Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 2/9/24

1

 

 

 

 

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

 NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING TRIO SUBCOMMITTEE 

 SESSION 2, DAY 1, MORNING

FEBRUARY 9, 2024

On the 9th day of February 2024, the

following meeting was held virtually, from 10:00 a.m.

to 12:00 p.m.
2 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

P R O C E E D I N G S

 MS. SMITH: Good morning everyone. 

Welcome back to session two of the Federal TRIO programs 

subcommittee. My name is Krystil Smith. I am a 

commissioner at FMCS. I will be facilitating our 

committee meeting today. Along with my co-facilitator, 

Cindy Jeffries, also with FMCS. To begin, I would like to 

start with the roll call for our subcommittee members. 

Good morning and welcome back. I will begin with our NonFederal subcommittee members, beginning with the current 

or former participants in the Federal TRIO Program 

representative, Wade Williams.

MR. WILLIAMS: Here.

MS. SMITH: Good morning, Wade.

MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning.

MS. SMITH: And representing our 

institutions of higher education, D'Angelo Sands.

MR. SANDS: Here.

MS. SMITH: Good morning, D'Angelo. 

Representing our public or private agencies or 

organizations, including community-based organizations 

with experience in serving disadvantaged youth, Emalyn 

Lapus.

MS. LAPUS: Here.

MS. SMITH: Good morning, Emalyn. 
3 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

Representing secondary schools, including local 

educational agencies with secondary schools, Geof Garner.

MR. GARNER: Here. Good morning, 

everyone.

MS. SMITH: Good morning, Geof. And I 

don't know. Michael, Michael is not here yet. But for our 

state officials, including state higher education, higher 

education executive officers, state authorizing agencies, 

and state regulators of institutions of higher education, 

that representative is, Michael Meotti, and he is not yet 

here. For the Department, our subcommittee leader is 

Aaron Washington. Good morning, Aaron.

MR. WASHINGTON: Good morning.

MS. SMITH: And assisting Aaron today we 

have Hannah Hodel from the office of general counsel.

MS. HODEL: Good morning.

MS. SMITH: Good morning, Hannah. Along 

with Vanessa Gomez.

MS. GOMEZ: Good morning, everyone.

MS. SMITH: Good morning, Vanessa. And 

Gaby Watts.

MS. WATTS: Good morning. 

MS. SMITH: Good morning, everyone. As 

we know, this is the second and final subcommittee 

meeting. And we've got- we do have our issue paper before 
4 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

us. To help us guide us through the discussion, I will 

turn it over to our lead subcommittee member, Aaron 

Washington. Aaron?

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Krystil. So, 

welcome back, everybody. For those tuning in for the 

first time, my name is Aaron Washington again, and I'll 

be the subcommittee team lead. So welcome to day two, the 

final day of our subcommittee. At the previous 

subcommittee session that we provided, a super high-level 

overview of rulemaking. The purpose of the subcommittee. 

And we took a deep dive into the issue paper and had 

really great discussions. We won't go back through it all 

today. So if anybody watching for the first time really 

is interested in seeing what transpired at the first 

subcommittee meeting, you can head over to our negotiated 

rulemaking website and check out the recording and the 

transcript of our first session. So at our first meeting, 

several members discussed concerns with the Department's 

proposal and also presented a counter proposal. We also 

had support from one member of the subcommittee who has 

since shared several emails from the community or 

stakeholders indicating support for the Department's 

initial proposal. So before diving straight into our 

discussion, I just want to take a pause. Like, remember 

the last time I kind of paused between, like I said, 
5 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

paused, like just kind of hear what the subcommittee had 

to say. So before diving into, like, a deep discussion on 

the issue paper, I just wanted to allow the subcommittee 

members to discuss anything that they've heard from their 

constituencies or the TRIO community at large. And no, it 

doesn't necessarily have to be the constituency 

specifically to represent, it could just be the TRIO 

community at large, that you've heard between the first 

session and now. So I'll just pause there and kind of 

open up the floor for just a little bit of general 

discussion.

MS. SMITH: And while we're in this 

pause, I would like to welcome Michael Meotti to the 

table. Good morning, Michael.

MR. MEOTTI: Good morning. My apologies. 

I've been having problems with my Zoom client for the 

last week or so after a computer reboot, so took me a 

couple of cycles to get in. But I'm here.

MS. SMITH: Yes, you're here, and we're 

happy to have you.

MR. MEOTTI: Thank you.

MS. SMITH: Okay. Anything that you all 

have heard from your constituency groups or that you'd 

like to share at this time? And just by way of the 

process of rule, encourage you as well. You can utilize 
6 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

the chat box. That will be made available to the public

at a later time. And it's visible to the Department.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'll say, from the 

programs and directors and staff that I've talked to. I 

mean, I think they kind of have felt the same way that 

that we did. I mean, would we love to welcome these 

students with open arms? Yes. Are there concerns about 

the things that we had discussed and brought forward that 

would happen after the fact of serving these students? It 

was pretty common feedback that I got from most of the 

individuals that I had talked with. So, that's kind of 

where we are or what I've heard. So.

MS. SMITH: Thank you, Wade. Aaron?

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, you know what? 

Let's- I'll let Michael go first.

MS. SMITH: Okay. Michael?

MR. MEOTTI: Yeah. So it was totally 

coincidental that I was in the central part of the state 

of Washington for the last two days, central and eastern 

part of Washington, probably in, you know, political 

terrain that may be driving some of the concerns that

we're hearing from some members of the subcommittee. And 

I was at a community college, but then also meeting in 

employment settings that were served by programs in the 

community college. And the area I was in was a college 
7 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

that had in recent years become an HSI, in parts of the 

state that historically had not been. Right. And so, of 

course, all of the issues that are, you know, discussed 

are present and location like that. It's similar, I'm 

sure, to spots around the country and in the 

conversations- and I happened to walk right past a large 

area with TRIO, right, TRIO services like right there as 

a sign of that college. Right. And it's been operating 

for years. And in talking to the people in that 

community, and this is outside of the educators talking 

with employers in manufacturing and other types of 

things. And this was the kind of manufacturing facilities 

large could have, you know, had about a thousand 

employees, could take pretty much unskilled people and 

train them how to do assembly of these complicated 

devices that they happen to sell. And, you know, I talked 

to the business people, you know, it's very clear that 

they understand on the ground the nature of the 

communities, the realities of who they're serving and 

what they're doing. And is consistent with my experiences 

with people at the community level who do not necessarily 

make their decisions based on the screaming and shouting 

they hear on national cable news or in Governors rushing 

to certain borders or something like that. And that in 

service areas like this, the work can be carried on in a 
8 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

way that is inclusive and respectful of everyone that we 

can help. And while yeah, there may be cases here and 

there, I mean, I've looked for examples of which, you 

know, gear up, you know, our programs that are inclusive 

now and they are dependent on local and other state 

funding decisions. So I'm concerned that what we're doing 

is allowing this national environment that is isolated to 

certain circles of, you know, media conversation and 

occasionally performative decision making that does not 

necessarily reach to the level of what happens in a 

community level program that meets people where they are. 

And I think it's probably important for us to make sure 

that we're clear on the merits first, because. Right. I 

mean, I don't think a group like this is convened in 

order to do a political assessment of the American 

environment. That may be a factor that people want to 

bring in. But first and foremost, you know, as someone 

who is not a front-line practitioner, right, and is 

involved in Government decision-making processes, I'd 

want to make sure that we first understand the 

substantive perspective of people who are front-line 

practitioners in the appropriateness and the worthiness 

of being inclusive in the way that the Federal Government 

proposes. And then if they have additional thoughts or 

concerns about politics, you know, then that's maybe 
9 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

something that can be added to it. But I think it's 

important that we sort of split out the issues that way 

and consider it to make our communications most clearest 

to those, you know, who are- who will be hopefully 

listening.

MS. SMITH: Thank you, Michael. Emalyn?

MS. LAPUS: Yes. Hi. Thank you. I wanted 

to ask from the last meeting, I had presented t, I guess, 

issues that I was concerned with. One was related to the 

standardized testing objective for Upward Bound. And the 

second item was regarding the target school dropout rate 

for the need criteria for the talent search programs. Was 

there any further consideration regarding those two 

points? If there's any movement of any kind?

MR. WASHINGTON: Let's see, you know, we 

had a chance to review the subcommittee's alternate 

proposal. You know, there were things in there that 

included, you know, increases to the Upward Bound and 

McNair stipends and, you know, a change to the definition 

of low-income, individual modifications to state testing. 

You know, and, you know, among the things that you just 

discussed, Emalyn, and, you know, those areas are likely 

outside of the scope of what the Department announced 

during the lead up to our main and subcommittee sessions. 

We did say that we will be discussing issues related to 
10 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

participant eligibility in certain TRIO Programs. Some 

areas we, you know, we lack statutory authority. But I 

did mention in our first session that due to the other 

topics of the main committee, they might not have the 

bandwidth to take on more issues outside of participant 

eligibility. So, you know, issues related to grantee 

applications or allowable costs, you know, maybe we could 

discuss some of those things for something like- maybe 

the higher education program office could, you know, 

provide more subregulatory guidance and explain things a 

little better. But in regards to actually like, you know, 

changing regulatory requirements, that could be outside 

the scope. But, you know, this is- you know, we'll talk 

about- we'll talk- I kind of want it to like, kind of 

focus just this portion discussion on, like, what you've 

been hearing from the community. And then we'll dive 

further into a little bit later, probably sooner rather 

than later what in fact, you all are going to report out 

to the main committee because, Emalyn, based on what I 

just said, that doesn't prohibit you from presenting 

those ideas to the main committee. I'm just, you know, 

saying that they're generally outside of the scope of 

what we announced and, you know, and you also have to 

think about the on the main committee, like I said last 

time, the main committee is going to be very familiar 
11 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

with issues related to citizenship and non-citizen 

eligibility, because right now in TRIO, they basically 

mirror those of Title IV Federal Student Aid. When you 

get into other issues, you know, that- you know, more in 

the weeds issues of the higher education program, TRIO 

programs, there could be a- you know, there may be an 

area of like discomfort for the main committee only 

because they may not be so familiar. And we're also going 

to talk about the time that you have to present next 

week. Well, not next week, the third session. And it- you 

know, trying to expand out to broader issues really is 

going to be difficult considering that the main committee 

has to- still has to discuss, I believe four or five 

other issues, probably five other issues. Don't quote me 

on the four or five, but it's four or five other issues. 

So that's just something to think about when you're- you 

know, but we'll talk about that soon. Emalyn, what I do 

want to ask you, Emalyn, though, is, you know, have youyou know, Wade and Michael were able to talk about what 

they've heard. And I do want to circle back to both of 

them to ask more specific questions about what they've 

heard. But, you know, have you heard anything between the 

first subcommittee table and now in the community? You 

know, essentially, basically what I've been hearing is 

there's a lot of support for the change. So, you know, 
12 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

but, have you heard anything from your constituency or 

the community?

MS. LAPUS: Well, I think I'll take this 

as I see my colleagues have their hands up, so I'll let 

them speak.

MS. SMITH: Okay. So yeah, that being 

said, with the hands being up, we do want to focus right 

now on the instant case on what you've heard from the 

community. So you all are going to be addressing what 

you've heard. Looks like Wade is a no. So if you don't 

mind, Wade, if you don't mind if I take D'Angelo since he 

is addressing what he's heard. And then you can get back 

in the queue, Wade. We'll get you to. D'Angelo?

MR. SANDS: Thank you so much. And 

again, I want to thank the Department for the 

consideration and the opportunity to share our 

perspective. In our state, in the state of Texas, the 

concerns are two concerns. One aligns with what we put 

forward previously. The concern is the possibility of 

regressive work done as a result of it. And that's and 

within the state of Texas, there are some activities and 

actions taken that kind of causes that type of frame of 

thinking. But the other part also is support, the type of 

support the Department would hand down with the potential 

changes. But they also reiterated that whatever the 
13 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

Department hands down, TRIO professionals are always 

being able to do the work. When we were asked to do more 

with less, we did that. But some of the concerns is, 

salary came up that there is a number of turnover, so 

there's concern about additional work being done and yet 

still having to have one hand tied behind your back 

advocating on Capitol Hill for more funding. But also 

come an institution where there are lack of support. And 

so there in that meeting in that middle where we just 

want to try to, I guess, address any ambiguity. Is that 

the word there? And so those are some of the concerns 

that's been coming from folks in my area that I've heard.

MS. SMITH: Alright. Thank you, 

D'Angelo. Did you want to respond directly to that, 

Aaron, before we move on?

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah. So the- you know, 

specifically in regards to, like, the Department's 

proposal, what had- what- I know you said, like, one hand 

tied behind your back and more work. I mean, you know, 

with the- with any changes, the Department generally 

releases subregulatory guidance for stakeholders to 

follow in order- you know, like, you know, support for 

like subregulatory guidance in the form of like trying to 

explain the regulation, explaining how to implement the 

regulation and, you know, to make it more, I guess, 
14 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

easier to understand. You know, sometimes I get likewhen I- regulations is like go here, look it there, go 

here, look at that, but you know we generally provide 

those supports to our, you know, our stakeholders, the 

TRIO community, in order to explain the changes. SoMR. SANDS: So it isn't- we understand 

how it's written and we're not too far from the ground. A 

lot of us are still on the ground. A lot of us are very 

active on our campuses. It's more so institutions. Right. 

So there are some institutions that are safeguarded. 

There are institutions that say, okay, because the 

institution is being represented, you're not allowed to 

reach out to this person or that person. We are the one. 

We have those who want to reach out to our program 

officers instead of allowing the person that's the PI to 

reach out to some of the offices. So when I talk about 

having to advocate on both fronts. For sure anything 

that's passed down, we're going to articulate that or we 

understand that some of us are very skilled in sharing 

that information with our institution to say, hey, this 

is why this is the change. Here is how we intend to 

formulate that when we can follow those guidelines is 

some of the things that are not written, some of the 

things that are experienced on campuses where you have 

professionals who have to navigate some of that on their 
15 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

own specific campus while addressing the change. And in 

addition, you know, prepping their staff members who 

ought to have some level of training in dealing with the 

population. We cannot have people who are insensitive to 

the population or have any kind of, you know, attitudes 

or behaviors, whether knowledgeable or not, dealing with 

the population as well. So it's more, I guess, a broader 

brush or a broader scope of how some of our folks here 

are feeling in regards to that. If that makes sense.

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, thank you.

MS. SMITH: Thank you, D'Angelo. I know 

Wade and Geof you both had your hands up and this is in 

regard to additional feedback. Geof, did you have some 

feedback? Wade, do you mind if I go to him first?

MS. SMITH: Okay. Okay.

MR. GARNER: Thank you so much. I have 

heard some more questions about it. Thank you all for 

letting us be part of this as practitioners. It's great 

to have our voices and expertise welcomed and I thank you 

for that. I'm getting questions from our regional folks, 

especially EOC, they're wondering and I put in the chat, 

just if asylum seekers would be considered part of the 

undocumented students that they could serve or is that 

only for the high school eligible as it pertains to 

Upward Bound and talent search? That's just one of the 
16 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

questions come in. Is this okay, Aaron, to ask about this 

now? And then another question is because I'm from Oregon 

and I worked really hard with our Oregon TRIO association 

to get the Department's waiver to serve undocumented 

students. The concern that we have currently, serving 

undocumented students statewide in Upward Bound and 

Talent Search is that if students are- undocumented 

students are not allowed to receive the stipends, this 

creates a two-tiered system, is there any way we could 

get some answers about, we will still have to have 

citizenship questions on our applications so we can 

discern who not to give the stipends to in our program, 

has there been any redress or addressing those questions 

that have come up that we brought up? I think we touched 

on that last time. Thank you.

MS. SMITH: Aaron, are you able to 

respond?

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, sure. In regards 

to the first question, asylum seekers, well, so we talked 

a little bit in the first session about how the 

Department interprets eligible- like the terms eligible 

non-citizen. So eligible non-citizens are- include 

individuals who have asylum. So like an application for 

asylum wouldn't make someone eligible to participate. But 

currently, if somebody was granted asylum by the 
17 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

Department of Homeland Security, granted refugee status, 

granted- they're a self-petitioner under the Violence 

Against Women Act and the law that is called the battered 

alien. That is a legal term, that is not a term that may 

be generally used anymore, but that's a legal term in the 

law. Conditional resident aliens, lawful permanent 

residents, conditional resident aliens. Cuban Haitian 

entrants and individuals that are paroled into the United 

States for at least one year would currently be eligible 

to participate as- in- as TRIO participants. And that'syeah, so I hope that answered that question. So if the 

individual grants asylum, can participate in TRIO now and 

also receive a grant. And I think that kind of goes into 

the second part of your question. The idea behind the 

grants is that the PRWORA is the statute that defines 

qualified aliens. Again, that's another legal term. And 

so- one second, Hannah, did you want to jump in there? I 

know we have- I don't want to get it totally wrong, but, 

I know we had some talking points on PRWORA.

MS. HODEL: No, I mean, I think 

everything that you've said is accurate in terms of the 

individuals who are already eligible to participate in 

the TRIO Programs irrespective of what we are proposing 

today. So, you know, there are already a large category 

of non-citizens, including persons who are granted asylum 
18 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

who are already- should already be able to participate, 

in, for example, what was asked here, the EOC program 

because they are considered qualified aliens under 

PRWORA.

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, yeah, and I found 

it. I'm sorry. It's- so existing PRWORA explicitly 

prohibits certain types of Federal public benefits in the

kit. In this case, stipends in the form of direct cash 

from being awarded to our participants who is not an 

eligible non-citizen. So that is like a statutory 

requirement on- in regard to the stipends.

MS. SMITH: Thank you.

MR. WASHINGTON: We don't know if they 

know. So I don't know, Krystal. I don't know if Geof had 

a question.

MS. SMITH: Did you have any other 

questions, Geof?

MR. GARNER: No. It just makes it clear 

that we will still need to ask the citizenship question 

to discern who is eligible to receive stipends on our 

applications then. Just the groundwork we're doing that 

seems to be clear. We do need to discern who is eligible 

to receive those funds when we enroll students in our 

TRIO Programs. Thank you.

MS. SMITH: Thank you, Geof. Wade, thank
19 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

you so much for your patience.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, no problem. I'm 

glad Geof asked that because that was one I forgot that 

our EOC director had asked about. Because we actually 

have a pretty large, again, where we are a population of 

individuals that are asylum-seeking and refugees. With 

like where we're at got a very large poultry industry, 

Tyson, butterball, all of them are here. And so that was 

one of the questions because there are a lot of refugees 

and asylum seekers here. I would also like to kind of

echo what D'Angelo had said. Now, keep in mind, that I am 

no longer working in TRIO but I had for many, many, many 

years and we get the job done. When it comes down to it, 

regardless of whatever regulations, policies, are given, 

we still do what we can to serve our students. And so 

probably what I would say and this is, I mean, like I 

said, the people that I talked with have some of those 

same concerns that we talked about in the first session. 

But again, if this is something that the Department is 

adamant about moving forward on, I think, you know, our 

goal is to serve as many first-generation low-income 

students as we can at the end of the day and make sure 

that they have every resource available to them. And 

we'll do that. It's just I would say probably that we 

just want to make sure that we have the support of the 
20 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

Department when needs arise and things need to be 

addressed and maybe changed and adjusted in order to 

serve all participants, whether it's undocumented or the 

other participants that we have. I still- and I get it, I 

know we talked about this last time with the whole 

stipend issue. That's honestly, that's probably my 

biggest hang-up because and I understand why. I know it's 

law. But I just really do hate that. And I know that in 

Michael's emails that he had sent, talked about how 

programs are resourceful and can find other ways to fund 

that. I will say, yeah, we do that. But that also does 

take time away from trying to provide services to 

students by having fundraising efforts or other things. 

You know, keep in mind. I'm in a state where it is a lot 

more restrictive and prohibitive for undocumented 

students and so not as supportive typically. And so I 

just think about obstacles that directors and, you know, 

program staff would have getting those outside resources 

in order to try and offset that to make stipends 

available for undocumented students. So, but.

MS. SMITH: Alright. Thank you, Wade. 

Aaron?

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Thank you 

for all the feedback, I appreciate that. So, I think we 

can, you know- we hear you and we'll like, we'll move 
21 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

forward into our next discussion. So I- oh, go aheadMS. SMITH: If you don't mind. Michael.

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, sorry.

MR. MEOTTI: Yeah. I just wanted to 

quickly add that when I answered the question about 

things we're hearing, I was focusing very much on the 

front lines and the state where I live and work. Just 

adding. Of course, you've all seen it, but, I have helped 

share voices of 100 plus higher education and K-12 

education and other education-related organizations and 

leaders around the country in support of this. So I think 

there is broad support, particularly in the work I'm most 

closely connected to national circles and higher 

education and university and college leaders beyond 

whatever else I do and just considered to be like state 

Government, you know, and so there does seem to be, as 

far as I can tell and based on the record we've put in 

front of you, broad support from that community, those 

communities, for this change.

MS. SMITH: Thank you, Michael.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. All the 

documents that were forwarded to the Department are also 

on our- I know, I think they should have been forwarded. 

They probably were forwarded to you all too, but, likebut if you hadn't had a chance to see them, they're also 
22 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

on the negotiated rulemaking website as well. So, you 

know, I said, you know that you can- several times even 

today that, you know, the subcommittee- this is the 

subcommittee proposal to the main committee, and you can 

all can decide to present whatever you choose. So, you 

know, just keep in mind, you know, also that the 

Department provide consensus or dissent as well. I don't 

know if you- did you all get a chance to watch rulemaking 

last week, the second session? Alright, well, if you 

didn't, there's like- there's a Department official as 

well. His name is Greg Martin, Gregory Martin. He also 

weighs in on consents or not reaching consents. So, you 

know, he'd be in a position to decline consent, depending 

on, you know, what the subcommittee chose to present to 

the main committee as well. So even without support of 

the subcommittee, the Department- even without support 

from the subcommittee, the main committee may still vote 

on the proposal the Department put forward. So, you know, 

the goal, the overall goal of the subcommittee is to 

present, you know, one, one recommendation to the main 

committee. So it is in the subcommittee's interest to put 

forward a proposal that everybody's comfortable with. But 

I also know that there's a difference of opinion, in the 

subcommittee on the recommendation, therefore, you can 

present two, three, or, you know, or however many 
23 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

recommendations you all feel if each of you has a 

different recommendation. The main committee will be able 

to ask you questions at the third session and ultimately 

accept the [inaudible] consensus. So, you know, with 

that, based on the feedback we've discussed internally 

and, you know, you've seen the- you've seen what the 

second issue paper that we've put out, we've published, 

there were no changes from the first subcommittee 

session. So at this point, we'd like to know what is the 

recommendation that you'd like to put forward, as either 

a subcommittee or in the event of disagreements, what are 

the separate recommendations that you'd like to put 

forward? You know, I can discuss- I can either stop there 

and, like, let you all discuss what you are- what you're 

planning to propose to the main committee. Or I can talk 

through the time, the actual time that you'll have to 

present. You want me to stop there and like- before we 

get to the actual logistics of, like, the time. Or do you 

want to talk about what you all intend to propose? Or we 

can- or we can just- or we can talk about- we can revisit 

the Department's proposal. I mean, I can walk through 

that again. We can talk about that again. It's up to you 

all.

MS. SMITH: Alright subcommittee, you 

have it. What's your pleasure? Do we want to revisit the 
24 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

proposal as it is?

MR. MEOTTI: I have. Sorry, I didn't 

mean to interrupt, but I have a process question. But 

I'll stop and finish what, you know. Sorry for 

interrupting. Finish what you need to say, but I have a 

process question.

MS. SMITH: Let's take the process 

question.

MR. MEOTTI: Okay. I've generally been 

an observer of rule-making for some time but have never 

been involved. So I'm curious as to the ability to hold a 

caucus for members who are interested in being supportive 

of the proposal but have recommended changes. Because 

where I'm coming from is I understand the general nature 

of TRIO Programs and the issues we're dealing in terms of 

eligibility determination but the conversation on 

stipends is one that is very new to me. I also have 

[inaudible] though from the gear up perspective and also 

from financial perspective have some understanding around 

sensitivities around capturing citizenship status in an 

actual, you know, recorded sort of way. So, you know, 

those are things that I think whether- I don't know 

whether they're, you know, actually in the scope of what 

we should be doing, but if they are or could be part of a 

positive recommendation about the general [inaudible] 
25 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

eligibility change. That's why I'd say, that would be an 

interesting caucus conversation for me if there are 

others who better understand some of those issues and 

want to help me understand them and come to a place of 

being supportive of that as a proposal.

MR. WASHINGTON: Can I just jump in 

there really quick, Krystil?

MS. SMITH: Sure.

MR. WASHINGTON: I just wanted to. I 

just wanted to- you know, I didn't talk about it earlier, 

but citizenship is captured in a lot of areas in like the 

Title IV programs outside of- you know, and I hear the 

concern from Geof, but, you know, even on the FAFSA, we 

do capture- you know, the FAFSA asks for your Social 

Security number. Then it asks for the ARN, which is the 

Alien Registration Number, and there's an automatedthere's a match done with the Department of Homeland 

Security. And if that match is failed, then the schools 

will see the individual's immigration status in the 

country and make a determination for their Federal 

Student Aid Based on that. So, I mean, we do capture- I 

know there- I don't know if the concern was, like, 

actually having to ask the question as like- as TRIO 

Programs, but we do capture citizenship in many, many 

areas of the Title IV aid.
26 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

MR. MEOTTI: And we do too. That's why I 

wanted to better understand what the concern was.

MS. SMITH: But your question, Michael, 

is your question about the procedure for calling a caucus 

or?

MR. MEOTTI: No. Well, I guess I'm 

saying I'd like to have a caucus if there are other 

members who are interested in having that conversation.

MS. SMITH: Okay. And are you requesting 

the caucus then for anyone that's interested or would you 

just like to invite them and we can ask if they'd like to 

come? What's your preference? 

MR. MEOTTI: Yeah. I think it's, I mean, 

yeah, if people are interested in having that 

conversation, I would like to have that conversation.

MS. SMITH: Okay. Would anybody be 

willing to have a brief caucus to speak with Michael 

about- is it specifically the stipends?

MR. MEOTTI: Well, it's the notion of 

what would be a proposal that would be based on general 

support for the Department's proposal with 

recommendations around issues that need to be taken into 

account to be able to do it effectively and help all TRIO 

participants.

MS. SMITH: Okay. So that's pretty 
27 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

broad.

MR. MEOTTI: Do you want me to narrow 

that down?

MS. SMITH: Well, I'm wondering if we're 

just asking for, and this is just me asking if we're 

asking for if there's general support around it and if 

there's a reason you just want to have that specifically 

in private and not just continue to discuss it here at 

the table.

MR. MEOTTI: And not having been through 

the process, I don't know the value of the caucus in this 

setting. I know it in a legislative setting having spent 

many years in a legislative caucus, you know, the value 

of having a little bit of a conversation to bring people 

up to speed to get to a comfort level or not. But so I 

would be intrigued- I would be interested if there are 

people who want to have that conversation and having that 

conversation. I don't think it would be very long, but.

MS. SMITH: Okay. Okay. So let's- I'm 

going to ask, you know, who would like to join a caucus 

with Michael around getting support for the Department's 

proposal as it is. But before I do that, I do want to go 

to Emalyn just to see if there's something else she 

wanted to add before we make that consideration. I think 

Aaron had his hand up. Emalyn?
28 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

MS. LAPUS: Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I 

just wanted to, I mean, I just felt like I wanted to just 

say I echo what Wade and Geof have addressed in terms of 

the asylum seekers. And specifically the stipends, you 

know, it's just, like Wade said, I understand, but when 

it comes time to implement it at the direct service level 

with my team and members in my community, it will be 

very- it would just be very difficult. And again, I feel 

that it's a very divisive tool. But and saying that you 

know, we did express our concerns and considerations in

the papers from the last meeting. We received this, you 

know, the second document again, the language is the 

same. So, you know, moving forward, you know, I mean, I 

will support what the Department wants- is recommending. 

I just hope that it will in the future, the Department 

will continue to provide the same support across all 

sectors. Because, you know, the TRIO Programs, our main 

goal is to serve low-income and first-generation 

students. So that's my comment. And then if there is 

time, maybe we can have, if my three other colleagues and 

I maybe could be in a breakout room, just to kind of, you 

know, maybe give us a few minutes to connect and see 

where we are in agreement, what we want to do moving 

forward.

MS. SMITH: Okay. So. And when you say 
29 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

your three other colleagues. Which three are you asking 

about? Oh, and you're on mute still, Emalyn.

MS. LAPUS: Wade, Geof and D'Angelo.

MS. SMITH: Okay, okay. Before I ask for 

the caucus, did you have something else that was relevant 

to the conversation, Wade? Do you want to weigh in on it?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I think I want to 

clarify. Whenever they were talking I think it was Geof 

had brought up about the- on the application aboutbecause I think what Aaron alluded to was the FAFSA, 

which for that, I mean I think what Geof is referring to 

is on our free college applications as they're accepting 

applications on students. I think that's what he was 

specifically talking about is we're going to have to 

include that on there. Or is it appropriate to include 

that on there? Will there be any type of negative impact 

and including that, you know, by I don't know, it's a sue 

happy world that we live in, you know. So I just want to 

make sure that we're not- I just want clarification. I 

think that's what Geof was kind of alluding to is on 

those pre-college talent search, Upward Bound and EOC, is 

it appropriate to include a box that they check that 

they're undocumented?

MR. WASHINGTON: You know, I think, you 

know, I don't want to get ahead of any subregulatory 
30 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

guidance that could be released in regards to like, you 

know, it all has to- you know, but- you know because they 

are- because there is no- there could be, I guess, 

brainstorming there. It might not necessarily have to be 

a box that says, are you undocumented? But more- I mean, 

there are so many non-citizens or like, you know, 

designations, categories of non-citizen that 

theoretically, you could have a question that says aredo you- are you- do you fulfill one of these? Do youare- has DHS assigned you one of these designations? Do 

you have asylum? Do you- are you a refugee? Are you this, 

are you that, are you- are you a self-petitioner? Under 

the Violation of Womens Act, are you, Cuban Haitian 

Entrants, as opposed to asking one specific question 

about a students undocumented status. So then the student 

could then potentially be counseled by, you, in regards 

to the stipend, so they wouldn't be in a situation where 

they were checking on a form that they are. Doesn't have 

to be a document. It could be, you know, it could be a U 

Visa holder. It could be somebody with temporary 

protected status. These are all categories that are notthose are the categories that are not listed in the 

parole regs as qualified aliens. So, you know- so it 

could be- it could be similar like that, like just, 

exhaustive list. It is exhaustive of qualified aliens in 
31 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

PRWORA. So it could be something like that. Does that 

answer your question, Wade?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, yeah. Thank you.

MS. SMITH: Okay. Thank you. Alright. 

Michael, I'm sorry, I'm ready to call for your caucus. 

Did you have something to add before we do that?

MR. MEOTTI: Just a question. If we're 

going to go on a- if others are going to go on a caucus 

for that, is it appropriate? I mean, I like to ask for a 

caucus if that's the right time with Department officials 

while that other caucus is taking place to just give me 

some- and work through some background issues that I need 

to have a better feel for.

MS. SMITH: We can and we're going to 

call for yours first. You ask for yours first. So at this 

point- and are you inviting everyone including the 

Department, Michael?

MR. MEOTTI: Yes.

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh. Including me?

MR. MEOTTI: Yeah, I mean, I would say 

first, I guess it's members of the committee would be 

first. And then maybe if we went into caucus and we 

wanted to bring in, I don't think you can [inaudible] 

done that. I'm not trying to exclude the Department, but 

it's really a conversation with members of the committee 
32 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

who are interested in moving this forward but with 

appropriate additional advice to the full committee.

MS. SMITH: Okay.

MR. MEOTTI: Or at least open to that.

MS. SMITH: Yes. So that being said. So 

you said it would not take long. 10 or 15 minutes is what 

you're thinking?

MR. MEOTTI: I think maximum, yeah.

MS. SMITH: Okay. Alright. So, for a 15-

minute caucus, we'll say, please raise your virtual hand 

if you would like to be placed in a breakout room around 

garnering some support talking through that for the 

Department's recommendation as it stands with Michael. Is 

there anyone interested in a caucus?

MR. MEOTTI: I feel like I'm at a 10thgrade dance again here.

MS. SMITH: And remember, I mean, what 

the caucus does, you know, it will just- it's basically 

we have a conversation, we stop the live feed, it would 

be just those in the room, in a breakout room, you know, 

we'll set it for 15 minutes. If you want to go longer, 

you can. If it's shorter, you come out and we start 

again. Alright. D'Angelo, looks like you're ready.

MR. SANDS: So if I can ask the 

question. It would be- I think it would be beneficial if 
33 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

my colleagues and I who work directly with TRIO 

currently. If we can meet first, then maybe we can join 

up with Michael because I think all of us are on the same 

page previously. And so I think we need to talk through 

some things together. Put our heads round it because 

we're so close with working with TRIO Programs. It 

shouldn't take a long time. We don't need ten minutes. I 

would say 3 to 5 and then we can cycle back with Michael 

so we can get our discussions and dialog. And then we can 

come back and see, you know, what our findings are and 

then we can take a temperature check from there if 

needed.

MS. SMITH: Okay. So if no one at this 

time wants to join Michael in a caucus we, oh. Geof?

MR. GARNER: Just a clarifying question. 

Aaron, what were you asking us to come up with? Just so I 

can be super clear when we go into our caucus breaks. 

When we return, what do you want us to have ready in an 

actionable item for our group?

MR. WASHINGTON: Well, I mean, I didn't 

anticipate a caucus. So I, you know, I don't- I don't 

want to- you know, you can- you all can talk about 

whatever you want in the caucus, you know, like, so when 

you go into them, you discuss. And you know, I did hear, 

you know, Emalyn earlier say she- there could be 
34 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

potential for support for that proposal. So, you know, I, 

you know, I- you know, so that I don't know if others 

feel that- you know, also have that- comes that same 

support as well. But I think the overall deliverable for 

today is if you're going to, what you all believe that 

you're going to present. I know, Emalyn, earlier you 

discussed the alternative proposal that you presented 

last time so that- if you want to present that Emalyn, 

you can present that to the main committee, you can 

absolutely do that. You know? D'Angelo, Wade, Geof, all 

you all want to present that as a group to the main 

committee. You can present that as a- you know, if 

Michael- you can you can come to the main committee with 

something else as well. But, the idea behind the 

subcommittee is to have one proposal to bring to the main 

committee so that, you know, they can take it, talk about 

it, maybe put- fine tune it a little bit and weigh in on 

consensus. But, that does not mean that you are required 

to present one single recommendation to the main

committee. You can all- you can- you know, so that's the 

deliverable for today. Just to get an idea of what you 

all are going to present to the main committee and also 

talk to you all about the time you'll have. So you'll 

have like- basically you'll have about an hour to 

present. So, you know, if it's two proposals, two 
35 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

opposing proposals, you'll each have 30 minutes. If it's 

three proposals, you have 20 minutes. If it's five 

proposals, you have 10 minutes each. But that's 

essentially what the deliverable is. But the 

subcommittee- I mean, that's how the caucus is open to 

which- whatever you want to discuss.

MR. GARNER: Perfect. Thank you, Aaron.

MS. SMITH: Before we caucus. Cindy?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yeah. I just want to just 

clarify here. D'Angelo and Emalyn, your thought is that 

the three active practitioners, right, for the TRIO 

Programs would meet briefly, and then, actually, the four 

of you, and then after that then you would bring Michael 

in or entertain bringing Michael in to have that overall 

general discussion of where you want to go. Is that 

correct?

MR. SANDS: That is correct.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Alright.

MS. SMITH: At that time, just for 

time's sake, Michael mentioned the opportunity also to 

caucus with the Department. We could do that at the same 

time. So, the four of them asked for about five minutes. 

We could put you in a room with the Department, Michael. 

And if you take longer, that's okay. We'll just.

MR. MEOTTI: I doubt we will, but that 
36 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

would be good. Yeah.

MS. SMITH: Okay. So we are going to do 

that. We're going to call a five-minute caucus. So we'll 

come back at about 10:55 Eastern. You'll get an invite to 

a breakout room. If you all need help, there is a request 

for help button, I believe. Give me one moment to get 

that set up.

MS. JEFFRIES: Are you doing it, 

Krystil?

MS. SMITH: I am.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. I'll stay out of 

it.

MS. SMITH: Yeah. Alright. Alright. 

Michael, who would you like from the Department besides 

Aaron?

MR. MEOTTI: It's their choice.

MS. SMITH: Okay. Aaron?

MR. WASHINGTON: Can you invite Gregory 

Martin? Oh, sorry. Sorry. Aaron, me, Aaron, Gaby, and 

Hannah.

MS. SMITH: Okay. You all are going to 

seven. Gaby and Hannah. Okay, you all should have your 

request. You have yours, Aaron? You may have to press the 

breakout button.

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, okay. Let me see. 
37 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

Alright. Join breakout.

MS. SMITH: Room seven.

MR. WASHINGTON: Room seven?

MS. SMITH: Do you see that?

MR. WASHINGTON: I don't.

MS. SMITH: Alright, hold on. Let me do 

it again.

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh. Is the public 

looking at my technological skills here? Okay, here we 

go. Alright, joining.

MS. SMITH: Alright.

MS. JEFFRIES: Can we pause the live 

feed, please?

MS. SMITH: Alright. Welcome back. Thank 

you, everyone. So we are now back at- everyone's back at 

the table. And we wanted to start just to see if anyone 

had a report out from either of the caucuses that took 

place.

MR. SANDS: I do.

MS. SMITH: Okay. D'Angelo?

MR. SANDS: I want to thank the 

colleagues for coming together, having a conversation. 

Based on our conversation, you know, we- what was stated 

was we expressed our concerns. We have expressed our 

concerns during our last meeting. And we understand that 
38 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

the Department is going to move forward with the 

recommendations to include undocumented students that's 

eligible for TRIO. And that's something that we can 

support. However, since we are focusing on the neg reg on 

participants' eligibility, we want to uplift the 

eligibility focus proposed rule change to include 

eligibility, especially now, with the issues with the 

better FAFSA. This will be an incredible, helpful change 

for TRIO Programs.

MS. SMITH: Okay. Thank you, D'Angelo. 

Was there a report out from the other caucus or anything 

else the other colleagues would like to share?

MR. MEOTTI: No, not from the caucus I 

asked for, no. 

MS. SMITH: Okay. Alright. Aaron.

MR. WASHINGTON: You know, I- so, I 

guess we can move forward into what exactly you all are 

going to be reporting to the- well, you don't have to 

tell us exactly what you're going to be reporting to the 

main committee. I mean that- but I- you know, if you have 

a general idea of what you will be saying to the main 

committee, that would be helpful for the Department, I 

think the public is [inaudible] hear. So, D'Angelo, whatyou know, as a- you know, what would be your 

recommendation to the subcommittee? I'm sorry, I 
39 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

apologize. What would be your recommendation to the main 

committee?

MR. SANDS: Well, we would, based on 

what is written in the documents, we can support that. If 

there is any opportunity for eligibility to be 

considered, we would like that to be considered. And, you 

know, and we can also seek further guidance on what that 

could potentially look like because it'd be extremely 

helpful for our students, our programs, our SSS programs, 

and McNair programs specifically. What I would like to do 

is possibly if I can provide some additional language 

that my counterpart would like to add to that. But that's 

something that's based on our discussion, but in general, 

we're going to go ahead and support what Department is 

putting out. As far as the language part, that's what I 

have for the moment. But if you need something specific, 

if something other than that needs to be written down or 

presented, I'm happy to provide that.

MR. WASHINGTON: No, I don't- it doesn't 

have to be specific. I just- you know, thank you for thethank you for that clarification. Yeah, I- yeah, thank 

you.

MS. SMITH: Yeah. I mean, so just to be 

clear, I'll step in here, Aaron. So just to be clear, the 

four, the four of you, all that last session were not in 
40 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

support of the language, the red line text. You are nowyou are in support now, you would recommend the changes 

as the Department has presented them. Is that correct?

MR. SANDS: We will provide support for 

our TRIO Programs. We're prepared to do the work that the 

Department is recommending. 

MS. SMITH: Okay. Alright, so in that 

case, then, Michael had already expressed his support for 

the language. So we then would have- oh, and I know 

Aaron, the Department supports its language. So we would 

be in support of the language as it's written, everyone. 

Okay. So I do think the next step as- Cindy?

MS. JEFFRIES: Oh. Go ahead.

MS. SMITH: So I do think the next step 

is to discuss the logistics of the report if it's just 

you all are going to put a report. I know that D'Angelo 

will be there and can express verbally the support for 

the language as written. We can see who else, if anyone 

else wanted to be there as well to answer any questions. 

Cindy?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yeah, I just have a 

clarifying question here, Krystil. D'Angelo, you know, I 

heard you say, that subcommittee is in support of the 

Department's proposal, which is wonderful. I'm glad you 

were able to, you know, find your way there. But I 
41 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

believe I heard you mention that, if possible, you would 

like to include Pell Grant.

MR. SANDS: Yes.

MS. JEFFRIES: Did you want to have 

discussion on that?

MR. SANDS: I'd love a discussion with 

the Department if we can have- if they can give any 

feedback on that process or the possibilities of that 

consideration, and what authority they have to 

potentially make those changes. I know it's a previous 

preference about the focus and on what was written, 

specifically, but if there's any insight into what the 

Department or what the Department can do to make that 

change or addition, we're all ears for that as well.

MS. SMITH: Aaron.

MR. WASHINGTON: I think you're talking 

about Pell eligibility in relation to the definition of a 

low-income individual, right, D'Angelo?

MR. SANDS: Yes, sir.

MR. WASHINGTON: I want to allow Hannah 

to talk to statutory definitions. If- or, you know, I 

don't want to put Hannah on the spot, but if- [inaudible]

MS. HODEL: No. Yeah. I'm good. So the 

definition of how one documents the status of being a 

low-income individual is provided specifically in 
42 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

statute. If helpful, I could drop that definition into 

the chat box. But I do think that's an area, 

unfortunately, where Congress has said specifically what 

we can consider as documentation of status as a lowincome individual, and they haven't provided evidence of 

Pell Grant receipt as a way that we can meet that 

documentation. So I think we are restricted by the 

statutory language there. I can drop it into the chat if 

that's helpful.

MR. SANDS: Yeah, that will be helpful.

MS. SMITH: Wade.

MR. WILLIAMS: But isn't one of the- one 

of the things I know for, like for SSS, and maybe 

D'Angelo- because, again, I didn't run- I ran several 

programs. SSS was not one of those. Was an ICER or like 

from there- having that- wasn't that something that you 

could document to show their income eligibility for a 

student in SSS, D'Angelo?

MR. SANDS: Yeah, I believe that, but 

don't quote me on that one. I have two SSS programs here 

on site, and some of the challenges that they expressed 

to me was the ability to identify and if Pell eligibility 

was something that can be added, it would help them 

tremendously.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, my understanding is 
43 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

with the quote-unquote better FAFSA, programs aren't able 

to access that through their financial aid offices or 

won't be able to. So it's going to be a lot harder for 

programs to get necessary documentation in order to 

determine who's eligible. So if we had- I think if 

students were able to present their, you know, their 

confirmation page showing their EFC then- to show that 

they are in fact Pell eligible, then that would make it a 

lot easier for programs and for students to get services 

to them, I think is kind of what.

MS. SMITH: Aaron.

MR. WASHINGTON: You know, outside of 

the context of, you know, actually changing regulations, 

we also have a lot of tools in the form of subregulatory 

guidance. I apologize, I know you probably all know what 

subregulatory guidance is. This is probably mainly for 

the public. You know, just so we all can be on the same 

page. The Department quite often releases subregulatory 

guidance in the form of letters or announcements to 

explain statutory regulatory provisions. And I'm just 

wondering, you know, would that be- based on what Hannah 

says, and, you know, being a- not- most- not being able 

to change the definition of a low-income individual, like 

through the rule- through negotiated rulemaking, could it 

help to just actually- could it help for the Department 
44 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

to provide just a little more guidance about what theyou know, what the statutory requirements around the 

definition of a low-income individual is? That does not 

mean that we would say that that- you know, that we would 

include Pell eligibility in that, but just to provide 

more- just to provide more guidance about the current 

definition and how it should be implemented. Could that 

be something that could help in lieu of, you know, our 

prohibition on rule making?

MS. SMITH: D'Angelo, Wade? Or would 

that be- and you all are on mute. It looks like you all 

are mulling it over.

MR. WILLIAMS: I- all I said was 

D'Angelo. I was just going to defer to him.

MS. SMITH: Okay. And you said 

something. We can't hear you, D'Angelo. You're off mute, 

but we can't hear you. Okay, there you are.

MR. SANDS: I was thinking it through. I 

think that would be helpful, but I would hope that can be 

some type of segue into- or you know into hopefully 

making additional changes if possible, whether we take 

the advocacy to those who can make things happen and 

change there. But I think that'll be helpful. And thank 

you, Aaron, for that.

MS. SMITH: Now I'm on mute. As Cindy 
45 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

said, I do- Aaron, go ahead. 

MR. WASHINGTON: You go first, sorry.

MS. SMITH: Okay. Well, I was just going 

to congratulate you, the members of the subcommittee for 

coming together with a recommendation, a single 

recommendation. So, for- you know, we still have some 

time, and we can just come together on what that looks 

like, so that we're prepared as we- as Aaron has alluded 

to, and for those that did watch the session, they- there 

are a lot of topics still left on the table. So, it 

sounds like there has been a, you know, a finite amount 

of time allocated to the TRIO committee, subcommittee 

report out. So, if we can get that as cogent as possible, 

I think that would really help the committee in the long 

run. Aaron.

MR. WASHINGTON: You know, I was going 

to talk about the logistics of the report out. So I 

guess, Michael, if you have a question, maybe, Krystil,

if you wouldn't mind [inaudible] first.

MR. MEOTTI: Yeah. Let me make sureokay, I'm off mute. Okay, good. Just curious in terms of 

the recommendation, I want to make sure that I understand 

what the recommendation is, that there's a- the 

recommendation is support for the Department's proposal, 

and there are other issues or matters being suggested for 
46 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

consideration. Obviously, if they're defined by statute 

we can't- you know, the rules process can address that. 

But understanding that it is- that that's what the 

proposal is. Support and think about these other things 

as opposed to that's one big thing that if you can't do 

the whole thing, you shouldn't be doing any of it.

MS. SMITH: That's a good clarification. 

D’Angelo, can you weigh in on that, or are you making the 

support for the recommendation as-is for the proposal asis contingent on anything else?

MR. SANDS: As-is.

MS. SMITH: Say that again.

MR. SANDS: So yeah, it isn't hindered 

upon whether the Department- I think is understandable 

that with the Pell Grant or the Pell eligibility, there 

are challenges there or there is a statute in place. So 

it doesn't hinge upon that. The Department is going to 

move forward with it. TRIO programs will prepare to do 

the work.

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. 

You said it is not?

MS. SMITH: It is a little hard to hear 

you.

MR. SANDS: Oh. I'm sorry. Is it me?

MS. SMITH: Yeah.
47 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

MR. SANDS: I'm sorry. [Inaudible] it's 

not hinged upon that. No, it's not hinged upon that. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright. Understood. 

Alright. You know, and like I said, you can discuss- you 

can talk about your- you know, like what you would like 

to see happen in the future at the main committee as 

well, you know, but again, like as Krystil said, we're 

really excited about the subcommittee support for the 

proposal. Krystil, can I go into the logistics or- are we 

ready to go into some logistics for third session?

MS. SMITH: Let's talk logistics, see 

what it looks like.

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright, so, we'll have 

about an hour to present to the main committee. We might 

not need that much time. You know, because there's, you 

know, one proposal with maybe some other discussion 

items. So you don't have to take the entire time. But the 

main committee will be able to ask you questions about 

what happened at the subcommittee, and you'll be able to 

respond, you know, to those questions. Then the main 

committee will take a consensus check and like- kind of 

like we did here. Krystil can explain how it'll- how it 

will look. And if the main committee reaches consensus,

so- oh, I don't know if I said that, but the main- so 

you'll have an hour to present, and then the main 
48 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

committee will have an hour to ask questions. So it'll be 

two hours total. And then if the main committee reaches 

consensus on the subcommittee's recommendation, then 

that's what we will publish as a proposed rule. So the 

public will then be able to comment further, on the 

proposed rule. After that, it will become a- after that, 

we'll publish a final rule that will take effect the 

following year, July 1st of the following year that the 

regulation is published. Yeah. So- oh, does somebody want 

to say something?

MS. SMITH: No. Well, I can just step 

in, just to be clear. So the consensus means that 

everyone- every member of the committee has to accept. If 

there is one person that is not in favor, then the 

committee does not have consensus. So as you know, as we 

explained before, you all's job and you all have done a 

good job as subject matter experts, specifically in these 

TRIO Programs, is to give them as much information so 

that they can make an informed decision. It probably 

bodes well that all of you all agree on one 

recommendation. So, you just want to present that, be 

available to answer those questions. But ultimately after 

that, it's completely in the hands of the committee. 

Aaron, go ahead. Sorry.

MR. WASHINGTON: So like I said at the 
49 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

first, you know, table you all can present out, you know, 

how it- how you choose. It could be, you know, a 

PowerPoint presentation. It could be- I remember, you 

know, it can be, I guess an essay format. You don't have 

to create a presentation. You can just say we support the 

Department's language. And that can be it. But it just 

depends on how you all want to present out, you know, 

that report, and it's not- and we wouldn't need it until 

February 23rd. So, obviously the sooner the better, for 

sure. But, you can take some time to decide as a 

subcommittee how you all want to present and any ideas 

who would want to do it? Do multiple people want to come 

or? That's for you all.

MS. SMITH: Well, we know that D'Angelo 

will already be there.

MR. WASHINGTON: D'Angelo gonna be 

there. D'Angelo can go by himself. He could do it by 

himself. You know, he can have some support from you all.

MS. SMITH: Michael.

MR. MEOTTI: Yeah, I would love to- I'd 

love to be there, whether or not I actually have to saymaybe mostly for answering questions or something like 

that. But I would love to be there to- I was- I want toI keep wanting to say the verb participate, but that may 

not happen based- verbal participation may not happen 
50 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

unless needed if D'Angelo is going to give the main 

recommendation. But I would like to be available, be in 

the digital room. Let's put it that way.

MS. SMITH: And so, D'Angelo, we are 

assuming that you will make the report out. Is that 

correct? It looks like that's a yes.

MR. SANDS: That is correct.

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Cool. Alright, 

cool. So it sounds like it'll be D'Angelo and Michael 

that will get- that will be- they will present out andwell D'Angelo will present out and then Michael and 

D'Angelo will answer questions. Sounds good. Yeah. So, 

D'Angelo and Michael, y'all will get together and let the 

Department know, like, you know- well, actually, FMCS. 

You can send the- either- what- however you decide to 

report out, you can send that to FMCS by the 23rd. Is 

that okay? Cool. Okay.

MS. SMITH: Okay.

MR. MEOTTI: Yes.

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright.

MS. SMITH: Alright. And just in case 

you all just let FMCS know, just email myself or Cindy if 

you do- would like the link to, you know, be on camera on 

the date. We don't know what date yet, correct, Aaron? 

But the report will be made?
51 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

MR. WASHINGTON: No, we don't. Not yet. 

I don't know if this- give me- just give me one second.

MS. SMITH: Well. Okay. But we'll let 

you all know and just let us know. Right now, we will 

send- be prepared to send invites to Michael and 

D'Angelo. If you would like to be there, let us know. Of 

course, you all are welcome to watch it on the public 

link at any time if you don't want to be in the room.

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah. So I just- it'll 

be sometime between March 4th and March 7th. So, 

D'Angelo, you're already going to be there, you know, so 

you'll be available. Michael, hopefully you can be 

flexible between those dates for a two-hour space 

between. It's 10:00 p.m., 10:10 a.m. and 3:30. 

MS. SMITH: And then 1:00 to 

[inaudible]. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay.

MS. SMITH: So, you know, I guess it 

would have to start before.

MR. WASHINGTON: Maybe like 1 to 3. So 

10 to 12 and 1 to 3 Eastern time.

MS. SMITH: 3:30 Eastern. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah. March 7th, March 

4th through the seventh.

MS. SMITH: Okay. Alright, I believe- so 
52 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

is there anything else that this committee would like to 

discuss? We- you know, we have 25 minutes until lunch. We 

are scheduled for another- until 3:00 after lunch. Is 

there anything else that the committee has- would like to 

bring to the table? Right now, we have marked that we 

have a recommendation, a single recommendation in support 

of the Department's language. Anything additional? Okay. 

Cindy, am I missing anything? Aaron- or Aaron, did you 

want to add any other statement?

MR. WASHINGTON: I don't have a prepared 

thank-you for you all. I should have probably written 

something down. Thank you so much for, you know, joining 

with us to discuss the issue. And, you know, we're really 

happy that we were able to come to one recommendation for 

the main committee. And, if you all have any other 

further questions, you know, you can always email FMCS 

and they will get it to the appropriate folks at the 

Department. And, again, thank you so much for taking this 

time out. You know, and, thank you for the work that you 

do in the community. I guess I can go- I'm not accepting 

an Oscar. I don't know why I'm like thinking of like who 

[inaudible] I don't know, but anyways, does anybody from 

subcommittee want to say anything? I don't want to justMS. SMITH: Okay, I am getting some 

other folks that want to come. Geof and then Emalyn it 
53 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

looks like.

MR. GARNER: Thank you. I put it in the 

chat, but I'd like to be there to support our process 

with the full committee, too.

MS. SMITH: Okay, we'll send that link 

out. And Emalyn, did you have something as well?

MS. LAPUS: Well, I guess just a point 

of clarification. If it seems as you have stated that 

because our committees move- we are moving forward with 

the proposed recommendation by the Department, do we need 

to meet again at- after?

MS. JEFFRIES: No. You- do you mean like 

the rest of today, Emalyn? 

MS. LAPUS: Yeah. I meanMS. JEFFRIES: No.

MS. LAPUS: Because we've come to.

MS. JEFFRIES: Yeah. No. If you- if the 

committee has concluded and come to their one 

recommendation and it is stated on the record of what 

that recommendation is, you have- you will have bought 

back about four hours’ worth of your time for today.

MS. LAPUS: Okay. Thank you.

MS. SMITH: Yeah. Yes. That's true. I'm 

ready to call for an adjournment. Just remember, that it 

is still incumbent on you all that, you know, want to 
54 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

review the document that you will send by February 23rd 

that will- you know, that will be there- that will 

encompass the recommendation. So do work with D'Angelo. 

We know he's leading the report out. If you need 

additional space to- if you need additional space to talk 

or discuss anything, just reach out to FMCS. We can make 

one available to you. But if there is nothing else, 

Subcommittee, Federal TRIO Subcommittee 2024, we will 

adjourn this meeting at 11:38 Eastern. Thank you all so 

much for your- coming together on this.

MS. LAPUS: Thank you.

MR. GARNER: Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Congratulations, 

everyone.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you.

MR. GARNER: Great meeting you, Aaron. 

Thanks for the facilitators. Nice working with everyone.

MS. SMITH: Yes. And thank you, Aaron, 

for leading us through this.

 
55 Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 2/9/24

Zoom Chat Transcript 

TRIO Subcommittee- Session 2 , Day 5, Morning, February 9, 2024 

*Chat was copied as presented, as a result minor typos or grammatical errors may be present.

From Geof Garner Secondary Schools to Everyone:

Would asylum seekers be able to receive services through EOC projects? Some of the EOC 

directors are wondering that.

From Hannah.Hodel to Everyone:

20 USC 1070a-11(e) (e) Documentation of status as a low-income individual

(1) Except in the case of an independent student, as defined in section 1087vv(d) of this 

title, documentation of an individual's status pursuant to subsection (h)(4) shall be made by 

providing the Secretary with— 

(A) a signed statement from the individual's parent or legal guardian; 

(B) verification from another governmental source;

(C) a signed financial aid application; or

(D) a signed United States or Puerto Rico income tax return.

From Hannah.Hodel to Everyone:

(2) In the case of an independent student, as defined in section 1087vv(d) of this title, 

documentation of an individual's status pursuant to subsection (h)(4) shall be made by providing 

the Secretary with— 

(A) a signed statement from the individual;

(B) verification from another governmental source;

(C) a signed financial aid application; or

(D) a signed United States or Puerto Rico income tax return.

From Hannah.Hodel to Everyone:

(3) Notwithstanding this subsection and subsection (h)(4), individuals who are foster care 

youth (including youth in foster care and youth who have left foster care after reaching age 13), or 

homeless children and youths as defined in section 11434a of title 42, shall be eligible to participate 

in programs under sections 1070a–12, 1070a–13, 1070a–14, and 1070a–16 of this title.

From Hannah.Hodel to Everyone:

And here is the definition of low income individual in 20 USC 1070a-11(h)(4) (4) Lowincome individual

The term “low-income individual” means an individual from a family whose taxable income 

for the preceding year did not exceed 150 percent of an amount equal to the poverty level 

determined by using criteria of poverty established by the Bureau of the Census.

From Geof Garner Secondary Schools to Everyone:

I’ll attend the main committee session. Please share a link. Thanks so much.

From Krystil Smith | FMCS Facilitator to Everyone:

Got you!

From Wade Williams, TRIO Participant Rep. to Everyone:

I will as well