five 

months of payment history to that because of the fact 

that I cannot afford the standard payment, and they 

refuse to provide accurate information to borrowers who 

are calling. I do believe that this is something that the 

Department should look into and make accommodations for 

borrowers to provide alternate information for 

recertification upfront if they have a PIN on their IRS 

filings or to provide paper filing information. Lastly, I 

was a foster parent for six months, and during that time 
117 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

when I contacted my fed loans and told them that I had 

three children placed with me in addition to my child, I 

was told that they could not recalculate my payment at 

that time and that information, as it turns out, was 

incorrect. So I was again placed into forbearance during 

the time that I had guardianship of what are now my God 

children and I feel like. 

MS. MACK: You have 30 seconds Ms. 

Claxton. 

MS. CLAXTON: Thank you. There just 

needs to be better information given to the 

representatives who are speaking to borrowers. They are 

giving people incorrect information, and that information 

has created hardship for many borrowers. Not unlike 

myself, I've lost over 11 months of payment history to 

incorrect information and to my loans as failure to 

process timely the forms that are submitted. Thank you. 

MS. MACK: Thank you very much for 

your public comments. I want to thank the committee 

primaries, alternates, advisors, the Department, all of 

our public commenters and all the folks working behind 

the scenes to make this possible. We look forward to 

picking up with our work in the morning. Thank you all. 
118 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

Appendix 

Department of Education 

Office of Postsecondary Education 

Zoom Chat Transcript 

Affordability and Student Loans Committee 

Session 2, Day 3, Afternoon, November 3, 2021 

DISCLAIMER: 

Note: The following is the output of transcribing from a 

recording. Although the transcription is largely accurate; 

in some cases, it is incomplete or inaccurate due to 

inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as 

an aid to understanding the proceedings at the meeting, but 

should not be treated as an authoritative record. 
119 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

From Daniel Barkowitz to Everyone: 

Alyssa will start for Fin Aid Admins. 

From Alyssa (A) Fin Aid Administrators to Everyone: 

Daniel is running just a few mins behind. I will be 

here until his arrival. 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

I'd love to see the DOD MOU 

From Daniel Barkowitz to Everyone: 

Back in 

From Alyssa (A) Fin Aid Administrators to Everyone: 

Daniel is here now :) 

From Emily (A) Service Members/ Veterans to Everyone: 

https://www.dodmou.com//Home/InstitutionList 

From Emily (A) Service Members/ Veterans to Everyone: 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/dodmou/dodmouwebsite/document 

s/Appendix%20to%20Enclosure%203%20DoDI132225p_Change%2 

04_SAMPLE.pdf 

From Daniel Barkowitz to Everyone: 

Per DoD MOU paragraph 3.j.(3) institutions are 

required to, "Refrain from high-pressure recruitment 

tactics such as making multiple unsolicited contacts 

(3 or more), including contacts by phone, email, or 

in-person, and engaging in same-day recruitment and 

registration for the purpose of securing Service 

member enrollments.” 

From Emily (A) Service Members/ Veterans to Everyone: 

Despite .com address please know this is official 
120 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

government webpage 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

+1 Josh 

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone: 

+1 josh 

From Daniel Barkowitz to Everyone: 

Fair comment. 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

Emily - would love to see your thoughts on how to 

define/cabin unsolicited contact 

From David Tandberg to Everyone: 

Emily: +1 to Joe's request. 

From David Tandberg to Everyone: 

I think what was developed by Joe, et al and shared 

via e-mail before the break provides more specifics. 

From Jessica (P), Proprietary Schools to Everyone: 

+1 for #3 

From David Tandberg to Everyone: 

Yeah lots of cross over between #3 and what was in the 

e-mailed version. 

From Will (A) FFEL Agencies to Everyone: 

+ 1 Marjorie 

From Daniel Barkowitz to Everyone: 

Raj, did you look at only those schools where the -00 

(or main campus) closed? 
 

 

121 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

From Daniel Barkowitz to Everyone: 

Yes! 

From Daniel Barkowitz to Everyone: 

:) 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

I believe ITT manipulated their OPEIDs, lowering the 

number of OPEIDs for branch campuses. 

From Daniel Barkowitz to Everyone: 

My concern is that a closure of one branch campus, as 

currently written, counts as a closure. For many 

schools, the closure of a branch campus is not a 

significant event (especially if there is a close 

campus nearby). I understand (and value) that a 

campus closure is a significant event for students on 

that campus, but as I read what was proposed the 

closure of a campus would allow anyone at any campus 

at that institution to submit a BDR claim. 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

Thank you, Raj 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

Thanks, Raj! 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

Thanks! 

From Jessica (P), Proprietary Schools to Everyone: 

Thanks! 

From Justin (P) Service Members/Veterans to Everyone: 

Agreed. Thank you, Raj. 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 
 

122 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

Jen will be swapping in for me. 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

+1 Bethany 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

+1 Bethany 

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to 

Everyone: 

+1 Bethany 

From Daniel Barkowitz to Everyone: 

Thanks, Justin! 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

+1 Jen 

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to 

Everyone: 

+1 Jen 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

+1 Jen 

From Jen (she/ella): (A) Student Borrower to Everyone: 

Jeri will be back! 

From Greg, A - Dependent to Everyone: 

+1 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 Josh 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

+1 Josh 
 

123 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

+1 Todd on bifurcation 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

+1 on bifurcation and this understanding of 

retroactivity 

From Michaela [P] Ind. Students to Everyone: 

+1 

From Jessica (P), Proprietary Schools to Everyone: 

+1 Misty on contracts 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

If the parties wanted a force majeure clause, couldn’t 

they include it in the contract? 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

Many of us don't have contracts per se. 

From Misty (P) Priv. Non-Profit to Everyone: 

Right, what is the contract? 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

To the extent that the agreement was in-person rather 

than on-line, then it still would be a BOC 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

There’d still be common law defense of force majeure 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

Presumably 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

Of frustration of purpose, etc... 
 

124 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

Or* 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

what contract is signed saying that a student will pay 

for their coursework, room/board, fees, etc? 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

At a public university there generally is no contract. 

The student registers and pays. We take the action of 

registration (student initiated) as their intention to 

take the classes... 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

yes, intent to take classes, abide by code of conduct, 

pay for service, etc. isn't that a contract 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

@Christina, or @Bobby, do your institutions have a 

written contract? 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

If so, Jeri, that should be defined... 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 Josh re: other third party groups 

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone: 

+1 josh re: other 3rd parties - gov't agencies may not 

have resources to file petitions for group claims 

From Justin (P) Service Members/Veterans to Everyone: 

+Josh RE other 3rd parties being allowed to initiate 

the group process 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 
125 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

+ Josh, yes! 

From Marjorie (P), Four Yr Publics (she/her) to 

Everyone: 

+1 Josh | State & gov agencies may not always have 

students best interest in mind 

From Misty (P) Priv. Non-Profit to Everyone: 

+1 to Josh 

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to 

Everyone: 

@Jessica - How do you think students can prove 

reliance? If there is something that we're missing 

please provide perspective for us all. 

From Jessica (P), Proprietary Schools to Everyone: 

To my knowledge, reliance is a common element in 

consumer fraud cases. 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+ Josh 100% 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

+ 1 Bethany 

From Jen (she/ella): (A) Student Borrower to Everyone: 

+ Bethany 

From Alyssa (A) Fin Aid Administrators to Everyone: 

Why would it be an issue to exclude third party 

groups? I can't find a 'negative' here. 

From Alyssa (A) Fin Aid Administrators to Everyone: 

Sorry, to include^ 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 
 

 

 

126 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

+1 to Josh 

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to 

Everyone: 

Almost always poor folks and minoritized folks ONLY 

have access to legal aid and third party groups to get 

any form of aid. +10000000000 Josh and Bethany 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

^ 

From Jen (she/ella): (A) Student Borrower to Everyone: 

+ 1 Dixie! 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+ Alyssa's + Justin's points. I don't understand the 

downside. 

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to 

Everyone: 

^ 

From Justin (P) Service Members/Veterans to Everyone: 

+Joe here on positive aspects 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

+1 to Joe 

From Justin (P) Service Members/Veterans to Everyone: 

+1* 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

+1 support for what Joe is highlighting 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 to Joe's positives highlight 
 

127 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

My concern is the one highlighted by Josh 

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to 

Everyone: 

^ 

From Bobby (P) Two Year Public Colleges to Everyone: 

Ditto highlighted by Josh 

From Misty (P) Priv. Non-Profit to Everyone: 

Voted down due to third parties inclusion 

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to 

Everyone: 

Jeri... what candies do you have... 

From Persis (P) Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone: 

Also sitting next to my kids' candy 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

all of them - it is an impressive variety. 

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to 

Everyone: 

Jeri, I am on my way to steal a couple of your candies 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

The problem with being empty nesters... no spare kids' 

candy. 

From Marjorie (P), Four Yr Publics (she/her) to 

Everyone: 

The trunk of my minivan looks like Wonka's chocolate 

factory. 
128 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

From Jessica (P), Proprietary Schools to Everyone: 

My alternate Carol is going to sub in for me. 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

+1 to Josh on the interest issue. 

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone: 

+1 josh on both points 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+ Josh 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

+ Josh 

From Justin (P) Service Members/Veterans to Everyone: 

+1 Josh on all points 

From Marjorie (P), Four Yr Publics (she/her) to 

Everyone: 

+1 Josh 

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to 

Everyone: 

Joe's cam is off that's why 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

+1 Bethany 

From Persis (P) Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone: 

+1 Bethany (and also count for IDR cancellation too) 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

Forgot to turn my cam back on after the break -

apologies! 
129 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

Just want to make sure that the pause to repayment 

during the determination of the validity of the BDR 

claim applies to both individual borrowers who submit 

a claim, and to those in the group process. As well, 

I would support no interest assessed during the period 

of review. 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+ Persis on IDR too! 

From Jaye (P) - FFEL agencies to Everyone: 

Re: forbearance: does "all loans" including FFEL? if 

so, and the interest limitation applies to FFEL, this 

has implications for FFEL program and regs because 

there is no current subsidized forbearance. 

From Jessica (P), Proprietary Schools to Everyone: 

I am subbing back in for Carol. 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

Is this section retroactive as to discharge of the 

students' loans? 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

My alternate will be on for the rest of today. 

From Kayla FMCS to Everyone: 

Thanks David. 

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone: 

Suzanne here now for state regulators 

From Jessica (P), Proprietary Schools to Everyone: 

Does the Department intend to use minor program 
130 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21 

compliance findings, like miscalculating R2T4, as 

evidence to support a group process BD discharge? 

From Jessica (P), Proprietary Schools to Everyone: 

+1 Daniel 

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to 

Everyone: 

Greg will be subbing in now :D 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

Joe, why is the language limited to "making of the 

loan" rather than the five standards before? 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

Highly supportive of this proposal. 

From Justin (P) Service Members/Veterans to Everyone: 

We support this proposal as well. 

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone: 

+1 to joe's solution for incorporating state standards 

From Michaela [P] Ind. Students to Everyone: 

Can we have a 2 min break instead of a walk through? 

:) 

From Jen (she/ella): (A) Student Borrower to Everyone: 

^ 
131 

Committee Meetings - 11/03/21