Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and Institutional Quality - 1/10/24 

1

 

 

 

 

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING PROGRAM INTEGRITY AND 

INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY 

 SESSION 1, DAY 3, AFTERNOON

JANUARY 10, 2024

On the 10th day of January, 2024, the

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

to 4:00 p.m.
2

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

P R O C E E D I N G S

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Welcome back. I 

trust that everyone had a nice break and had a chance to 

get a little nourishment. I'm Cindy Jeffries, I'm going 

to be the facilitator this afternoon. So we're going to 

start this off with opening up for last minute 

discussions, thoughts, ideas that you had on R2T4 before 

moving into accreditation. With that, we can open up the 

floor. Okay, well you're all kind of quiet after lunch, 

so we will move to accreditation. We will be joined for 

that discussion with Mr. Herman Bounds as the lead 

negotiator for the Department, assisted by Donna Mangold 

from OGC. Anything either one of you want to say?

MR. BOUNDS: I'd like to say good 

afternoon and I look forward to working through all of 

the accreditation topics with everyone.

MS. JEFFRIES: Great. So, the plan for 

this afternoon, for right now, is to take the issue paper 

itself, go through it section by section, in some cases 

under some of the sections, there are questions that the 

Department has put out there to help garner additional 

conversation and ideas. So we will be taking those 

questions along with the section they associate with. 

Okay? And if there are more than one question, we will 

take them one at a time for you. Hopefully that makes it 
3

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

a little easier for you as we move through this. We will 

go through this document. The plan is to spend tomorrow 

on the extensive regulatory text that has been proposed. 

And we will be breaking that down into sections to help 

facilitate more focused and direct conversation on those. 

So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Herman to 

start us out with the summary of the issues surrounding 

the accreditation document and then we'll move into the 

first proposal. Herman?

MR. BOUNDS: Alright. Thank you. I 

guess Vanessa or Valerie, you all are putting up the 

issue paper for folks to see. Thank you. Alright. So I'm 

going to read through the summary of issues. And then 

we'll take each area section by section. And then of 

course, there'll be some time for you all to have some 

comments. Again, we're going to try to get to most of the 

reg text tomorrow. But if there's something that you know 

that sticks out, you can make a note of that and then we 

can get to that, you know, get to that tomorrow. Of 

course, if you think everything is okay, I'm perfectly 

happy and hearing that too. So, so again, the, the 

statutory sites for this is, section 496 of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended and then in 20 USC, 

1099 B. Some people find that a little easier to follow 

sometimes. The regulatory sites are, 34 CFR part 602. And 
4

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

then later today we have some other proposals in a new 

regulation 604. So I'll basically read through the 

summary of issues. Under the HEA, the Department 

recognizes accrediting agencies that the Secretary has 

determined to be reliable authorities as to the quantity 

of education or training provided by the institution of 

higher education. For more than a half century, 

accreditation has set baseline standards for 

postsecondary institutions with the goal of continuous 

improvement in how well they serve students across a 

diverse array of institutions and educational programs. 

The Federal Government and the Department, in particular, 

rely on accreditation to determine whether an institution 

or educational program is a worthwhile investment of 

Federal financial aid and taxpayer dollars. A robust 

accreditation and oversight of postsecondary education 

institutions and programs is critical to advancing 

quality outcomes for students and protecting students and 

taxpayers. And then through this rulemaking- through this 

rulemaking, the Department seeks to ask some questions. 

One, implement a process that focuses on the areas of 

greatest risk among accrediting agencies and in 

accrediting agency reviews of institutions. Two, increase 

the rigor of accreditation. Three, support and strengthen 

accreditation as a critical pillar of the regulatory 
5

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

Triad and four simplify, clarify, clarify, excuse me, 

streamline regulations to better align the goals of the 

Department. So under our first proposal is under 602.3, 

which is the definition of public member. Require public 

members serving on decision making bodies or independent 

of agencies, associations and institutions. Overall, what 

we're trying to do here is to ensure the independence of 

the public member and to also help reduce potential 

conflicts of interest. The language that we're proposing 

here is Department would exclude the following from 

participation as a public member. So, current or former 

employees, members of the Governing boards, owners, 

stakeholders of or consultants to accredited preaccredited and applicant institutions or programs, 

current or former members of any trade association or 

membership organization related to, affiliated with, or 

associated with the agency, current or former employees 

of or consultants to the agency or members of programmembers of the program integrity triad. And again, I said 

before, we're really trying to ensure the independence of 

the public member and then reduce conflicts of interest. 

With reading all that, one might ask, well, who could 

serve as a public member? And, you know, we would think, 

you know, maybe someone from the financial community, it 

could be folks from business and industry, you know, 
6

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

current and former folks in the military, anyone who 

doesn't who is not excluded based on the, you know, the 

definition that we have put in this regulation. So at 

that point, I'll open it up for discussion.

MR. ROBERTS: You're muted Cindy.

MS. JEFFRIES: I had to take a turn at 

that. So thanks, Herman, for that. Jamie, you're up 

first.

MS. STUDLEY: Thank you. As we embark 

on the accreditation topics, accreditors welcome the 

opportunity to work through the rules and the actual 

practices of accreditation to assure effective 

accreditation that is worthy of the trust to which 

Undersecretary Kvaal referred. We value the perspectives 

and expertise of our public members diving into this 

particular issue and value the perspectives that they 

bring. That said, it's completely fair to look at the 

definition. It's always been an odd definition. But we 

need to give serious consideration to the effect of these 

proposals. And I appreciate that Herman started by saying 

who would be able to serve? It's been clear in the 

[inaudible] presentations recently that agencies have 

paid serious attention to using the public positions. To 

add perspectives, including that of public and student 

voices. WASC, using my own agency as an example, has ten 
7

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

out of 33 commissioners who meet the Federal definition 

of public commissioners. Substantially exceeding the one 

seventh requirement. We seek independent perspectives, 

expertise and willingness to work hard. It's a tough job. 

Excuse me. And not easy to recruit people to do this 

volunteer work. We think it's important to think about, 

as we look at this definition, the scale and distance 

from higher education. The eternal preclusion ever having 

been involved with any of the entities described, is just 

overbroad and will stand in the way of accomplishing the 

purpose that we all have in mind here for these seats. 

Let me be very specific on one point. I'm going to return 

later in the cycle to issues related to conflicts, Triad 

and trade associations. I polled my public commissioners 

about how they would fare if this were the applicable 

definition today. One of the people whom we sought 

particularly for knowledge of business arrangements and 

complex transactions, such as we are seeing, would be 

precluded because she worked in the admissions office of 

a college 40 years ago, giving tours and stuffing 

envelopes. She worked in the campus library shelving 

books in the special collections section and in the 80s 

and 90s, before she met him, her husband taught classes 

at some WASC-accredited institutions. Those do not seem 

to me to be the kinds of limitations that we want to put 
8

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

on a person who otherwise meets the actual conflict rules 

and has no current relationship.

MR. WEATHERS: Jamie, you have 30 

seconds left.

MS. STUDLEY: We have other members 

who would be similarly constrained. We want to meet the 

spirit of public membership, but we need to do so in a 

way that is reasonable and not unduly. And not eternal, 

so that we're foreclosed from having some of the finest 

public representatives able to serve with us.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jamie. 

Appreciate that. Before we move to Laura Rasar King, I 

want to announce that Sophie Laing will be sitting at the 

table for the legal aid organizations. Laura, you are up 

next.

DR. KING: Hi, thank you. And Hi, 

Herman. I just wanted to ask the question first about 

what is the Department see the need for this change? Have 

there been demonstrable conflicts of interest that have 

influenced accreditation decisions? Is there some 

specific need for this change? I do agree with Jamie that 

it's very overly broad and will make it very difficult 

for accrediting agencies to fill these important 

positions.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, I will say that, 
9

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

you know, doing some accreditation reviews, we have seen 

some instances where, you know, we've had, you know, 

former employees of institutions that, you know, were 

accredited by the agency. That has happened a couple of 

times. I would go back to our proposed language here 

where we talk about current or former members. Yeah. 

Excuse me, where we talk about, stakeholders of or 

consultants to accredit or pre-credit or applicant 

institutions or programs. That right there doesn't seem 

to me to exclude, you know, someone who taught at an 

institution 40 years ago. And I think, as Jamie was 

referring to. I don't think that was meant to exclude 

someone like that. Again, what we're trying to do is to 

make sure that the public member is really a 

representative of the public. Someone who, and I hate to 

keep repeating myself, but someone who would not have 

any, you know, association or, you know, maybe influence 

or in that world, that might make that person not appear 

to be a representative from the public. I mean, I hope 

I'm explaining that, you know, to your satisfaction, 

Laura.

DR. KING: So there haven't been any 

specific problems that you can point to that would 

require the change that is being proposed?

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, as I was saying 
10

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

before, now in the- you know, in some of the final 

[inaudible], we have fixed some of those, but we have 

seen some instances where there have been public members 

appointed that didn't meet the old definition without 

these changes. These changes is our thinking as to 

further strengthen that definition of public members to 

help provide some additional guidance to accrediting 

agencies in their appointment of public members.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. 

Barmak, you are up next.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Just quickly 

responding to the question that was just posed. We are 

certainly aware of individuals who are, for all intents 

and purposes acting as shields in the role of the public 

member when they're very clearly associated with 

ownership interests. And, you know, in the interest of 

fairness, I don't want to name anybody by, you know, 

specifically, but I'd be happy to share that directly 

with my colleague who posed the question just so that we 

have that awareness. There is a problem here. Now, I have 

a question to the Department and a comment. My assumption 

is that this relates to the separate and independent 

language in the statute, specifically (B)(2). And what 

I'm pondering, I appreciate the enormous effort in 

articulating the qualification for the public member. But 
11

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

I want to know how the Department implements before, 

which I'll read to you before in the same section that 

reads, the budget of the accrediting agency or 

association is developed and determined by the 

accrediting agency or association without review or 

resort to consultation with any other entity or 

organization. How is that interpreted? And once I get 

that sort of legal answer probably, I want to make a 

comment about it.

MR. BOUNDS: Sure. And I'll let- I 

will start out and then I'll let my colleague, Donna 

Mangold come on if she wants to provide some additional 

information. You know, the statutory language you just 

read is really separate from what we're talking about 

here with public members. We're talking about how an 

agency is determined to meet our separate and independent 

requirements. And that's usually related to only 

institutional accrediting agencies. So we want to make 

sure that those institutional accrediting agencies are 

separate and independent from any outside organization or 

any trade association. So, again, as the statute read, 

what we're looking to see is, number one, does that 

agency, in order to meet those separate independent 

requirements, does it develop its own budget without any,

you know, without any influence from any outside 
12

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

organization that clicks off. If you look in current 

regulations, there are about five components for an 

agency to demonstrate that it is separate and 

independent. But those requirements are totally separate 

from what we're specifically looking at here, is the 

definition of the public member.

MR. NASSIRIAN: I understand we're 

talking about the definition of public member, but it's a 

component of that determination of separate and 

independent in the statute. And the statute unambiguously 

requires accrediting bodies not to be engaged in any 

coordination, consultation in the development of their 

budgets. And the specific question I want to now comment 

on is the following. I didn't get a legal reading, but 

here's my comment. When you have fiduciaries of regulated 

entities serving on the boards of accrediting bodies, you 

are by definition in violation of this provision. So the 

Department is sort of putting a steel door on a rotten 

wooden frame when it gets mesmerized with ensuring that 

the public member is free of conflict when it is in fact 

in violation. Elsewhere, where you had regulated 

entities- when the president of the university sits on a 

board of an accreditor, that president is conflicted in 

[inaudible]. Maybe that conflict is not articulated in 

the statute, but to the extent that that president is 
13

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

approving the budget of the agency, they are violating 

before the provision that I just read. This is a big 

picture comment that I would encourage the Department to 

review. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. Next I 

have, Jo Blondin. Jo, you're on mute.

MS. BLONDIN: I'm sorry about that. I 

wanted to echo Laura's question, about where there have 

been some issues of this conflict. I'm just curious. The 

other thing I wanted to lift up and remind, we're talking 

about public members, first and foremost. And my 

experience being on the Higher Learning Commission Board 

is that we have a number of public members. On that 

board, one of whom served on our Institutional Actions 

Council, and had no work prior to that with an 

institution or accreditation and then is now a public 

member on our board. And I would argue that his 

experience serving in that role, with HLC, gave him some 

background and a much shorter runway to identify some of 

the challenges within our institutions as well as his 

strengths. So I would just add that when we're talking 

about public members, there is a great diversity of these 

individuals who are serving and come to us with a variety 

of experiences that I know, at least through my 

experience, have been strongly vetted. Thank you.
14

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

MR. ROBERTS: It looks like Cindy 

might be frozen, so I'll take over while she recovers. I 

see John's hand is up next.

MR. WARE: Yes, thanks. You know, I'd 

also like to express a concern that these prohibitions 

are overly broad. You know, in particular, subsection 

four there where it talks about state higher education 

and other representatives of the Triad. I mean, 

obviously, I can see where current employees or members 

of the Triad, you know, that may be a potential conflict, 

but I'm not sure where somebody who's no longer employed, 

no longer working as a member of a state agency or 

Department, or previously worked there, is going to have 

a lifetime conflict with serving on an accreditation 

board. And also, you know, the whole idea that the 

spouse, parent, child or sibling, again, I mean, I have a 

son, my youngest son is 16 years old. So you're going to 

say that he's forever banned from, not that his career 

ambition is to be on an accrediting agency, but it seems 

kind of strange that he would forever be banned just 

because, you know, I happen to work for the state 

licensing agency. So I'm concerned. I understand what the 

Department's trying to do, but I think, maybe tightening 

up this language with some kind of time based 

restrictions might be a little more appropriate. And 
15

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

also, you know, as previous commentators have said, I 

think, having people involved in making this 

accreditation decisions that have some higher education 

experience is actually helpful. I mean, I think these 

negotiated rulemaking topics show that a lot of these 

issues are very complex regulatory issues. And when you 

put people and I work for a board myself and we've 

experienced this too with public members is, when you put 

people on boards who have no familiarity or background in 

a particular topic, they don't, frankly, make very good 

board members because they don't- it takes them so long 

to get up to speed on what the topics are. It just 

creates problems. Like I said, I've seen it in the past 

with my board. Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. John. Cindy, 

I see you're back. Do you want to take back over?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes. Sorry about that. 

I got kicked out of my own meeting. Sorry. DC, you're up 

next.

DR. PRINCE: Thank you. I had a 

question. Herman, thanks for that. This is the, I believe 

the second time we have seen where the Department has 

tried to define public members, particularly in another 

situation as well. The question I'm pondering is, is that 

because of the Department's significant interest in 
16

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

trying to define what a public member is, does the 

Department intend to develop a system or process or a 

bank of individuals, in which meet their own 

qualifications, in which they are trying to put on other 

people, in this instance, a public member, instead of 

allowing or leaving the agencies to do it themselves?

MR. BOUNDS: No, we are definitely 

not, you know, we haven't had any discussions about 

trying to come up with, if I'm understanding your 

question correctly, about trying to come up with a list 

of folks who would qualify or be a public member. You 

know, again, we we've inserted some additional language 

in of what we have been, what we have had previously in 

our definition of what, you know, a public member cannot 

be. And again, we just think this- our proposed changes, 

again, we're just trying to make sure that the public 

member truly is, you know, a representative of the 

public. And so that's the point of view here that we're, 

again, that we're, you know, that we're coming from. I 

think we've, you know, as I think about, you know, all 

the renewal petitions that we have looked at, again, 

there have just been some instances where we have had 

people that are pointing for public members who may have 

been part of state legislature, who may have been, you 

know, current folks that, you know, at institutions and 
17

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

then not to jump questions, but to go back to the 

previous question from the state representative. You

know, we think that the, states already have a valued 

place in the Triad. And we think, you know, place or 

position for those state representatives, you know, 

should remain in the, you know, in the Triad. And the 

other question about that, too, is, you know, we're not 

looking at, you know, parent or child or someone in that 

instances, the regulatory language is pretty clear when 

we talk about when we use those terms about, you know, 

parent or child of a former member of a trade association 

or something like that. So I just wanted to clarify those 

two points.

DR. PRINCE: My follow up to that is 

in both of the texts that we've seen around defining 

public members, the Department has decided to use 

exclusionary texts instead of inclusionary texts. And so 

for me, the question then becomes, if we were to propose 

something, is the Department open to rethinking the way 

it uses legalese text to think more inclusionary versus 

exclusionary? Because I think the concern that I'm 

hearing from colleagues, but also that I'm getting from 

constituencies, is that the more you begin to exclude, 

the more, either you're trying to build a process that 

becomes so exclusionary, that you could have unintended 
18

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

consequences, and then at the same time that you're 

trying to exclude so much out that no one fits the bill. 

Instead of just saying, here's what we want to decide as 

exclusionary, because then you could then shorten and be 

very specific about what is included, and everything else 

becomes excluded. Once you exclude, you got to have a 

very long list of [inaudible] the titles of what you 

don't want, and then everything else up to interpretation 

of inclusion. So will the Department be open to more of 

an exclusionary language, of what could be included as a 

public member?

MR. BOUNDS: Yes, sure we would. We 

would be happy to take that back and have some 

discussions on who would qualify as a public member. I 

understand some of the concerns about how we are phrasing 

it now, plus how we phrase it in the past is these are 

folks who cannot- of what a public member cannot be. Yes.

DR. PRINCE: My last question is 

around public member processes. Is the Department open to 

how public members are voted in a process of a 

stipulation rather than an agency determining by its own 

internal process, but determining and specifying what 

that particular process is in putting a public member on 

their board?

MR. BOUNDS: Sure. We're open to 
19

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

looking at those suggestions.

DR. PRINCE: Alright. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, DC. Appreciate 

it. Jillian?

MS. KLEIN: Thanks. I just had a 

clarifying question on two, just to make sure I'm 

understanding this correctly. So I think the way that 

it's written, it seems to me that there would be an 

implication for a professional maybe. And this probably 

relates more to specialized accreditors. But I think in 

this example, for example, as an example, a lawyer who is 

admitted to the bar wouldn't be able to be a public 

member for the ABA, for example. Am I reading that 

correctly? And is that the intention? I just want to make 

sure I understand, sort of the spirit of what's happening 

here.

MR. BOUNDS: So you're looking at two, 

where it says a current or former member employee or 

representative of any trade association or membership 

organization?

MS. KLEIN: Correct?

MR. BOUNDS: Right. Yeah, yeah. Donna, 

would you like to come on and talk a little more specific 

about that? But yes.

MS. MANGOLD: I think that's something 
20

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

we would take a look at because I understand your 

question. That would be very broad in terms of public 

members for something like the ABA or one of the medical 

accrediting agencies. Yeah. But again, we're talking 

about institutional accrediting agencies, which the ABA 

can be for freestanding law schools. But we'll have to 

take a look at that.

MS. KLEIN: But, so thanks for saying 

that because I heard Herman when he said that earlier and 

I'm sorry, I don't know this and it's super embarrassing 

since I did this in 2019. But is there something in here 

that specifies that this is just as it relates to 

institutional accreditors? I'm sorry, that's probably a 

super dumb question, you guys.

MR. BOUNDS: Well the- so let me back 

up. So institutional accreditors, they do have to have 

public members. The main difference between the 

institutional and the programmatic is programmatics have 

to have at least one on their decision making bodies, 

whether it's a commission board or an appeals panel. For 

institutional accreditors, they have to meet the 

regulatory requirement that's currently of one seventh of 

that body has to be a public member. There's a little 

disconnect between the statute and our current regulation 

the statute said one for six, and then our regulation 
21

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

says one for seven. But that's the main difference. 

Institutional accrediting agencies have to have a certain 

percentage of public members on their decision making 

bodies versus programmatics only have to have one public, 

you know, one public member at minimum.

MS. KLEIN: Okay, thanks.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. Laura?

DR. KING: Thank you. I appreciate 

DC's suggestions about some other ways perhaps to 

approach this. I think another way to approach the issue 

that Jamie raised, with regard to somebody having worked 

40 years ago for an institution, it would prohibit them, 

former means former. I don't know that former has another 

meaning. So it may be worthwhile to impose some kind of 

time limit for former that might also help make the 

language a little more reasonable.

MR. BOUNDS: That does make sense, 

Laura. It does make sense. Yeah. Yeah.

MS. JEFFRIES: So I'm hearing a lot of 

really good suggestions that the Department is willing to 

take a look at. And I just want to remind you a couple 

choices you have are to put them into a word document in 

redlined text format with your rationale, or if you don't 

plan on doing actual proposal on it, please, capture 

those in the chat so that we can keep track and the 
22

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

Department has them to refer back to. Jamie, you're up 

next. You're on mute.

MR. ROBERTS: You're still on mute. 

There you go.

MS. STUDLEY: Multiple topics. A time 

based approach would be helpful and add an element of 

rationality here. The otherwise perfectly public member 

of ours who last taught as an adjunct in 2019 really 

shouldn't be precluded. Or pick a number further back. 

We've heard five, seven, eight, ten as possible 

suggestions. Second, it appears to me that item five 

about the child parent spouse doesn't apply to all of the 

provisions above.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. I was going to make 

that correction. Yeah. Yes.

MS. STUDLEY: Thank you. The trade 

association or membership organization. Words like 

related to, affiliated with, associated with, if my 

organization is a member of, or a staff member were a 

member of the American Historical Association, would that 

be a preclusion? It's very broad, very unclear. And I 

never hoped- I hoped I would never be referring to a 

semi-colon in a negotiated rulemaking. But I think Barmak 

will back me up that sometimes it's in the semicolons. 

Number two has a semicolon. That's very confusing about 
23

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

whether the trade association is one provision and the 

second half is a different one. Please take a look at 

that, because these really make a huge difference in 

whether some outstanding people who are prepared to spend 

years and hours of their lives doing this work could 

qualify to participate with us. When I asked my public 

members whether this would preclude them, they reacted 

with, oh my gosh, but I want to do this. Oh, this would 

be awful if I couldn't. Are you saying that the fact that 

my child did this might mean I couldn't participate? It 

really would be disruptive. Conflicts. We manage 

conflicts all the time. It is in the nature of the 

current system that this is a peer review model. For 

every member that we have, they may have worked for a 

different institution for the institutional 

representatives that we are required by statute and the 

Department to have, to manage our agency. All of them 

could have conflicts and we are responsible for managing 

those. What I'm hearing is that the Department has 

occasional questions where they need to deal with an 

agency about a specific individual. But I don't see a 

widespread problem with conflicts. For every actor [30 

seconds] for someone else before. I think we really ought 

to look carefully. I think we ought to acknowledge that 

we are managing our conflicts. And if it's a matter of 
24

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

improvement of application, we can certainly do that. But 

it's not a reason to leave out people who are highly 

qualified. And I have one more comment I'll return to 

shortly about the Triad.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thanks, Jamie. 

Appreciate it. I'm not seeing any additional hands. So, 

Jamie, why don't you. You did the right thing. You got 

off cue, you got back on cue. Let's hear the rest of what 

you have to say there.

MS. STUDLEY: Right. I really do want 

to hear what others think. The Triad exclusion seems to 

many of us to be completely the opposite direction from 

trying to understand all the different ways in which we 

can manage quality and assure accountability. The list of 

my agencies members is posted. So I will tell you that we 

have a former Governor and a former chair of NACIQI. We 

think that allows us to understand the full picture of 

the issues. And I think there are other agencies that 

have also identified people who can speak broadly to 

Governance issues or to the kinds of things that John was 

talking about in state relations. If you want to prohibit 

people who are currently in seats where they have other 

responsibilities, that is something we would be happy to 

discuss further. But to have a an eternal preclusion of 

anybody who has expressed the interest and willingness to 
25

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

work hard on these systems, seems to me to deprive us of 

skill and knowledge and make it even harder to do the 

coordination that makes sense.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. Again, Jamie, I 

think we have said that we would be willing to go back 

and look at some of the timelines. And then going back to 

your question, I think it was your question or may have 

been the previous person about the association. You know, 

we would, you know, under current regulation, we look at 

that association, we want to see what the relationship of 

whatever that trade association is that that person is a 

member of. And if that's directly related to the 

accrediting organization that the person is currently 

serving as the public member on. So it is an evaluation. 

I mean, we wouldn't just, you know, all of these things 

require discussion and investigation on our part when we 

want to say that a public member is not, you know, is not 

qualified to serve in that role. So I just wanted to make 

that clear that when we're talking about affiliate with 

or associated with an agency or, you know, or one of 

these membership organizations, we would look at that to 

see the link between that particular organization and the 

agency, if there is one.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Barmak?

MR. NASSIRIAN: Well Jamie buttered me 
26

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

up with that semicolon.

MS. JEFFRIES: Barmak, can I 

interrupt? Just one minute, I see Donna Mangold popped 

her hand up. She may have additional comment.

MS. MANGOLD: I just want to make it 

clear that we're only talking about the public members 

here. We're not trying to exclude these vast categories 

of potential members more broadly. They're not- it's just 

the public member definition we're talking about now. So 

I just wanted to level set that a little bit.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Donna. Okay. 

Barmak. Go ahead. Thank you.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yeah, I just wanted to 

say that I am not unsympathetic to some of the criticism 

of the language that's been proposed as too broad. With 

regard to other legs of the Triad, I certainly hope that 

we won't let current participants in the Triad to 

simultaneously serve in other significant decision making 

roles with another leg of the Triad. So that certainly 

makes sense. But yes, I think that the exclusions may be 

overbroad and should probably be very carefully thought 

through. I also wanted, I think Donna made a point that I 

think I wanted to say differently, and the point I wanted 

to make differently is, that the purpose of having public 

members is not to bring expertise. Far from it. It's 
27

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

actually to bring naivete, to bring a fresh perspective, 

to bring a perspective from people who are outsiders to 

what is a very insidery game to prevent potentially 

incestuous arrangements that evolve over time just 

because you only talk amongst yourselves. So the 

expertise that the accreditors need can always be 

fulfilled from other sources, other seats on the board. 

It is important to have some people there who are not 

insiders to the entire higher Ed sector who are coming in 

as just common sense observers of what goes on behind the 

scenes. It preserves the integrity of accreditation, and 

it gives it more credibility with the public and 

policymakers, which I dare say it desperately needs right 

about now. Thanks.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Barmak. John 

Ware are you up next?

MR. WARE: Yeah, I appreciate Barmak's 

comments and also Donna, what you said. And then, you 

know, it just occurred to me, and I assume it would be 

possible then for accrediting agencies to create seats 

for members, not call them public members. So they're, 

you know, they're only required to have one out of seven 

public members. And they could create a seat and just 

call it, you know, of course, they could have a one out 

of seven public members, but then have a non-
28

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

institutional member which could be a former Governor or 

somebody like that, that could serve in that role. I just 

want to make sure that I'm understanding that correctly, 

that they only need to have one out of seven public 

members, but they can have other members that, you know, 

that would be non-institutional representatives that that 

fill some of these other roles.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, that's a true 

statement. All other, I'm sorry, Donna I didn't know if 

you were jumping in or not, but yeah, all other members 

don't have to meet, you know, don't have to meet this 

definition. Currently there's another reg, we have other 

regulations that require the decision making bodies, you 

know, to include educators, practitioners, employees, 

those types of folks, depending on the type of agency. 

But. You know, if you have a 30 member board, once you 

meet that threshold for public member, all other members 

are up to whoever the agency wants to appoint.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. Thank you, 

John. Laura Rasar King. 

DR. KING: I just wanted to provide 

the perspective. And, you know, with all due respect, 

Barmak, public members are not just observers to this 

process. I wanted to just provide the perspective of what 

public members actually do when they sit on accreditation 
29

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

boards. They actually do the same work as all of the 

other accreditation board members. They do program 

reviews. They make decisions about programs, in my case, 

programs, in Jamie's case, institutions. But they do the 

same work. They are not just observers to the process. 

They're not there to just, you know, give a uninterested 

sort of opinion about what we're doing. They're actually 

doing the work. And so I think that it is important. And 

I think, John, if I'm not mistaken, raised this before, 

but it's important that we have- that we are able to 

recruit public members who actually have some more than a 

passing familiarity with higher education and with the 

kinds of things that we're doing. My agency, for example, 

you know, we accredit doctoral programs, we accredit 

master's programs. There has to be- and they make those 

decisions. They get in the weeds of curriculum just like 

the rest of us. They need to be able to have that kind of 

ability for bringing some expertise in that area. So I 

just wanted to provide that perspective about what public 

members actually do. And because I think that it really 

does impact the kind of public members that we need on 

those commissions and councils.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Laura. DC. 

DR. PRINCE: Question to the 

Department. The tendency to have a discussion about 
30

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

public members in particularly about this discussion, but 

taking a step backwards or step up on a higher level, is 

the Department concerned about accrediting agencies role 

in governance and whether or not there are issues 

stemming from the governance of the boards and how these 

agencies are governed at that level? Are there systemic 

issues that also need to be addressed that are outside 

the public member?

MR. BOUNDS: I don't think so. We 

currently don't have any, you know, any regulations or 

any requirements related to Governance for accrediting 

agencies at all. I think, if I'm understanding your 

question correctly. Yeah.

DR. PRINCE: Then is the Department 

open to expanding its current language and use outside of 

just discussing public members, but thinking about the 

entire Governance of accrediting agency?

MR. BOUNDS: I think that's something 

we'd have to take back to discuss. I can say we haven't 

had any- I haven't been a part of any discussions where 

we wanted to, you know, regulate on that particular topic 

or add any regulations on that particular topic. But 

again, that's something we could take back and discuss.

DR. PRINCE: Alright. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, DC. Jamie?
31

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

MS. STUDLEY: On DC's last point, I 

would add that the Department does have extensive 

expectations about how we govern our agencies that they 

review in the recognition of the agency. How we manage, 

how we train, how we support, how we assure, avoid 

conflicts of interest and how we manage that process. In 

the spirit of Laura's comment, a little bit of what 

actually happens on the ground might be helpful. Here's 

an example. For my agency, we have institutional members. 

Our bylaws require that they be at least 50% of the 

members of the commission. We have public members. We 

have ten Federally- ten that meet the Federal definition. 

And we have our own standard for independent public 

members who are not people steeped in higher education. 

That speaks to Barmak balance between what expertise we 

are looking for and where we want a fresh look. We want a 

fresh look from people who are outside higher education. 

We seek expertise on things like finance, governance, 

complicated corporate arrangements, equity and workforce 

issues from people who are outside the academy who can 

help us do that and advocates for student issues, 

including some distinguished people who would fit in that 

category. And we have an at large category, which is 

correct. Anybody who doesn't fit in one or the other, we 

have room to have on our commission to provide that 
32

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

additional expertise. I just want to underline that 

comment about conflicts. We are held by the Department to 

manage conflicts of interest very thoughtfully. And we 

have to do it all the time, because any of these people 

may have had a previous association. Anybody on the 

commission as an institutional member may have worked at 

some point for an organization that will come up before 

us for decision. And we have very strict and frequently 

reviewed conflicts, policies, to keep them from 

participating. I think that, to the extent that Barmak 

raised a specific early on about ownership interests. I 

don't know whether that is either an error made by an 

agency that should be corrected, things happen. Or

whether there's a policy definitional matter. But I would 

support looking at ownership interests and make sure that 

we have thought that through for these categories. But I 

appreciate everybody's respect for looking at the trade 

associations, Triad and time based issues in order to 

allow us to have strong public members and conduct our 

work in the spirit of having those outside voices.

MR. BOUNDS: I just wanted to comment 

on the governance question that I was asked previously. 

And then, you know, it depends on your definition of 

governance. But for us to become involved in the 

operation and the administration of accreditation, as 
33

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

everybody knows here, that's outside of the purview of 

the Department. The organization act specifically 

prevents us from becoming involved in the administration 

of an accrediting agency. So when I get those questions 

about governance, that's kind of what I'm looking at. You 

know, of course, our regulations, you know, require 

accrediting agencies under 602.15 to have, you know, 

certain policies on, you know, finances, fiscal 

administrative capacity. You know, we talk about who the 

makeup of the decision making body, who site teams, what 

site teams have to be composed of? Yeah, we our 

regulations do cover those types of things, but when I'm 

talking about governance, I'm not looking at those types 

of things. I'm thinking of more, you know, of those 

things that involve the administration of the agency. And 

that's why I made that comment. We don't have any purview 

into those matters. And if Donna, if my colleague Donna 

Mangold wants to add to that comment, I'm happy to have 

her jump in.

MS. JEFFRIES: She's shaking her head 

no. Thanks, Donna.

MR. BOUNDS: That means I must've

answered okay then.

MS. JEFFRIES: There you go. DC?

DR. PRINCE: Just to clarify, when I 
34

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

said governance, I was talking about board level or where 

you expect public members to serve. And the larger step 

back is not just about public members, right? It's about 

those serving in capacities where decision making which 

is not at the CEO level or VP's, but clearly on boards 

and certain site visits or the case may be. And so that's 

why I'm thinking of, is it just the- it has to- it must 

not be an issue of just the public member. I think what 

I'm hearing you say and what I'm reading into and then 

taking back from what I'm hearing others say, is that 

there's a larger issue across the entire board of where 

these public members are serving with other members there 

that they may or may not be representing, or in essence, 

might you might feel as though we're just talking about 

public members, but there's a larger problem, systematic 

problem that we should also be addressing that we're not 

addressing. And so that's where I was getting at. So I 

didn't assume that you were talking about a CEO or VP's 

or that kind of administration of governance. 

MR. BOUNDS: Okay. Yeah, I just wanted 

to make that- yeah, because right now we're really 

talking about the public member issue. I mean, for an 

institutional accrediting agency, we say that you have to 

have academics and administrators on your decision making 

body, and we leave it at that. And we think that's pretty 
35

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

much adequate. You know, if you're programmatic 

accreditations, you have to have educators and 

practitioners and maybe employers. So we do put those 

requirements on the decision making bodies and on the 

appeals panel. We don't think that we need any more 

definition to the composition of those bodies. We think 

that's pretty much adequate. Here we're strictly just 

trying to get down to what makes a good definition of a 

public member. And again, we're happy to take some of 

these comments back that we're getting from folk.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. Emmett 

Blaney, you're next.

MR. BLANEY: Thanks so much. Yeah, I 

just wanted to jump in kind of off of Barmak's original 

comment and then some of the language around, like, 

expertise. I can imagine that being a public member on an 

accreditation board may feel somewhat like being a 

student in neg reg. In that, I feel like the Department 

isn't proposing, you know, imploring accreditors to 

recruit random uninterested public members. Merely those, 

like, without deep ties to specific things within the 

educational sector. All that to say, I feel very grateful 

to be involved in this process. And I've had, a lot of 

time set aside by my coworkers and, like, organizational 

partners to get me onboarded into the neg reg process. 
36

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

And so I think I'm just saying in the same way, I think 

it is on accreditors to be properly training folks who 

are going to be joining them. Which would kind of 

mitigate the concerns that people need a certain amount 

of like extensive expertise before participating as 

public members. Thanks.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. I have one 

more hand up and that is Barmak, and we'll take his 

comment. Then we're going to take a short ten minute 

break just to regroup and move on to the next proposal, 

which would be 602.10. So Barmak.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yeah. As usual, I want 

to go back to something DC said. I think it's worth 

contemplating. I appreciate the Department's response 

with regard to a somewhat hands-off position it has to 

have with regard to certain aspects of governance. But 

also in the spirit of like broad observation, folks, 

there is something rotten in the state of Denmark. I 

mean, we can't talk about current accreditors lest we 

offend somebody, but we have how many billions of dollars 

of Federal tax money have been written off because 

accreditors didn't do their jobs? Accreditors that are no 

longer with us, fortunately. Obviously there were 

governance issues there. The causality comes back to the 

fact that the operation was behaving in a in an outright 
37

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

corrupt manner. And the fact that it could check all the 

procedural boxes that the Department has put in 

regulations does not mean that they're not engaged in 

malfeasance. So there comes a point where governance 

becomes the central theme. There comes a point that we 

need to step back and say, yeah, you know, there are 

procedurally okay, but guess what, they're rubber 

stamping thieves. And we can't have people getting ripped 

off while they're in perfect compliance with procedural 

rules. Governance of these accreditors matters. Selfdealing is a problem with accreditors. I'm not accusing 

any particular accreditor of doing that, but the idea 

that the regulated entities have conflated the historical 

voluntary nature of accreditation with the mandatory 

recognition criteria spelled out in the statute is a 

problem. And you end up playing a game of three card 

monte sometimes when you speak to accreditors and you 

don't know, you know, which side of their mouth they're 

speaking from. Are they speaking their voluntary 

historical traditional role or are they talking the 

gatekeeping role that they have voluntarily assumed by 

seeking and obtaining recognition from the Department? 

And the conflation of those two things leaves an enormous 

gray zone in which all kinds of corrupt practices fester 

at the expense of students that you heard from and at the 
38

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

expense of the taxpayers of this country. So we need to 

be careful here saying that governance is not a concern 

of the Department. The governance ought to be a huge 

concern of the Department. Thank you.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah.

MS. JEFFRIES: Go ahead.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. I'm sorry. I know 

we're going to take a break. I just wanted to comment on 

that. You know, when accreditations are reviewed, we're 

looking at them based on the totality of the current 

regulation. And when you look at the current regulation 

and maybe I'm a little off mark here, but I did Barmak, I 

did I just want to kind of respond to your comment. You 

know, when you look at the totality of the regulations, 

what they're supposed to do, how they're supposed to 

conduct their site visits, the information they're 

supposed to report. When you look at all those things and 

when we look at all those things and we make an 

assumption whether that agency is a reliable authority, 

that's how we were able to prevent or to remove 

recognition from accrediting agencies. And that's what 

allows us to issue some of these in-depth compliance 

reports that agencies have. So while, you know, someone 

might say, well, there's not a criterion that talks 

specifically or labels governance. When you look at all 
39

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

of our regulations all together, when we apply those 

regulations to accrediting agencies, we are in fact 

performing that process. We want to make sure that those 

ratings are performing correctly and again, that they're 

applying their standards correctly. So I think in its 

totality, our regulations do that. There's always room 

for improvement. But I think we get to that point in our 

total reviews of accrediting agencies.

MR. NASSIRIAN: May I just comment? 

Because of the negative nature of my previous comments. I 

want to emphasize that I absolutely understand that the 

Department is attempting to operate within the confines 

of its current regulations. I'm not accusing the 

Department of not doing that. But I am suggesting that 

clearly something is wrong. That clearly to the extent 

that we have had the experiences we've seen and the 

number of victims and the dollar amount of losses to the 

taxpayers, that there is something wrong, which therefore 

suggests that we need to strengthen the regs. This is not 

a matter of criticizing the staff of the Department or 

for that matter, accreditors. Accreditors are playing by 

the rules that the Department has articulated, but it is 

incumbent on us to improve the regs so that we don't get 

the kinds of catastrophic outcomes that. You know, if 

banks were failing with the frequency that the 
40

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

institutions fail, we'd have a scandal on the front page 

of The New York Times. But somehow schools keep failing. 

We keep bailing victims out to some extent and nothing 

seems to change. This is our opportunity to improve 

things. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. I want to 

thank everyone for their comments. We are going to take a 

ten minute break and kind of regroup. Coming back in, I 

just want to give the negotiators a reminder that the 

three minutes should be used to bring new unstated 

material to the attention of the Department. Not to 

reiterate something that's already been stated or to in 

support. We ask that you use the chat for those two types 

of things that, yes, you're in support of what was said, 

or no, you're not. And so this is only done, not to 

stifle conversation, but to make the best use of the time 

so the negotiators can get the most ideas, most concerns 

expressed, for the Department to consider, during the 

time period that we have. So I show it is 1:58. Let's 

resume at 2:10 and we will move on to 602.10. Thanks. 

Okay. Welcome back. I just want to refocus our discussion 

a little bit this afternoon. Given the limited time that 

we have and still need to get through this issue paper. 

So we're prepared to delve into the actual reg text 

tomorrow. The purpose of this discussion on the issue 
41

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

paper is we want to make sure and the Department wants to 

make sure that the negotiators understand the goal that 

the Department is trying to achieve here. So questions 

around understanding those goals are absolutely more than 

welcome. And can be addressed and should be addressed. So 

if we could focus the conversation around understanding 

the goal. Tomorrow when we go through the actual reg 

text, that is going to be ample opportunity, because I 

believe we have the whole day set aside for just this 

topic. As we walk through the reg text, that is the place 

where we can have in-depth, detailed discussion about 

what your concerns are about the language they have 

written, your suggestions for changes and or submission 

of proposals or entries into the chat. Trying to 

structure this so that you have the best opportunity in 

the appropriate places for the Department to be able to 

ascertain, per section in that reg text, what it is you, 

you have, serious concerns about or things that you like. 

Okay. So they can take that back in between sessions and 

consider it when they come back for the second session. 

And also, please use your time during rest of today to 

ask your questions, clarifying questions about their 

goals. And, I think we can get through it with the rest 

of the amount of time that we have today. Any questions 

on that? Laura?
42

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

DR. KING: Yeah. Thank you. I well, 

first, I'm having a hard time understanding why we're 

going through this differently than we went through every 

other issue. Why we're not going issue and then text 

issue and then text. Because it's very hard. It's hard to 

do what you're asking us to do. So that's my first 

question. And then the second question that I had just 

completely flew out of my head, but maybe the first 

question, why are we doing this differently? It's hard to 

discuss these issues without looking at what they relate 

to in the text.

MS. JEFFRIES: And I totally 

understand that and the Department understands that. 

Primarily the reason for this is that reg text is 60 

pages long. There's a lot in it. If we were to do as we 

have been doing, we feel strongly that you're not going 

to get through the whole entirety of it, even using the 

entire day tomorrow.

DR. KING: Okay. So just to clarify 

then, are we going back tomorrow morning to what we just 

discussed? Are we starting through again or are we done 

talking about that in this session and then moving 

forward?

MS. JEFFRIES: We are- what we're 

trying to do is give you the opportunity here. The 
43

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

Department is explaining their goal. This is what theythis is the goal they want to achieve. Now the reg text 

may or may not meet that goal from your perspectives or 

the goal may not be what you think it should be. Okay? So 

in today we're trying to make sure that all of you 

understand their goal and have the opportunity to ask the 

questions so you clearly understand what it is they're 

trying to achieve to help you decide is that conceptually 

where we want to go as a constituency group or not, and 

get prepared for tomorrow's discussion on the reg text on 

each of these items. And really, it's just because of the 

magnitude of the regulatory text that's been written and 

the complexity of this issue that we've divided it up 

into this type of process for this topic. DC?

DR. PRINCE: I totally understand this 

new approach. I wonder, are the facilitators then going 

to professionally and respectfully identify a question 

and tell the negotiator, hey, we're going to hold that 

for tomorrow. Because I think the concern is that our 

current structure says you get three minutes to have a 

discussion, you get to come out and come back in. I'm not 

knocking anybody. That's a process. Then what you're now 

saying is that we need to tailor the questions because we 

don't know what's for tomorrow. Totally understand that 

even though we were expected to read it before we started 
44

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

this week. But then at the same time, the facilitators 

aren't stopping people where the question might not be 

appropriate. And I understand that our protocols do not 

allow you that opportunity, in essence, to do that. Now 

that we're making this change, do we need to change the 

protocols, or are the facilitators going to be 

respectfully enough to say thank you for that question, 

we're going to hold it for tomorrow? Because if not, I 

won't be able to understand what you're asking me to do. 

As far as a goal, I phrased the question a certain way 

that I think is a goal, and their interpretation is 

actually is not a goal, it's something else, let's hold 

it for tomorrow.

MS. JEFFRIES: Absolutely DC. That is 

what we will do in saying okay is this, you know, help me 

understand how that is related to the goal that the 

Department is trying to express here. And if it is not, 

can you please hold that question for tomorrow. Okay. Not 

seeing any other hands. I'm going to turn it over to 

Herman to walk through the Department's goals for 602.10. 

And then clarifying questions would be welcome so that if 

there's some piece of the goal that you don't understand. 

Okay? Herman? You're on mute.

MR. BOUNDS: Yes and I should realize 

that by now. Alright. We will start here with 602.10. 
45

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

Welcome everyone back. And so this has to do with our 

federal link requirement, which is, the requirement 

basically to apply for recognition. And we have proposed 

some changes here, for creating agencies that seek 

recognition by the Secretary for the purpose of allowing 

their institutions and programs and or programs to meet 

requirements to participate in non-HEA programs at other 

federal agencies. The Department will require that the 

accreditor provide verified documentation of the number 

of accredited institutions or programs that participate 

in the established non HEA program, including the amount 

of federal funds the program or institution receives 

using the agency as its federal link by requiring 

accreditors to demonstrate and provide sufficient 

documentation of a non-HEA link. The Department seeks to 

understand and better account for the risks and 

accreditor presents to taxpayers relative to other 

accreditors. This would assist the Department in 

prioritizing, prioritizing excuse me, its reviews of 

accreditors through a risk based approach that considers 

the types of federal assistance for which accreditation 

by a particular accreditor allows its accredited 

institutions or programs to qualify. This would also 

ensure that Department time and resources use reviewing 

accreditors that do not have resources that are not used 
46

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

to review accreditors that do not have a valid federal 

link, excuse me.

MS. JEFFRIES: Now I did it.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, I think you're on 

mute.

MS. JEFFRIES: Yeah. Clarifying 

questions on what it is that the Department is trying to 

achieve here with their goal? Barmak?

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yeah I generally 

support the notion, but I'm curious why you don't take 

the opportunity here to also do a forward looking 

assessment with some clear definitions. Because as 

everybody is aware, you currently become at least 

theoretically eligible for recognition on the basis of 

having been in business for two years and having one 

institution accredited having- demonstrating experience 

by having had one institution that you were accredited. 

Not a problem. You could be a superlative accreditor of 

that one institution. I think the federal link makes 

sense. But the question I have is, so it's like a 

Ferrari, you go from one institution to a thousand 

institutions upon recognition. Is there any way of having 

a forward looking construct with bright line definitions 

that limit the scope upon recognition, limit the scope of 

how much federal money you can put at risk on the basis 
47

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

of how much federal money your federal linkage 

demonstrated you to have been involved with?

MS. JEFFRIES: Barmak. I think that's 

an excellent question. Are you asking if their goal is to 

include that or not include that?

MR. NASSIRIAN: Well, my goal is to 

suggest that we will submit language to do that. But we 

think they're on the right track in asking- in 

establishing that federal link. But it's also important 

to have some forward looking mechanisms that limit the 

scope of how much money may be at risk once somebody 

satisfies the historical Federal link.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, great. I think 

that that's a great question to note for tomorrow as 

well. And it's helpful to know that you're going to 

submit some sort of proposal on that. So, we do 

appreciate that. Herman, did you have anything to add?

MR. BOUNDS: Yes. I was just going to 

add that's the basic purpose of our risk based review is 

to evaluate those things. Yes.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, great. DC?

DR. PRINCE: Thank you. Is the goal, 

let me try to phrase this question right, is the goal of 

this particular section is to collect information that 

would be used to incentivize institutions, penalize 
48

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

institutions or agencies, or what is the goal to identify 

the federal link with other agencies for the purpose of 

what exactly? Like what is the ultimate, what do you get 

out of it, goal? What do you hope to use the information 

to do kind of goal? If that is the appropriate question 

to ask. 

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. That's a- it's 

really more than a one hard question. The first thing, we 

want to make sure that the agency has- we want to ensure 

that the agency has some sort of federal purpose, excuse 

me, for recognition. So it has to be either they need to 

obtain some sort of grant funding or it's in some other 

statute or some place, but we want to make sure that they 

have a federal purpose for recognition. That's number 

one, so that we don't waste, you know, Government assets 

reviewing an agency who has no federal purpose. That's 

why we have other agencies that are not currently 

recognized. They don't have a federal link, not that 

they're not good agencies, they just don't have a link. 

And then the second part of that, too, is to inform our 

risk based review process. I don't know what you can call 

that incentivizing or not, but what we want to make sure 

is we can evaluate, you know, the number of their 

programs who currently use the agency as their federal 

link and how many dollars those programs collect. And 
49

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

that way we can tailor our reviews of agencies based on 

those things.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thanks, Herman. 

Laura?

DR. KING: I'm trying to understand 

what seems like a redefinition of federal link from 

enabling a program to take advantage of, I'm speaking for 

non-HEA funding, enabling a program to take advantage of 

that and actually demonstrating that one does. It's 

possible that a program doesn't take advantage of the 

link now, but would want to in the future. And if an 

agency loses eligibility, that would seem to put the 

program at risk. So what is that- what is the intent of 

that redefinition?

MR. BOUNDS: Again, I think I stated 

kind of before Laura, the intent of that, we want to make 

sure that that agency has a- that number one, there's a 

purpose for recognition. And then we don't waste a bunch 

of Department manpower reviewing somebody reviewing an 

agency who doesn't have, you know, that link. We 

understand for somebody who's coming in for initial 

accreditation, I mean, excuse me, recognition, they may 

not have a link. They have to then demonstrate that there 

is some, you know, one of their accredited programs, you 

know, will use that agency upon recognition. But we 
50

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

really, our goal is to really make sure that that agency, 

number one, has a valid link. So there's some sort of 

reason for that link, and then that they actually have a 

program that's participating and using that link. Again, 

because if they can't do that or they don't at some 

point, especially for renewal of recognition. Again, it 

just doesn't- they don't have a purpose for recognition.

DR. KING: Right, but they may. 

Because if that still exists as an opportunity for the 

program, they may in the future have- so the link still 

exists. The statute uses the word enable.

MR. BOUNDS: Right, we understand 

that. Our perspective is we want to make sure that that 

entity is also participating. If an agency accredits 200 

programs, one of those programs should be participating. 

That's all you got to have is one of those programs of 

those 200 that are participating. And that's just, you 

know, our interpretation, not our interpretation, but 

that's basically our goal here is to get information on 

and ensure that the federal link is actually being used. 

That's kind of a purpose for our proposed changes here.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. So I'm 

seeing no other hands, so let's move on to 602.13.

MR. BOUNDS: Okay. And we will get the 

602 13.
51

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

MS. STUDLEY: I'm sorry Cindy, there's 

a hand.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, I didn't, I 

think, okay, that's fine. I didn't see it when I made the 

announcement. So go ahead, Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: It was mid-sentence, 

sorry. Briefly, if I'm hearing correctly, Herman, that 

it's a resource issue for the Department. Do you have a 

sense of how this would change the docket or the 

Department's workload if you're trying to change how many 

agencies you deal with? And is it one of the goals or 

possibilities to get support from the agencies who are 

relying on Department recognition for their programs in 

order to help address the resource matter? What effect 

does the Department think this would have in trying to 

achieve your goal of minimizing the agencies you're 

looking at? Unless I misunderstand.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. I mean, it's not 

like we're trying to get rid of or reduce the number of 

agencies. Again, we just want to make sure that the 

agency- our purpose again here is to ensure that the 

agencies- that the programs that the agency is saying 

that is their federal link that those programs are 

currently participating. Again, one of the byproducts of 

that, of course, is, are concerned with reducing, you 
52

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

know, reducing, the use of Government assets when there's 

no federal purpose. But again, it all goes back to our 

risk based review too which is something that the statute 

talks about. We just want to make sure that these folks 

that are- that these programs are actually participating. 

And I don't know if that answered your question or not 

Jamie?

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. Okay. 

So, let's move on to 602.13, Herman, on reserve formally 

acceptance of the agency by others on reinstate 

requirements that agency be widely accepted.

MR. BOUNDS: Right. And this is a 

reinstatement of one of our regulatory requirements that 

was present prior to the changes that occurred in 2020. 

So we thought to bring back that regulation back. This 

one is short, so I don't think I need to read, you know, 

the requirements here. I would like to say, I think the 

one thing here that we did make improvements on is this 

time in the regulation we have provided a benchmark, 

meaning we have said or state you know, how much 

documentation or what you need to demonstrate that you 

are widely accepted. And I think that was one of the 

problems with the previous, you know, with the previous 

regulation. So, but anyway, we our goal here is basically 

to just make sure that we think is important that 
53

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

accreditations demonstrate that their standards practice 

policies are widely accepted by the entities here that we 

have in the language. We just we just think that's 

important.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. 

Clarifying questions on what their goal is so that it 

prepares you better when you read through the reg text 

for preparation for tomorrow? Jamie?

MS. STUDLEY: This seemed surprising 

for existing recognized agencies. That I'm struggling to 

find the comments because you've done this in a different 

order than I expected. But the general question is, as 

far as the goals, what do you think the Department will 

get in addition by receiving letters for recognized 

agencies when the Department through the staff and NACIQI 

have already gone through an extensive review?

MR. BOUNDS: Well, again, we think 

it's important each time the agency comes up for 

recognition, I won't talk about initials because I think 

we can all understand where that's applicable, but we 

think it's important each time that an agency comes up 

for review that they provide information and 

documentation from, you know, from the public or, from 

some of these entities that, you know, their standards 

are widely accepted and kind of gives the agency some 
54

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

more credibility or support. So also some additional 

information that we can get in addition to third party 

comments that we might receive during the recognition 

process, that might be negative. You know, when we get 

information here, we can use that as a comparison based 

on the information that we might get through third party 

comments. But we do think it's important that agencies 

provide this type of documentation, demonstrate validity 

of the agency and those types of things. So that was our 

reason for bringing this particular regulation back.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. Any 

additional clarifying questions on our goals for this 

one? Okay. Herman, you want to move on to 602.18?

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. So this is 602.18 

and we have 602.18 and 602.20 because we have removed and 

combined some things here. So we require accreditors to 

take action more quickly when they identify areas of 

noncompliance, including limiting the amount of time an 

institution can be out of compliance, to the shorter of 

either the length of the longest program at the 

institution or two years. Reduction in time would not 

apply to instances where agencies take action because of 

student achievement related to compliance failures, given 

that it may take an institution or program more time to 

demonstrate improvement in those areas. The Department 
55

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

proposes to strengthen its regulations related to the 

timeline for monitoring and enforcement actions that an 

agency must take, and to eliminate unwarranted exceptions 

to this timeline, while allowing flexibility for national 

emergencies. The proposed changes to the timelines would 

help ensure that institutions or programs that are out of 

compliance with agency standards do not remain accredited 

for extended periods of time.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. DC?

DR. PRINCE: Sorry to sound redundant 

when I draft these questions, but I just want to make 

sure I'm in my mind differentiating between expectation 

and goal. What is the goal of identifying this 

recommendation as more quickly? Is there a lack of 

response? Has the delayed taken more than a year a 

semester? What is the goal of trying to shorten a 

timeframe in dealing with noncompliance?

MR. BOUNDS: Well, I think you hit it, 

you know, I think your question kind of answered, you 

know, what we're trying to do here. Again, we want to 

make sure as we state that, you know, that institutions 

are not allowed to be non-compliant for, again, for an 

extended amount of time. In the old regulations we had, 

the requirements for, depending on the longest length of 

the program at the institution, if it's two years, you 
56

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

had two years to demonstrate compliance. And we think 

that there are situations of noncompliance at 

institutions or programs other than student achievement, 

where we think that corrective action can be taken more 

clearly. So, I guess, to answer your question, yes, we 

think we need to reduce the non-compliant timelines in 

those areas. But then for student achievement, we 

understand that it may take longer to make those 

corrections. By the time an institution, excuse me, an 

accrediting agency or an institution, you know, you have 

to determine root cause, then you have to put in some 

sort of corrective action. And then you also then need to 

have some timeline to see if that corrective action was 

effective. So that's why we're separating those out, 

giving additional time for student achievement.

DR. PRINCE: What was the Department's 

thinking in deciding that student achievement? Is it more 

important than financial mismanagement or governance or 

other forms of accreditation that are used to evaluate 

institutions. Is that a today question or a tomorrow 

question, Cindy?

MS. JEFFRIES: I feel it's a tomorrow 

question. When we are actually going over the text? So, 

please don't lose track of that, DC because it's a good 

question.
57

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

DR. PRINCE: Okay. That's fine. Thank 

you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks. Laura?

DR. KING: So we just negotiated, it 

seems like yesterday, but in 2019, different- you're 

going back to pre-2019 language for the most part except 

for the student achievement language. Has there been 

enough time, so the regulations went into effect in what 

July 2020, has there been enough time for a demonstrable 

impact of what the regulations were in this area that 

you've seen a problem? I would think that you would allow 

the other regulations to run their course and see if 

there's a problem. So I'm wondering if there's some kind 

of problem that you're trying to solve with this.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. I think as we're 

saying, Laura, I think the problem that we're seeing is 

the increased amount of time for that allow institutions 

to be non-compliant, maybe for minor issues or issues 

that we think could be corrected, corrected more quickly. 

And again, that's the sole reason for our changes here. 

We think that, again, we think that there are some issues 

that could be addressed more quickly and that 

institutions shouldn't be allowed to remain non-compliant 

for, you know, what the regulation currently allows now. 

You know, 150% of the program, or the lesser I think is 
58

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

four years. I don't have the text in front of me. So we 

think we could definitely shorten that timeline for 

noncompliance.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Erica, 

you're next.

MS. LINDEN: Thank you. Just an 

observation. Perhaps asking the agents or the Department 

to consider that, the going back and forth every couple 

of years between this and the last issue seemed to be 

both- we don't like what happened a little bit ago, a 

couple of years ago, so we want to go back to what was 

there before. Just an observation that this kind of 

change can be highly disruptive and costly to 

institutions to every couple of years when an 

administration changes. I don't have a recommendation, 

but is there a way to consider how to establish these 

benchmarks that don't subject them to being changed so 

readily or so frequently? Just my observation and as a 

general element.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Erica. I 

think that is something that can be discussed tomorrow in 

more detail and depth as we get to into the actual reg 

text. It's a good question and a good point. We 

appreciate it. Jamie?

MS. STUDLEY: Clarification. When I 
59

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

first read the Department's opening policy piece and it 

said, require accreditors to take action more quickly. 

I'd like to clarify which action. I believe I understand 

that what they mean is the action once having determined 

that there is a failure of compliance, the allowable time 

to a withdrawal or a determination that the institution 

has come into compliance. I think it might be natural to 

read it that accreditors are not taking the action, that 

making the decision about noncompliance quickly enough. 

And if that is not the point, I think it's important for 

us to understand that because we, certainly make every 

effort to move as quickly within the processes that you 

require and that we have committed to. And the due 

process requires to make decisions on the status of an 

institution. My confirmation is that's not the quickly 

that you're talking about. You're talking about, once 

that's [inaudible] what then happened. And in that case, 

I too would appreciate understanding what's extended or 

too extended? Is it that you don't want people to avail 

themselves of the newer extended changes in the 

regulations, which I can say my agency until very 

recently did not even allow ourselves that option and 

some other agencies never have. Or is it that within even 

the shorter timeframe, you think it's not happening fast 

enough? Having a sense of what the behavior is that 
60

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

you're looking for would help us work toward the same 

goals.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. So to answer your 

question, the first part of your question is correct. 

We're talking about once the commission makes its- you 

know, once you determine that an institution is noncompliant, and then we're talking about the timeline that 

institution is allowed to be out of compliance prior to 

you taking that adverse action. And that's the time that 

we're looking at. You know, based on, you know, all of 

our reviews of, you know, of the, you know, 53 recognized 

accrediting agencies. You know, how that timeline can be 

reduced and how some institutions are allowed to be noncompliant for extended periods of time. And that's what 

our goal here is to try to reduce that time. Again, other 

for student achievement, because we understand how long 

it may take to see improvement in that area.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. And, I see one 

more hand. Jo?

MS. BLONDIN: Yes. Thank you. I would 

also add to kind of to what Herman just said, I mean, in 

his response, it might be helpful to have some data, too, 

around that timeframe challenge. I would really possibly 

like to see kind of what we're talking about there, that 

might be helpful. And then I would also say, too, that I 
61

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

appreciate the student achievement side of this, knowing 

very well that institutions do need that slightly 

attenuated timeframe to get to make that happen. But I 

would like to kind of see some data, maybe, or some 

examples around what we're talking about with this. What 

institution should have been subjected to a shorter 

timeframe. I'm just curious. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: I think. Thank you for 

that, Jo. As far as your data requests, if you'd like to 

put that in writing and send it to the FMCS team, we'll 

be happy to forward it to the Department and they'll take 

a look to see if and what they have available. Okay. 

Seeing no more hands. You ready to move on, Herman?

MR. BOUNDS: Yes. Sure am.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MR. BOUNDS: Now under- did we want to 

go over, under 602.18 and 602.20, we also did have some 

questions for the committee.

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes. I think that if 

you want to take the questions one at a time. Go over 

602.22 and then 18 and then take the questions one at a 

time for the committee.

MR. BOUNDS: Okay. And I can frame- I 

can I can add some additional information if you all 

aren't familiar with, you know, with these changes that 
62

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

we made. But the Department- we removed language from 

602.18 (D) and we moved it to the proposed 602.20 (H) of 

the regulation. And allows agency permit institutions or 

programs to be out of compliance for a period not 

exceeding three years for situations of natural disasters 

or recession. So we would like, you know, any input when 

those exceptions may be appropriate, if these are the 

right ones, and is the timeline appropriate?

MS. JEFFRIES: So the question before 

the committee that you would like information on, are 

there areas- is it question number one? Areas that create 

significant risk that are not included in an agency's 

required definition of substantive change under 602.22?

MR. BOUNDS: I think these questions 

are under, excuse me, under 602.18 the section that we 

just went over and these are questions, yeah, these are 

questions.

MS. JEFFRIES: I'm sorry.

DR. PRINCE: I'm sorry, Cindy, I don't 

mean to interrupt, but under 602.18 and 602.20, there's 

the actual standard that we had just discussed. The first 

set of questions that we have received in the packet that 

I'm looking at, only has 602.22 on substantiative 

changes. So if there was another document that was sent, 

revisions on 602.18 and 602.20 with questions, that was 
63

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

not sent to- or I think I see other heads nodding was.

MR. BOUNDS: Okay, maybe it wasn't. 

Okay. Let me go down to.

MS. JEFFRIES: Yeah, we don't have 

those questions.

MR. BOUNDS: Okay. Alright. Okay. 

Alright. So then we'll move on to 602.22 under sub 

change. Okay. And I'll just go ahead and read the 

proposal.

DR. PRINCE: Just to ask, since that 

seems to be a point of clarity for the Department, are we 

going to get those questions and revisit that tomorrow 

before we go through the rest?

MR. BOUNDS: Yes. Alright. So under, 

602.22 sub change, we are proposing here revised sub 

change requirements to focus on changes of greatest risk. 

And sub change requirements govern the required review 

and approval by accrediting agencies when an institution 

seeks to fundamentally change its policies or practices. 

These regulations are meant to ensure consistency and 

quality across institutions and are an important 

guardrail to protect students from significant changes 

that may impact an institution's resources and capacity. 

The Department proposes revising and clarifying its sub 

change regulations to require agencies to visit and 
64

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

approve all additional locations of an institution to 

approve distance education on an institution's first 

offering and at the 50% threshold, and to improve the 

addition of programs at a level by an institution, at any 

level, by an institution that it has not previously 

offered programs at such level. The Department also 

proposes to eliminate exceptions and existing regulations 

that allow agencies to delegate certain substantive 

change approvals to agency staff, rather than the 

agency's decision-making body, or to permit institutions 

not to notify agencies of a change under certain 

circumstances. Further, the Department proposes to 

require that, for substantive changes by institutions 

that are on sanctions, negative actions or provisional 

certificate status, the agency must evaluate as part of 

its decision whether the sub change could create 

significant risk to students. Through these changes, the 

Department seeks to streamline, strengthen and clarify 

substantive change requirements with a focus on the areas 

of greatest potential risk to students and taxpayers. And 

we have the two area questions for discussions. Are there 

any areas creating significant risks that are not 

included in any agency's required definition of sub 

change under 602.22 (a)(1)(ii), but should be? And we can 

start there.
65

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, let's say 

comments on the question at hand. If there's areas that 

create significant risks that aren't included. Carolyn? 

Where'd you go?

MS. FAST: Sorry about that.

MS. JEFFRIES: There you are.

MS. FAST: I'll take myself off mute 

there. One thing we wondered if the Department would 

consider in terms of what constitutes a substance change 

would be to look at changes in terms of the amount of 

program that's being outsourced to a third party servicer 

as something that might be worth looking at when there 

are changes related to that. That can raise risks. As we 

know that sometimes, primarily public or nonprofit 

schools partner with private for-profit companies that 

offer online programs and sometimes can introduce risks 

to students in those kinds of written arrangements. And 

it might be worth including that as something- as a flag 

for accreditors to be looking for in connection with 

those arrangements.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Herman, I don't 

know if you have a response or if you want that in the 

chat so you can take a look at it. In the chat?

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, they could put that 

in the chat that would be great.
66

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. So, please do so 

Carolyn. We'd appreciate it. DC?

DR. PRINCE: Thank you, Cindy. I have 

a question. I guess it's a goal question, but a process 

question. By revising the substitute change requirements 

to focus on changes of greatest risk, are you, in 

essence, limiting competition amongst institutions and 

private providers in order for them to deliver 

educational product within the ecosystem? Because there 

is a concern here around- at least particular round about 

the fundamentally changing its policies and practices of 

an institution to put in a substantial change or 

substantial change, but mostly on greatest risk. And that 

seems to be stifling competition for institutions to be 

able to move when the market moves, or economics when 

things change. And so therefore it just seems as though 

the unintended consequence or intended consequence, is to 

more regulate when we need less regulation in this space. 

If that makes sense.

MR. BOUNDS: Again, I'm trying to 

understand your question, but I definitely don't think 

we're- you know, our subs have changed- you know- we have 

some pretty extensive sub change requirements now we are 

trying to strengthen, we are trying to strengthen this 

area. Again, we've eliminated some of those sub changes 
67

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

that we currently have in place now that an institution 

can put in place without approval or consultation with 

their accrediting agency. We definitely don't think 

that's a good, idea. Then we are definitely not trying to 

stifle, you know, any sort of innovation that an 

institution might, you know, any innovative programs that 

they might want to start. We just think that those things 

should go through the accrediting agencies approval 

process and there should be an evaluation on the risk 

that that change may place on students. I mean, that's 

kind of where we're coming from here. But we're 

definitely not trying to stifle innovation. We just want 

to make sure that the agency has a say in approving those 

types of changes.

DR. PRINCE: But what we're not, and 

correct me if I'm wrong, what you're not experiencing is 

a significant abuse of this where institutions are- there 

are more institutions at risk of being fined or noncompliant than trying to make a change to such a process 

that, in essence, you know, it really isn't impacting the 

sector in a way that needs this kind of regulation.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, I think so. So 

number one, for sub change, I mean, that's really a 

something that the accrediting agency tracks more so than 

we do. I mean, the accrediting agency is the one that 
68

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

gets those substantive changes. And they are well aware 

of the number and the types and the depth of those 

changes. What we're saying, you know, what we're saying 

here is that one of our concerns there were in current 

regulation instances where institutions could implement 

changes without having review of their accrediting 

agency, and we think that is problematic. I won't name 

the agency. But I've had some comments where I have been 

told, well, we would never have approved those types of 

changes that the institution initiated. I know that's 

anecdotal information, but those are some of the concerns 

that we have here. And again, we just want to make sure 

that for those institutions that may be in some sort of 

trouble and the agency does decide to approve a sub 

change, we want them to make sure that they evaluate if 

there's any risk involved with their approval of that 

change. I know that's a long winded answer but that's 

kind of what we're looking at here.

DR. PRINCE: No, I get it. So just for 

my clarification, the goal is to encourage and in some 

ways force accrediting agencies to do more reviews of all 

substance changes, whether it is small in their viewpoint 

or large in their viewpoint. And then when they because 

they're going to be doing it moving forward, there's a 

requirement of when they're going to be reviewing those 
69

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

substantive changes as well. That's the goal of this, 

right?

MR. BOUNDS: Right. That is.

DR. PRINCE: Yeah. So as an 

institution, I can't do anything really in essence from 

credit to non-credit to any kind of other movement in a 

space without notifying and going through a process with 

my accrediting body.

MR. BOUNDS: What we want to make sure 

that's the process that what we cite in regulations is 

what we cite as a sub change. Now, there are a lot of 

agencies who have additional requirements regarding sub 

change that are, you know, that are in addition to what 

we have in, you know, in current regulation. So I want to 

make sure that's clear. We're not telling a credit agency 

they can't have additional sub changes. Sub change 

requirements.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Jamie, 

comments around question one?

MS. STUDLEY: Yeah. One goal that's 

not explicitly articulated here is the allowance, I'd 

like to know if the Department acknowledges and respects, 

is that basic curriculum improvement and additional of 

appropriate subject matter or updates in what's being 

taught is in students interest. And that there is some 
70

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

degree of revision that institutions and their faculty 

should be able to make to, you know, update how you teach 

a dental hygienist, given new science, what the computer 

science program ought to be. Without getting into the 

details now, the 25% review of content of a course would 

seem to be, run into exactly the kinds of things that you 

would want institution faculty Departments to do. To 

refresh the subject matter of their classes so that they 

are appropriate. So I wonder whether the Department has 

thought about its goals in regard to preserving the 

ability of accredited, approved, currently compliant 

institutions. I recognize separate issues if there's a 

problem. To be able to adapt the curriculum, to bring in 

new public, you know, new current events, new techniques, 

new science into what they're teaching.

MR. BOUNDS: I think we will listen to 

that in a discussion, you know, tomorrow about the 

specific reg text. I mean, we would take all that back. I 

mean, our position is that we really want the accredit 

agencies to review those types of things, but we're 

willing to listen to that. And you can definitely point 

that out in tomorrow's reg text discussion. Yeah.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Barmak?

MR. NASSIRIAN: Directly answering the 

question that's posed. I think the elephant in the room 
71

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

is changes in the institution's business model or revenue 

model. If you go in to evaluate an institution while it's 

engaged in one mode of generating revenues. I think it is 

a very significant and consequential shift if the revenue 

model changes entirely without the accreditors awareness. 

And, you know, as you know, there have been instances 

where in fairly small institutions that used to have one 

mode of generating revenue have altered their practices 

without changing ownership, without necessarily changing 

anything else to garner resources. Oftentimes, as we all 

know, institutions are bundles of cross-subsidies, you 

know, Department's cross-subsidize each other, graduate, 

undergraduate, programmatic. You can have, enormous 

abuses in how institutions go about generating revenues 

that could be prevented if the accreditor took a look to 

see if there quotient. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Barmak. 

Appreciate it. Jillian?

MS. KLEIN: Yeah, thanks. I'm going to 

speak fast, because Cindy's probably going to yell at me 

as soon as I start my sentence. But I just so I know 

we're doing the questions, but I think also there's this 

whole section, the narrative about what's being proposed 

in 602.22 and Herman, can you just talk a little bit 

about the proposal to eliminate sort of staff reviews in 
72

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

general? I just- it would be helpful. And I'm sorry if 

you said this and I just blanked out for a minute, but if 

you can just provide a bit more context about the 

Department's concern here generally? Just because I 

think, again, like seven of us or whatever, including the 

Department, when we wrote this in 2019, I think folks 

felt there was value in staff reviews. And so, instead of 

the Department coming back and proposing, like maybe 

there are some tweaks needed in terms of what gets 

reviewed by staff, it would just be helpful to me. And, I 

don't know, maybe my fellow negotiators, just to hear a 

bit about the Department's perspective on that proposed 

change as it's outlined in the narrative not jumping to 

the regulatory text, just for my own purposes would be 

useful.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, sure. And I think 

our concern is that, some of the, you know, previous 

allowances, for changes that institutions could take 

without informing their accreditor, we think some of 

those, you know, were problematic. Again, in my 

experience, and again, I won't use the agency's name, but 

we have talked with some agencies who had informed us 

that they maybe would not have approved those types of 

changes if they were allowed to review those. So, again, 

we just think it's important that the agency, you know, 
73

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

review all of the types of substantive change that we 

have in our definition over agency staff looking at 

those. I do understand the point where, you know, maybe 

there may be some room to tweak some of those and maybe 

allow some of that back in. I don't think we would not be 

willing to, you know, to take a look at some of that. But 

our main concern here was, was making sure that the 

accrediting agency actually reviewed all substantive 

change, which had been standard practice for probably 20 

years under the sub change regulations. Of that, the 

accrediting agency decision making body had to review and 

approve all substantive changes that were defined by the 

Department under the 2020 reg changes. That's when all 

those changes, you know, kind of took place. And it is 

concerning sometimes that just the institutional staff 

can review those because now we don't know if there are 

financial needs that need to be looked at as part of 

doing something new. Is there training? Is there- there 

could be several other considerations for approval of sub 

change and that's our concern that maybe if they're 

instituted by the institution, there's not a higher look 

at those requirements.

MS. KLEIN: Yeah. So I think what I'm 

hearing you say is that the Department is at least 

willing to engage in a conversation about if there's a 
74

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

way that agency staff decisions can be brought back and 

maybe a limited fashion where they make sense as we go 

through these negotiations.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, I think we're 

always willing to take a look at stuff. And again, I 

don't want to exclude my colleague here, Donna Mangold 

from OGC, if she has any comments. And if I missed your 

hand, Donna, I didn't mean to do that.

MS. KLEIN: Thanks for the 

information. Thanks.

MS. JEFFRIES: She's good. She did. 

Thumbs up. Thanks, Donna. Alright, we have one more hand 

on question number one, and then we're going to move on. 

Erica?

MS. LINDEN: Thank you. This is just a 

question. Herman, could you maybe provide a little bit of 

explanation of the motivation around or the concerns 

regarding additional locations and the need for an agency 

to visit all additional- do you mean all additional 

locations? Just what your intent is around that language 

there. Thank you.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. Donna, do you want 

to jump in here and discuss or I can take the first part 

of that question.

MS. JEFFRIES: She's indicating you 
75

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

can.

MS. MANGOLD: You can take it.

MR. BOUNDS: Okay. Alright. Thanks. 

Yeah. We just think that when, you know, when a 

accreditation is awarded to an institution, it's awarded 

to the entire institution. And we really want to make 

sure that if University A is gaining accreditation and 

then you have additional locations under that institution 

that they also get reviewed when that grant of 

accreditation is offered. Because then it's, you know, it 

filters down through those other locations. So that's our 

main concern. We just want to make sure that each one of 

the additional locations under the institution also gets 

those accreditation reviews in a timely manner. Just like 

the main institution is receiving.

MS. LINDEN: And so is that just a 

review or an actual site, physical site visit?

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, that's the same 

accreditation process that the institution is going 

through, that same thing should occur as part of that 

entire accreditation review. You know, our regulations 

say you have to conduct a site visit. You know, they have 

to submit a self-study. All those things should be 

encompassed in all of the, you know, institution in its 

entirety. Yeah.
76

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. So let's move on 

to question two there. I do want to take a moment to 

reach out to those who registered for public comment. If 

you're listening in, we are about 20 minutes away from 

the start of public comment. So, we encourage you to log 

into the meeting, into the waiting room about 15 minutes 

prior to your scheduled time so that we can move through 

and get as many of the commenters in as possible. So and 

negotiators, we have 20 minutes left to try to move 

through some more of this, and then the rest we'll take 

up tomorrow morning and get into the reg text. So 

question number two. Should the Department define 

significant departure as [inaudible] in 602.22 (a)(1) 

romanette 2 (c) and if so, how should it define the term? 

Thoughts? Jillian?

MS. KLEIN: Sure. I took a run at a 

definition. I'll put it in the chat, I'll read it, then 

I'll put it in the chat. Just to get the conversation 

started. So, significant departure is the addition of any 

credit bearing or Title IV eligible educational program 

that significantly differs from, and is not a logical 

extension of programs currently offered by the 

institution. Accrediting agencies should consider the new 

program's relevancy to the institution's mission, and 

whether the institution has sufficient resources to 
77

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

successfully offer the program and provide appropriate 

student support in accordance with the accrediting agency 

standards. So I'll drop it in the chat to. Thanks.

MS. JEFFRIES: Appreciate your time 

and effort, Jillian, to write that up. That's very 

helpful. Barmak?

MR. NASSIRIAN: Thank you Jillian for 

drafting the language. The concern I always have is that 

of just drilling too deep into details and then learning 

after the fact that we've left out things that should 

have been included. Why do we need this? I think 

significant departure is fairly understandable. Why do we 

need to enumerate what specifically it consists of? I 

don't mind putting as such as, before Jillian's language 

just to illustrate the point. Maybe, but there can be 

other modalities of significant departure that we can't 

think of at the moment that could be consequential for 

students and the taxpayers.

MS. JEFFRIES: I think you make some 

good points there, Barmak. And if you want to supplement 

some additional language. You can put it in the chat or 

send it in a proposal. I know you're great at writing 

those and you're quick at it too. And you send them to me 

early in the morning. So, I appreciate that.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Scheduled send in 
78

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

Gmail, Cindy.

MS. JEFFRIES: Oh, okay. DC?

DR. PRINCE: I do have a question. Is 

by if the, sorry, I'm getting tongue tied today. If the 

Department decides to define significant departure, has 

the Department determined or thought about how much 

authority they would be taking away from the local 

agencies and or local systems to determine for themselves 

what is a significant departure? Is there too much 

oversight by asking the question alone?

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah, I think we thought 

about all of that. That's why we're putting the question 

forth here to the committee. You know, we're saying 

should we define significant departure and if, you know, 

the group here were to think so, then how should we 

define. I think that's why we're seeking input from you 

all on that specific point. Because right now it's up to 

the agency to determine what it considers significant 

departure when it reviews and evaluates the sub change 

request.

DR. PRINCE: Would the- is the 

Department then thinking about not defining and or 

completely forgoing this option of significant departure?

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. I mean, I think 

what we would do, again, we're going to take back the 
79

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

information that we received from the committee, and then 

we would make that evaluation, based on the feedback that 

we get. Again, that's basically why we're asking the 

question. Status quo would be to leave as is, and leave 

that decision up to the accrediting body. But again, 

that's why we're bringing that question to the group.

DR. PRINCE: Is there a risk in not 

having a definition at all?

MR. BOUNDS: I don't think there's 

any- I would say maybe yes and no. I mean, you know, for 

the last years we have not had a definition of 

significant departure, but that doesn't mean that's the 

right call either. Again, that's why we're seeking input 

from the folks here to kind of help us to make that 

decision. You know, as educators, we don't do a lot of 

anything without getting input from other folks and doing 

some research. So this is part of that process.

DR. PRINCE: Alright. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. One 

thing I want to say that for the public commenters that 

are signing in, if we please sign in with the same name 

that you registered under. If you're signing in with the 

phone number- if we can't identify who you are, we can't 

let you in the meeting. So, we'll try to reach out to you 

as best we can to identify who you are. But if you could 
80

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

help us out, we'd appreciate it. Barmak?

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yeah, I just want to 

make it, in attempting to see where we land on this, I 

just want to make a broad observation. The model we have 

with institutional accreditation is an overarching trust 

model. So the accreditor does whatever abracadabra it 

does do well as well as it does it, and then puts a stamp 

of approval on the institution. And at that point, the 

institution may decide to begin to morph, to begin to 

evolve. Now there are certain institutions that are 

subject to very robust oversight from their respective 

boards, from state authorities, etc., etc. and there are 

others that are actually trying to game the system. We 

see this particularly to illustrate, with law schools 

that evolve at institutions that are institutionally 

accredited. But the law school is not ABA accredited. So 

you see examples of an institution that is otherwise 

deemed to be a good actor, overtly offering programs that 

are dead ends at least in 49 of the 50 states, insofar as 

actual practice of the thing that is supposed to be 

taught at the law school. And yet they operate with no 

punitive consequences. We've attempted- we're attempting 

to plug that hole, but this notion of significant 

departure should capture those kinds of things to at 

least implicate the accreditor in the malfeasance. Now, 
81

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

as I mentioned, there are accreditors, institutional 

accreditors, even today that tolerate the practice. But 

at the very least, we want to make sure they don't 

profess ignorance that it happened behind their back, 

etc.. I think Jillian's language kind of does that, but I 

think that would be my poster child of a significant 

departure where you trust the institution as a 

trustworthy provider of education. And then once it 

obtains your rubber stamp, it proceeds to do things that 

at the very least, you ought to be looking at.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you Barmak 

for that. Jo?

MS. BLONDIN: Hi again. And again, I'm 

new to this process, so forgive me. And I need, I just 

need examples. It would be so helpful to have some 

examples of this significant departure. And I see the 

definition there. And maybe tomorrow is the time to have 

more conversation around this, but I just really want to 

understand it from a boots on the ground perspective. I 

mean, I really, really do, especially representing the 

community colleges, I really want to understand what this 

looks like. So maybe tomorrow will be more illuminating 

around this. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jo. 

Appreciate it. Alright. Seeing no other hands on that. We 
82

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

have about 11 minutes, Herman. I think we could probably 

get through 602.23. You're on mute.

MR. BOUNDS: Great goodness. Yeah. I 

think we could get through 602.23.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MR. BOUNDS: Okay. So under 602.23 I 

will go through our proposal here and basically it's to 

help evaluate what is- what we consider fair, equitable 

and timely. So we want to clarify the requirements that 

agencies must review complaints in a timely, fair and 

equitable manner, including by specific factors the 

Department will consider in reviewing complaint policies, 

such as the availability of multiple submission methods, 

confidentiality of the complainant, and whether timelines 

for reviewing complaints or clear. Complaints can be an 

important factor of whether an institution or program is 

providing students a quality education, and the 

Department seeks to ensure that agencies' complaint 

policies are fair and equitable to anyone wishing to file 

a complaint. And of course, we want to put these changes 

to codify those in the current practice. And a lot of the 

changes that we've proposed here, we've taken to- we put 

out some complaint guidance a few months ago to 

accrediting agencies, and we just wanted to incorporate 

that into regulation.
83

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Any questions on 

what the Department is trying to accomplish? Laura?

DR. KING: Is the intent to- and I 

think this is a little bit different than the dear 

Colleague letter that was put out, but is the intent for 

accrediting agencies to accept anonymous complaints? 

Anonymous is different than confidential.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. So I think 

tomorrow, Laura, we'll definitely dive into the reg text, 

but that's going to be a- and I haven't pulled the reg 

text in front of me, but that's going to be a 

consideration in our evaluation of whether the agency 

accepts these anonymous, you know, anonymous complaints. 

Because right now the complaint criteria for agencies is 

all over the place. I mean, some agencies allow certain 

things to be submitted, certain submission methods, and 

then others don't. This is trying to kind of give 

everyone an idea of the things that we're going to look 

at and evaluating this fair and equitable.

DR. KING: Right. And I'm not sure you 

answered my question, it could be because it wasn't 

clear. The question was, is the intent of the change 

related to anonymity and submitting anonymous complaints, 

or is it keeping the complainant confidential? Those are 

two different things, and the language is not clear about 
84

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

what the intent is on that.

MR. BOUNDS: So we're looking at 

keeping the identity of the complainant, you know, 

confidential.

DR. KING: Okay. That's great. Thank 

you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. I've got, Barmak.

MR. NASSIRIAN: It's very difficult to 

understand how you can keep the identity of the 

complainants confidential when the party's being 

complained about maybe on the board of the entity to whom 

you're complaining. I mean, I just see and we have 

examples of that where a student has an issue, complains 

to the accreditor, and lo and behold, the owner of the 

school is on the board of the accreditor. How do you keep 

that confidential? It seems to me that accreditors- now I 

understand the concern about frivolous stuff pouring in 

from all quarters of the internet. I get that. But I have 

to tell you, some of the most serious allegations that 

are well worth investigating, would presumably come in 

anonymously because people are afraid of retaliation. And 

given the fact that this is a fairly self-governing 

process, it would be understandable why people would not 

want to be identified when they complain.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. And 
85

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

perhaps that's something that can be delved into in more 

specifics tomorrow to, Barmak. Other comments? No 

clarifying questions? We've got about six minutes. 

Herman, do you want to try to cover 602.30? Well that's 

30 to 39. So that's a long one.

MR. BOUNDS: Yeah. That's going to be 

pretty extensive. Yeah.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright, well if you 

want to get up and stretch your legs for three minutes, 

we can. But we do need to start the. Oh, Emmett, you got 

your hand up. Thanks.

MR. BLANEY: Hi. Sorry.

MS. JEFFRIES: No, no. That's fine.

MR. BLANEY: Sorry to try to steal 

your leg stretching break.

MS. JEFFRIES: No. No problem.

MR. BLANEY: I just, since we have, 

like, a couple minutes, I don't want to butt up into the 

public comment period. But just wanted to briefly explain 

a memo, that myself and a couple of other negotiators 

have submitted. It has some information around automatic 

textbook billing and response to the Department's cash 

management proposal. So I just wanted to get you a little 

outline just in the hopes that folks will have the 

opportunity to look at it tonight, before tomorrow. So it 
86

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

details specific financial hardships that automatic 

textbook billing places on students, also provide some 

history to the regulations surrounding automatic billing 

that I think are super helpful to review. And it goes 

into a little more detail on example of research done by 

PIRG that shows the reality behind these Inclusive Access 

contracts. And then the memo closes with some of our 

recommendations for the Department to revise this section 

of the Federal rules to make them specifically more 

student friendly and ensure that students get the full 

financial aid that we are entitled to. I know that's my 

SparkNotes version. I hope you have a chance to look at 

it. If you have any questions, reach out to me or any of 

the other negotiators that are on that document.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, 

Emmett. We appreciate that. Alright. We are at 3:26. We 

will start promptly at. Well, who we have here. We have 

one that we can identify because it's via a phone number. 

I know we're working on trying to figure out who that is, 

but until we do, we cannot let them into the room. So 

Krystil, let's go ahead and admit the first person that 

we have.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay. Great. My first 

person is Josiah Shaw. They will be representing 

themselves.
87

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Welcome, Josiah. 

Can you hear me? Perfect. Can you take yourself off-? 

There you go. Thanks for registering to address the 

committee today, they value your input greatly. So, you 

will have three minutes to address the committee. You 

will be given a 30 second heads up just before your three 

minutes expires. Okay. So ready to start your time 

whenever you're ready to start speaking.

MR. SHAW: Alright. I'm ready to go.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, great.

MR. SHAW: Alright. Hi. My name is 

Josiah Shaw. I served in the Air Force from 2002 until 

2006, and again from 2012 to 2019. When I most recently 

returned to civilian life, I decided it was time to use 

my GI Bill benefits and get an education. I decided to 

pursue a career as a videographer. After googling 

programs, I found the Art Institute. I thought it would 

be good- would help me to move forward in my career. Then 

I was wrong, unfortunately. Enrolling was suspiciously 

easy. I spoke to someone for more information, within the 

same day I was signed up for school. Immediately I could 

tell there was problems, especially in my program. The 

gear they provided wasn't up to date, and I actually had 

to give the school a list of the kinds of equipment that 

I would need. Only two other students were studying film 
88

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

with me and I had just one class with them. Because of 

this, it was hard to collaborate with anyone on my 

projects. On top of this, about half of my classes the 

teachers were doing very little teaching. The classes 

were just canned. They would just show up, show us 

YouTube videos, or reuse lesson plans. I couldn't believe 

that the VA was paying for this. I felt like this school 

was happy to take my money but did not want to give me an 

education in return. The kicker came at the very end, 

just three days before the end of my turn while I was 

working on my final assignment. I received an email from 

the school saying it would be permanently shutting down 

in just over a week. I couldn't believe it. I was 

completely blindsided. I was so frustrated that they had 

not told us earlier, as they must have known, or at least 

suspected that this was coming. Had I been aware of the 

closure earlier, I would have put together a portfolio 

and looked for another school. It was wrong that the 

accreditor approved program with such low- the accreditor 

approved a program with such low quality that would 

eventually pull the rug out from underneath me. Had I not 

had my GI Bill benefits restored, the whole experience 

would have been a complete disaster. Still, it was a huge 

waste of time. Please consider new rules that will force 

accreditors to look more closely on programing and 
89

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

prevent schools from surprising their students with 

abrupt closures. Thank you for your time.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Josiah.

MR. SHAW: You're welcome.

MS. JEFFRIES: Krystil, who do we have 

next?

MS. K. SMITH: Our next speaker is 

Edgar Sort de Sanz, representing himself.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Edgar, can you 

hear me?

MR. SORT DE SANZ: Yes. Can you hear 

me?

MS. JEFFRIES: Absolutely. Welcome.

MR. SORT DE SANZ: Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you for taking 

the time to make your comments to the committee today. 

You will have three minutes and you will receive a 30 

second heads up before your time expires. Okay? And your 

time begins whenever you're ready to start talking.

MR. SORT DE SANZ: Oh, not a problem. 

I appreciate that. I actually have something printed out 

here that I'll just read directly. Okay. So my name is 

Edgar Sort de Sanz. So I appreciate the opportunity to 

share my experience as a student at the University of 

Phoenix. After serving in the Navy, I enrolled in a 
90

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

bachelor's degree in psychology in 2009, using my GI 

Bill. The decision was based mainly on their sales pitch, 

with promises of employment and opportunities offered by 

top employers. I was led to believe that the university 

had affiliations and partnerships with esteemed 

employers, which I later found out to be exaggerated or 

non-existent. As a student, I found the quality of the 

instruction to be severely lacking, and I didn't learn 

anything. It was frustrating because I purposely enrolled 

in face to face classes, which I expected would be much 

better option for me than online. I withdrew in 2013 due 

to a death in the family that needed me to regroup with 

them, but I did reapply to Phoenix in 2018, holding out 

hope that finishing my degree would land me a decent job. 

Shockingly, I was told that the degree I was enrolled in 

was no longer offered. I would have to start over as a 

sophomore. Now I have more than $50,000 in student loans, 

but I do not know how this happened because I never took 

out any loans. I never signed any paperwork. Everything 

with Phoenix was done over the phone. I have no 

recollection of ever applying for any of these loans, and 

this debt does continue to affect my financial stability. 

Now, as a disabled veteran, I have been approved for VA 

Vocational Rehabilitation and will soon start working 

toward a career in cyber security. While I am excited 
91

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

about these possibilities, I have a huge financial burden 

from loans that I did not want and I feel like my GI Bill 

and time went to waste. Thank you for your time.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Edgar. We 

appreciate it.

MR. SORT DE SANZ: Not a problem.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Krystil, who do 

we have up next?

MS. K. SMITH: So next we have Jeri 

Glenn. They are representing themselves. They were the 

phone number, so they might be on audio.

MS. JEFFRIES: Wonderful. Glad you 

were able to identify them. Jeri, can you hear us? Jeri?

MS. K. SMITH: They are on mute.

MS. GLENN: I'm here.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. There we go. 

Great. Wonderful.

MS. GLENN: I had to unmute myself.

MS. JEFFRIES: We've been struggling 

with that ourselves all day long, so don't- no worries on 

that. So, Jeri, welcome and thanks for taking your time 

to address the committee. You will have three minutes and 

you will receive a 30 second heads up just before your 

time expires. And so with that, you are free to begin.

MS. GLENN: My name is Jerry Glenn. I 
92

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

served in the United States Navy.

MS. JEFFRIES: We lost you.

MS. K. SMITH: Jeri, you have muted 

yourself again, maybe inadvertently.

MS. GLENN: Okay, let me hide the 

keypad there, maybe that'll help.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Go ahead.

MS. GLENN: Let me start over. My name 

is Jeri Glenn. I served in the United States Navy from 

1987 to 2002. When I looked for jobs after getting out, I 

found that the lack of a degree put me at a disadvantage 

despite my real world experiences. I was lured to 

enrolling online at the University of Phoenix based on 

promises of jobs with notable companies. The advisers 

painted a picture of exciting opportunities after 

graduation. They claimed I could get an accounting job 

with a minimum salary of $60,000. And then pressured me 

to enroll in their master's program after my bachelor's, 

because I did not feel prepared to get a job. Before 

enrolling, I was told the tuition was relatively 

inexpensive and I was offered a veterans discount. 

However, I don't believe I ever got that discount. I was 

originally told my GI Bill would cover full cost of 

tuition, but later I needed to take out Federal student 

loans to complete my degree. While I was at school, I had 
93

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

to work two jobs to make ends meet. I started receiving 

refunds and was told these came from my GI Bills. No one 

at Phoenix explained that I would have to pay these 

student loan refunds back. And by the time I finished, I 

had used up all my GI benefits and owed over $80,000 in 

loans. Since leaving Phoenix in 2010, I've applied for 

many jobs, and the highest paying job I have ever had is 

$16 an hour. I was promised that a career services would 

help me find a job, but after graduating, they told me 

they only helped graduates who live near the Phoenix 

campus. I was also told that I would be able to take the 

Certified Public Accountant exam after I graduated, but I 

later learned that in Florida, I would have to work in 

the field before taking the test. Unfortunately, I was 

not able to get a job with my degree that would provide 

the work experience needed to take the exam. I feel like 

the University of Phoenix was way too expensive, 

especially considering the quality of the education. I 

was teaching myself from the textbook. Some of the 

instructors could not answer basic accounting questions 

and were very hard to get in touch with. The course was 

provided through questions and emails online. When the 

instructors graded work, there was no feedback to help us 

with our understanding. And recalled the recruiters 

telling me that the accreditation was the same as any 
94

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

other school and their credits would transfer anywhere. I 

tried transferring to a Texas community college, but they 

would not accept any credits from Phoenix. Working adults 

and first generation students such as myself would 

benefit from increased oversight to protect us from 

enrolling in institutions that do not live up to their 

promises. Thank you for your time.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jeri. We 

appreciate it. Okay. Krystil, who's next, please?

MS. K. SMITH: Our next speaker is 

Aissa Canchola Banez, who is a Senior Advisor, Policy and 

Strategy at the Student Borrower Protection Center.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, great. Aissa, can 

you hear me?

MS. BANEZ: I can, thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Great. So you will have 

three minutes to address the committee today with the 30 

second heads up just before it's about to expire. So with 

that, you're free to begin.

MS. BANEZ: Great. Thank you so much. 

Again, my name is Aissa Canchola Banez. I am a senior 

advisor for the Student Borrower Protection Center. We 

appreciate the administration's work to strengthen 

program integrity and institutional quality. This 

rulemaking presents an important opportunity for the 
95

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

Department to protect students and reform policies and 

practices that have driven millions into mountains of 

debt. We specifically commend the Department's work to 

update, improve and simplify regulations Governing the 

return to Title IV funds process. For too long, this 

complex process has disproportionately harmed students of 

color and low income students who find themselves having 

to withdraw from their courses due to health challenges, 

financial emergencies, or other circumstances beyond 

their control. This process often requires schools to 

return taxpayer funds, but still allows them to bill 

students for the cost, and as a result, many are left 

with these so-called institutional debts, debts owed by 

current or former students and directly to their schools. 

While data is limited, we know the debts are extensive 

and disproportionately burden low income students and 

black and brown students in particular. Research 

estimates that 6.6 million individuals owed $15 billion 

in institutional debts. And to collect on these debts, 

schools have used aggressive and costly collection 

tactics, such as preventing re enrollment, withholding 

student transcripts and degrees, offsetting public 

benefits, and even referring students to for-profit debt 

collectors. And this debt, which often stems from Federal 

financial aid, can act as a barrier to retention and 
96

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

completion and can trap students in cycles of poverty. A 

growing number of states have stepped up to protect 

students and ban the practice of transcript withholding, 

specifically. The CFPB even found that the practice was 

abusive, based on the disproportionate harm to students. 

And, last year, the Department rightfully took action to 

ban transcript withholding in certain instances. But now 

the Department can and must do more. The institutional 

debt crisis must be addressed immediately, and the 

Department's changes to the R2T4 process is an 

opportunity to do so. Since most of this debt derives 

from returned Title IV aid, including Pell Grants, the 

Department should restrict schools ability to charge 

students for returned Federal financial aid. If the 

Department deems a student has not earned the returned 

financial aid, a school should not be able to charge a 

student for services that they will not receive, such as 

tuition for classes after they withdraw. Further, the 

Department should require schools to report on the 

reasons for these withdrawals, collection methods used 

and the demographic information that are impacted. And in 

California, policymakers are actively considering a 

proposal to address these harms. They will make a huge 

difference, but only in one state. So the Department is 

in a uniquely position to act nationwide and should begin 
97

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

by providing comprehensive data on this relationship. And 

lastly, it deserves mentioning that the Department has 

also failed to deliver for students in the cash 

management roles. Banks load students with junk fees 

under back room deals cut with colleges. And this is a 

missed opportunity to ban these practices. So we strongly 

encourage them to- the Department to consider doing so. 

And with that, the SBPC is thankful for the opportunity 

to be here to comment today, and look forward to 

remaining engaged throughout the process. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Aissa. I 

appreciate that. Krystil, who's next?

MS. K. SMITH: Next we have Keishaun 

Wade, who is representing themselves. They are in the 

room.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Keishaun, can you 

hear me? Keishaun, are you on mute?

MS. WADE: Yes, I was on mute.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Wonderful. Great. 

Well, welcome. You will have three minutes to address the 

committee with your comments. With the 30 second heads up 

just before your time is about to expire. So with that, 

please feel free to begin.

MS. WADE: Alright. Hello. My name is 

Keishaun Wade, and I am from Flint, Michigan. In 2019, I 
98

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

graduated from the last public high school in the city of 

Flint. I was admitted to Cornell University to study 

urban and regional planning, and I matriculated in the 

summer of 2019. Despite me getting a full ride from 

Cornell, which consisted of Federal Pell grants and large 

institutional grants, as well as a few merit-based 

scholarships, in the four and a half years since I 

matriculated to Cornell, I still have not graduated. This 

is because I am currently facing an administrative leave 

of absence from Cornell University, due to a financial 

hold that continues to grow. This hold has become an 

inaccessible barrier which is continually prevented my 

enrollment back into the university. I have tried to work 

with the university and come to a resolution regarding 

the balance. However, they are firm with their stance 

that I must have this balance paid before I'm allowed to 

enroll as a full-time student. I have been unable to 

utilize any of the university's resources as a 

requirement for any resources that I may be eligible for 

is that I am registered full-time student. Due to the 

financial hold, I cannot become a registered full-time 

student either. I have been unable to get any of the 

student loans I've applied for, due to my age and 

inability to secure a credit worthy cosigner. The main 

reason I accrued this balance in the first place was due 
99

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

to the fact I was billed for housing costs that should 

have long been accounted for. Cornell's cash management 

practices are responsible for prematurely generating a 

refund and then billing me for my housing more than five 

weeks or 37 days later, completely disrupting the 

procedural normal I was used to in the past two 

semesters. While I had received a refund before, I had 

never received one before all charges have been applied 

to my account. This, ultimately, is what contributed to 

the financial hole that has grown with interest and been 

sent to collections where they expect me to pay 

additional fees for services rendered. This is a barrier 

that continues to grow larger and has kept me from making 

progress to complete my undergraduate degree for over two 

years. Where I once looked to Cornell with a sense of 

faith that they had designed their infrastructure to 

protect me, I have since come to realize the opposite was 

largely true. I wish I could say this story was unique or 

rare, but the truth is it is not. The truth is, thousands 

of students who are first generation and low income do 

not get the chance to finish their undergraduate academic 

careers due to cash management practices like Cornell's, 

which has become a major financial burden for me. I've 

been left with the frustrating knowledge that efforts to 

help students with issues like mine are not deeply 
100

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

ingrained in the university policy as they could be. 

Cornell has chosen to paint this reality as a result of 

my own lack of knowledge manufacturing failure on my 

part, where otherwise growth and success may have existed 

with their support. Thank you for your time.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Keishaun. 

Okay. Before we move to the next one, I want to encourage 

anyone who has a registered time slot for speaking that 

has not logged in to please do so at this time. So 

Krystil, who do we have next?

MS. K. SMITH: Next we have Jody Feder 

from the National Association of Independent Colleges and 

Universities. And Jody is in the room.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. Jody, 

can you hear me?

MS. FEDER: I can hear you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. There you are. 

Welcome and appreciate you taking the time to make your 

comments to the committee. You will have three minutes 

for those comments with the 30 second heads up just 

before your time is to expire. So with that, you're free 

to begin.

MS. FEDER: Thanks. Good afternoon 

everyone. I am Jody Feder, director of Accountability and 

Regulatory Affairs with the National Association of 
101

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

Independent Colleges and Universities. Which is the lead 

National Public Policy Association for private nonprofit 

institutions of higher education. In light of the 

conversation yesterday, I'd like to focus my comments 

today on state authorization of brick and mortar 

institutions in order to offer some more insight and 

history regarding this complex and multi-layered issue. 

In brief, NAICU is concerned about the discussion 

regarding potential changes to existing regulations, 

which currently allow states to exempt institutions from 

state authorization requirements if the institution is 

accredited by one or more accrediting agencies recognized 

by the Secretary, or if the institution has been in 

operation for at least 20 years. Because public 

institutions are by definition established by the states 

and for-profits are more typically more heavily 

regulated. This exception primarily affects the private 

nonprofit sector. State authorization, which is required 

under the Higher Education Act, is a requirement that an 

institution be legally authorized to operate in the state 

as a postsecondary institution. Usually via state law, 

constitution, or charter, although other forms of 

authorization are also acceptable. It should not be 

confused with state oversight. This fundamental confusion 

between the authorization and oversight roles of states 
102

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

led to massive disruption during the implementation of 

the 2010 regulations, despite the fact that the language 

was mainly in and of itself appropriate to what it means 

to be authorized. The confusion during the implementation 

of the 2010 regulations led to a series of state actions 

from legislators needing to pass special legislation to 

officials having to dig for ancient documents, including, 

in at least one case, an original charter from the King 

of England to state agencies needing to undertake massive 

certification efforts for long established brand name 

institutions. We have lengthy records on the various 

actions at the state and local levels. But one of the 

biggest takeaways from this years’-long effort, was the 

enormous waste of resources that could have been reserved 

for states to target consumer oversight at situations 

that most needed their attention. The current exception 

became an important way out of the chaos created for many 

states and should not be undone. It is also ensured the 

states are able to focus oversight resources on programs, 

institutions and situations that warrant the most 

vigorous consumer protection efforts. Altering this 

exception could potentially cause an enormous amount of 

upheaval for both state and private nonprofit 

institutions by subjecting institutions to a whole series 

of state laws that were never intended to apply to them, 
103

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

and by forcing states to devote time that were better 

targeted at bad actors. In short, NAICU urges the 

negotiated rulemaking committee, to exercise caution when 

considering the state authorization proposal on the 

table. We've been down this road a decade ago, and it was 

a painful process that did not necessarily enhance 

protections for students. Today, we simply would like 

negotiators in the Department to understand just how 

profound a change would be wrought if the current 

exception is altered. Each state has a long, complicated 

history on this issue, and negotiators must be extremely 

careful about imposing new Federal mandates, undoing 

appropriate state relationships, or upsetting the balance 

established by the Triad. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jody. We 

appreciate it. Krystil, who's next, please?

MS. K. SMITH: Next we have Camellia 

Cartland, who is representing herself. Camellia?

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Good afternoon, 

Camellia. Can you hear me?

MS. CARTLAND: Yes, I can hear you. 

Hello.

MS. JEFFRIES: Wonderful. We can see 

and hear you as well. Welcome. And we appreciate the time 

you're taking to address the committee. You will have 
104

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

three minutes, to make your comments with the 30 second 

heads up that your time is about to expire. So with that, 

you can begin anytime you're ready.

MS. CARTLAND: Alright. Thank you so 

much. Hello, everybody. Good afternoon. Thank you for 

taking the time to listen to my comment today. My name is 

Camellia Cartland. I'm a third year at UC Irvine studying 

environmental science and policy, and I am commenting in 

support of the proposal to eliminate the provision 

allowing institutions to include the cost of books and 

supplies as part of tuition and fees. I wasn't able to 

speak on Monday when the issue was discussed, so thank 

you for the opportunity to say something now. But yeah, I 

do not support Inclusive Access programs. Many professors 

at UC Irvine are beginning to use open education 

resources, so Inclusive Access programs would be unfair 

to students in these courses who should not have to 

subsidize other students costs. Additionally, students in 

schools that use Inclusive Access programs do not always 

have the ability to opt out because some courses won't 

let you. If, for example, materials are bundled with 

online homework platforms. With more and more professors 

opting to use open education resources or not use course 

required textbooks at all, it doesn't make sense to 

implement a program that automatically charges students 
105

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

for their textbooks. I've spoken to some of my peers 

about Inclusive Access programs, and we all agree that we 

prefer the freedom of being able to buy, rent, or forgo 

using textbooks and choose which textbooks we would like 

to purchase over an opt-out Inclusive Access program. And 

honestly, most of my classes, I've had course, quote, 

unquote, required textbooks that professors decided to 

never use or only reference a couple of times as 

supplemental information. So I would be pretty frustrated 

if I had to pay for those textbook costs and end up not 

using the textbook. I am more supportive of an opt-in 

Inclusive Access program through the cash management 

proposal so that students would need to give 

authorization before being charged. That just makes more 

sense to me, because if the DLC's programs offer are as 

good as they claim, you shouldn't need to force students 

to use them. Making these programs opt-in will let 

students decide for themselves. So I hope you take my 

comment into consideration. Thank you so much and have a 

good day.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you very much, 

Camellia. You also have a good day. Krystil, who's next?

MS. K. SMITH: Alright. Our next and 

last speaker for the day is Grace Hoback, who is 

representing herself. Grace is in the room.
106

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

MS. JEFFRIES: Hi, Grace. Can you hear 

me?

MS. HOBACK: Yes.

MS. JEFFRIES: Wonderful. So, thanks 

for taking the time this afternoon to address the 

committee. You will have three minutes with them and 

you'll get a 30 second heads up just before your time 

expires. Okay? So with that, go right ahead and begin.

MS. HOBACK: Awesome. Well, thank you, 

everyone, for this opportunity. I'm Graceanne Hoback. I'm 

an undergraduate student studying political science and 

sociology at Florida State University. I'm commenting on 

the topic from the cash management issue paper, which to 

my understanding, was discussed on Monday. I want to 

specifically express my support for eliminating the 

ability to charge for books and supplies through students 

tuition and fees, which allows students to unknowingly 

and involuntarily be charged for their course materials. 

The line by line breakdown of university tuition costs is 

often overlooked by students as they pay for their 

courses, but the $300 and $500 semester increases my 

classmates have experienced as a result of automatic 

billing and Inclusive Access courses, however, is not as 

easily overlooked and has caused many students to be 

forced to pay off their textbook charges, taking away 
107

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

their autonomy to decide to find cheaper course options, 

and also being able to accommodate for their basic needs, 

which they would have been able to. But these funds are 

being put towards textbooks instead. And for every charge 

that gets added to tuition and fees, it means a smaller 

refund check for many students, which means less money to 

cover essentials like rent, food and gas. For example, my 

coworker was automatically billed for her French course 

textbook, and she would be seemingly happy to keep up in 

the class. But knowing her financial situation, I know 

that she would have rather put those $300 worth of her 

refund check towards groceries for the entire month and 

come to find by December, she didn't even need to open 

the book for the course. It's to my understanding, the 

Department’s proposal would require schools to get 

authorization before automatically charging textbooks to 

financial aid. This would mean that so-called Inclusive 

Access programs would then need to be opt-in, rather than 

the more common model of opt-out. Textbook companies are 

likely to tell you that switching to opt-in billing is 

not possible. They say that Inclusive Access programs 

only work if students get charged by default, but this is 

only true to my understanding, if the metric of success 

is to see how much profit these textbook companies can 

make, and adopting an opt-in model, value students’ 
108

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

performance and basic needs more so than company profit. 

And performing research on textbook affordability across 

the nation, it's been clear to me that the opt-in 

Inclusive Access programs are possible, as evidenced by 

University of Central Florida, which has served as my 

poster child when speaking on how universities should 

form their relationships with textbook companies and the 

advocacy work that I've been able to do. Opt-in is a much 

better model in my belief, and this model would allow us 

to decide whether the school offers the best deal, and if 

it doesn't, we wouldn't have to worry about getting 

automatically charged. If Inclusive Access programs do 

offer students such a great deal as they argue that they 

do, they wouldn't be afraid to offer students a choice to 

not use them. And with that all being said, I do want to 

thank the Department for proposing this student friendly 

change, and I want to urge the committee to support it. 

Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you Grace and 

have a great day.

MS. HOBACK: You as well.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. That concludes 

the public comment as it is the last person who signed in 

and we are at 3:55. Herman, or anyone from the Department 

have any closing last minute comments you'd like to make?
109

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

MR. BOUNDS: No, I don't have any. I 

would just like to- I enjoyed the questions today and I 

thought the discussion was very informative.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thanks. So 

tomorrow morning, we will pick up where we left off on 

the issue paper and then move directly into the reg text. 

Hopefully this is giving you some clearer insight as to 

the goals of the Department in helping us get through the 

detailed discussions on the reg text itself. So with 

that, you all have a great evening and we'll see you 

tomorrow.

MR. DOLAN: Thank you.

 

 
110

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

Zoom Chat Transcript

Program Integrity and Institutional Quality- Session 1, Day 3, Afternoon, 

January 10, 2024 

*Chat was copied as presented, as a result minor typos or grammatical errors 

may be present. 

From P-Robyn Smith-Legal Aid Orgs. to Everyone:

Sophie will be taking over for Legal Aid orgs.

From P Erika Linden - Private Nonprofit HIEs to Everyone:

Agree with concern raised by Jillian re: members of profession; 

this may affect our medical specialized accreditors.

From P, DC, HBCUs, TCUs, MSIs to Everyone:

Does anyone on the group want to caucus on this issue and work on 

a proposal? Happy to spearhead if interested.

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Instit to Everyone:

Agree with Laura on process

From P Jamie Studley Institutional Accreditors to Everyone:

Agree with Laura, hard to separate goal from language. For the 

broad discussion questions where there is no proposed reg language, 

will you take those today?

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Instit to Everyone:

2021

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Instit to Everyone:

+100 on Erika's comments about regulatory whiplash

From P, Laura Rasar King, Specialized Accreditors to Everyone:

Agree with Erika 100%.

From P Jamie Studley Institutional Accreditors to Everyone:

Also agree with Erika about the institutional price of regulatory 

change--improve when it's worth the candle

From Barmak Nassirian (P) Vets to Everyone:

Not unsympathetic to Erika's point, but one administration cannot 

prohibit a future administration from attempting to implement its 

policy priorities. The Administrative Procedures Act, the reg neg 

process, and the master calendar provision are safeguards that slow 

the process down already. I see no way, short of adding new statutory 

limitations on rulemaking (which would have their own adverse 

consequences), of restricting ED's prerogative to update or revamp its 

regulations at its sole discretion.

From P Jamie Studley Institutional Accreditors to Everyone:

Barmak's example would seem to be squarely within sub change

rules requiring review of change of mission, structure, ownership, 

financial model, etc.

From Barmak Nassirian (P) Vets to Everyone:

I don't see financial model listed in current regs, where is it?

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone: 

Reacted to "Barmak's example w..." with ���

From P Jamie Studley Institutional Accreditors to Everyone:

i'll check my agency language and why i say that would be 

included for us

From Barmak Nassirian (P) Vets to Everyone:
111

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

Strongly support the Department's position on non-delegation to 

staff

From P - Carolyn Fast, Consumer/Civil Rights to Everyone:

Replying to "Strongly support the..."

 

+1 supporting Department's position on non-delegation to staff

From Barmak Nassirian (P) Vets to Everyone:

Re Jamie's comment, I'm looking at the list enumerated in 602.22 

(a)(1)(ii)

From P Jamie Studley Institutional Accreditors to Everyone:

Erika asks a good question. The different references in the draft 

regs to visits to additional locations are somewhat hard to follow. 

perhaps the Dept could be prepared to summarize the visit reqts 

tomorrow or after this week.

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Instit to Everyone:

Significant departure is the addition of any credit-bearing or 

title IV eligible educational program that significantly differs from, 

and is not a logical extension of, programs currently offered by the 

institution. Accrediting agencies should consider the new program's 

relevancy to the institution's mission and whether the institution has 

sufficient resources to successfully offer the program and provide 

appropriate student support, in accordance with the accrediting 

agencies standards.

From P Jamie Studley Institutional Accreditors to Everyone:

we take the Department's goal that it intends to build on its 

recent guidance, which agencies have already reviewed and in many 

cases responded to in their practices. We do have specific questions 

for tomorrow: "technically follow," point of specifying staff roles. 

Agree that anonymous and confidential are issues to discuss.

From P, Laura Rasar King, Specialized Accreditors to Everyone:

Conflict of interest policies, Barmak.

From P - Carolyn Fast, Consumer/Civil Rights to Everyone:

I think Emmett wanted to raise an issue before

From P - Carolyn Fast, Consumer/Civil Rights to Everyone:

we go to Public Comment?

From P Jamie Studley Institutional Accreditors to Everyone:

Re Barmak comment: Our complaints do not reach the Commission 

unless/until there is a proceeding to determine the institution's 

compliance with Standards.

From A-Michale McComis, Inst. Accreditors to Everyone:

Reacted to "Re Barmak comment: O..." with ���

From P, Laura Rasar King, Specialized Accreditors to Everyone:

Reacted to "Re Barmak comment: O..." with ���

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone:

Reacted to "Re Barmak comment:..." with ���

From A, Magin Sanchez, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

I agree with Emmet’s point, as the discussion earlier today on 

R2TF illustrated how automatic billing/opt-out depletes a student’s 

lifetime Pell grant eligibility even if they never attend; a 

commitment to reduce book costs is achieved through opt-in, which 

curtails harmful practices and still meet all the goals we all ensure 

students succeed.
112

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 1/10/24

From Barmak Nassirian (P) Vets to Everyone:

My colleague, Ashlynne, will sit in on our behalf

From A, Emmett Blaney, Student/Borrower to Everyone:

Reacted to "I agree with Emmet’s..." with ���

From Barmak Nassirian (P) Vets to Everyone:

I'd like to remind Committee members that the DOD and VA rely on 

Secretarially-recognized accreditation for purposes of institutional 

eligibility for their educational programs.

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone:

I will have to leave at 3:50--Michael Cioce will take over. 

Thank you. Thank you and see you tomorrow.

From Cindy Jeffries-FMCS Facilitator to Everyone:

Thank you Jo and see you tomorrow

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone:

Reacted to "Thank you Jo and s..." with ���

From A, Michael Cioce, 2 Year Colleges to Everyone:

I'm here