Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 1 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

INSTITUTIONAL AND PROGRAMMATIC 

ELIGIBILITY COMMITTEE 

SESSION 2, DAY 1, AFTERNOON

February 14, 2022 

On the 14th day of February, 2022, the following 

meeting was held virtually, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.,

before Jamie Young, Shorthand Reporter in the state of New 

Jersey.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 2 

PROCEEDINGS

MS. JEFFRIES: Good afternoon and welcome back from 

your lunch break. I hope you all got a chance to relax and 

take a few minutes for yourself, and welcome back to those who 

are doing the live stream. I'm facilitator Cindy Jeffries. 

I'll be facilitating the session this afternoon. So, I'm not 

seeing any hands. David.

MR. SOCOLOW: Hi. Before we start the next topic.

MS. JEFFRIES: Well, let me just say this. We're 

going to go back to the section on gainful or on Ability to 

Benefit just so everybody knows, so go ahead.

MR. SOCOLOW: Okay well, I guess what I was going to 

ask is, in light of the direct questions that we heard during, 

the morning, I would like to request caucus with the 

Department in the weeks between this session and the one in 

March to talk about those issues on Ability to Benefit.

MS. JEFFRIES: We will discuss that with the 

Department, David, and let you all know, okay, what transpires 

with that. I appreciate that request. Let me just make one 

point clear here on protocols that we didn't we didn't cover 

real clearly this morning that during this week, unless 

otherwise indicated, we are only taking temperature checks. We 

are not taking consensus checks. Okay? So the temperature 

check is just so the Department gets a can get a feel of what 

you all feel about what's out there, what's proposed after all 

the discussion and hearing, you know, your questions, comments 

and concerns. So, they are temperature checks, not consensus. 

Alright? We most likely won't get into any consensus checks, 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 3 

for the most part until week three. Okay? That being said, I'm 

going to bring us back to the Ability to Benefit, specifically 

section 668.157 where there were five, I believe it was five 

negotiators, who were thumbs down on that. The Department 

would like to have a conversation with you to get more 

specific and a better understanding of what your concerns are

and what they need to consider. Okay? So, the five people that 

I that we noted that were thumbs down, that's not to say 

others can't weigh in, but we do want to hear from the five 

people for sure. Okay? We had Will, Barmak, David, Kelli, and 

Beverly, so it doesn't matter to me who wants to start this 

conversation. Will, thanks for jumping up there. Appreciate 

it.

MR. DURDEN: Yeah, let's get going. And with 

apologies, I just got a little confused on the order when we 

were doing that and coming back to the temperature check. I 

actually do want to very briefly go back to 668.156. Sorry to 

slow us down, but I'll be quick. That was on the state plan 

and I do have thumbs down reservations on the state process 

as-is, looking at the success rate. I talked about sticking to 

just the 1 percent cap instead of the success rate. If we have 

to stick with the success rate, I would like to entertain 

conversation on lowering that 95 percent. I would worry that a 

state would get to 94 percent, which is still in an 

educational parlance, and be shut down because they were 1 

percent off on that success rate. So, I would like to see a 

lower success rate, maybe starting at 80 percent. I wanted to 

make sure that comment was there and that I still have a 

thumbs down on 1.56, and nothing to add on 157 at this time. 

I'll defer to others.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 4 

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Will for 

that. We will make a note of that so that when we come back 

around in the third session, that and the Department has that. 

David, you have your hand up.

MR. SOCOLOW: Well, I mean, the Department is asking 

for more clarification on why I indicated a thumbs down 

temperature check on 157. I submitted a paper on February 1st. 

The Department's written response that Greg was reading seems 

like not to answer the question that's asked. It's not whether 

IET is the only way to do career pathways for adults without a 

high school diploma, but whether it's the best, most effective 

and evidence-based way that would therefore serve as an 

excellent way to meet the spirit of the statute from 2014, 

adding career pathways as a limiting factor for all ATB 

eligibility. And in my view, and in the Department's own view, 

it is the best practice. It is the gold standard. And so it 

doesn't seem that the Department has engaged with that 

question. They've engaged with a different question. Is it the 

only way? That's not the point I'm making. In addition, as 

several people pointed out, the language is inconsistent about 

applying strong standards to all three methods. I think the 

Department indicated a willingness to fix that, but there's 

two places that have to get fixed. And then as it relates to 

not only the IET, but also the whole concept of partnership 

and also of defining what's a valid high school diploma. I 

think the language in six needs to be strengthened. So, 

there's a number of issues that have been raised. And again, I 

and then the Department have now raised a number of additional 

issues relative to the approval process. So yeah, I think it 

would be good to have a caucus on this between sessions next 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 5 

week or the week after, but even better next week so that we 

can pick up some speed and get a better understanding of one 

another between now and March 14th.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you for that, David. And 

just to remind the negotiators that caucuses take place during 

the negotiating sessions themselves. Work groups are the 

potential for outside of the negotiating sessions, so I just 

want to clarify that.

MR. SOCOLOW: Okay. Excuse me. Then I amend my 

request and ask instead for a workgroup.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay. Kelli.

MS. PERRY: Mine's a little simpler than that. In 

157(a), it says an institution demonstrates to the Secretary 

that a student is enrolled in an eligible career pathways 

program and then it has in, you know, comma as required under 

668.1563(a) of this part by documenting that. I just think 

that in between those commas, that reference to 668.156(a)(3) 

needs to be removed because my understanding of the section 

was that this is what institutions were going to be held to as 

it related to the career pathway programs, regardless of how 

the student was eligible to participate. If that's not the 

case, and I'm misunderstanding what this means, then I guess I 

need an explanation of what the purpose of 157 is.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, Greg, I see you're off mute.

MR. MARTIN: No, that's okay. I'm sorry, can I ask to 

have that rephrased again? I didn't- 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 6 

MS. MORELLI: This is Denise. I [inaudible], Kelli, 

you're correct. 157 applies to whether or not it's a state 

process or non-state process career pathways program.

MS. PERRY: So, right, so [inaudible] clarify. I just 

think that “as required under 668.156(a)(3)” needs to be 

removed from A. Because this is meant to cover everything, 

regardless of how the student is eligible. I think.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Alright, thank you, Kelli, for 

that. Mike, I should note that we picked right up where we had 

left off with Mike Lanouette being in for proprietary schools 

instead of Brad Adams, and that Will Durden is in for two-year 

school institutions in place of Dr. Anne Kress.

MR. LANOUETTE: Thank you. I did want to go on the 

record, I did vote thumbs down. I don't know if I was on the 

list when you went through that. I did vote thumbs down for

several reasons. Some of the reasons brought up by David with 

respect to the inconsistent standards with the importance of 

including the IET. But there was an additional bit of 

clarification I'd like on one 156(3). The draft language 

indicates 1 percent of enrollment for each institution 

participating, but I'm pretty sure I heard in the narrative 1 

percent of the state or something like that, so I'd like to 

get a little more clarification on that. And regardless of 

clarification, it does appear that 1 percent seems to be seems 

to be pretty arbitrary and would certainly exclude smaller, 

smaller schools. So, I'd like to get some more clarification 

on that.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 7 

MR. MARTIN: I just want to clarify that, as written, 

it's by institution. We did ask for comment on whether or not 

that's appropriate, or whether it should be statewide, but as 

written, it was by institution. Thank you, so you would be 

suggesting another percentage greater than one percent? Just 

to be clear? 

MR. LANOUETTE: Yes, yes, I think so.

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes. Thank you both for that. Barmak 

and Beverly, you were also both thumbs down. Could we get some 

further clarification from both of you?

MR. NASSIRIAN: I was following David's lead. It 

strikes me that his points are very persuasive, and I'd like 

them addressed.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Barmak. Beverly, are 

you here? Is Beverly here?

MS. SCHOFIELD: Beverly had to leave the table. 

She'll be back around [inaudible].

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, so. Greg, do you have some 

additional questions or anything further that you would like 

to get clarified on this, knowing that we don't know from 

Beverly until she's back around 2:00, but you can certainly 

reach out to her and get that as well.

MR. MARTIN: No, not at this point. We have, I thank 

everybody for their comments. We'll go back and take a look at 

what's in A with respect to the reference to 160, 156(a)(3), 

the IET issue we'll take back and discuss as well. So, I am 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 8 

aware of the feelings several negotiators have around that, I 

will take that back, and I thank everybody for providing their 

reasons for voting thumbs down. I don't want to say voting, 

indicating that they had some issues with 157. So, we'll take 

that back and see what we can do with that. No, that's all I 

have for ATB.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, appreciate it. One last call for 

comment on ATB on anything that hasn't already been stated. 

Okay. Alright, with that, we are going to move on to the next 

agenda item, which is administrative capabilities, issue paper 

number two. Greg, I'm going to turn it over to you to walk 

through the document with the negotiators, please.

MR. MARTIN: Okay. And I'll wait for theMS. JEFFRIES: There you go, Vanessa, thank you.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Vanessa. Appreciate that. So, 

we are looking at issue paper number two: standards of 

administrative capability. And again, you have your regulatory 

statutory cites up there for you. And so, well, we'll just 

begin with some of the changes. Here, we have put in, just to 

review to begin and continue to participate in any Title IV 

HEA program, the institution must demonstrate to the Secretary 

that the institution is capable of adequately administering 

that program under each of the standards established in this 

section. The Secretary considers an institution to have that 

administrative capability if the institution-- and we're 

skipping to where our changes begin with paragraph H. So, 

we'll start there, provides adequate financial aid counseling 

with clear and accurate information to eligible students who 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 9 

apply for title IV HEA program assistance. In determining 

whether an institution provides adequate counseling, the 

Secretary considers whether its counseling includes 

information related to the source of the amount of each type 

of aid offered, the method by which the aid is determined and 

disbursed, delivered or applied to a student's account, and 

the rights and responsibilities of the student with respect to 

enrollment at the institution and receipt of financial aid. 

The information includes the institution's refund policy,

requirements for treatment of title IV HEA program funds, when 

a student withdraws under 668.22, its standards of 

satisfactory progress and other conditions that may alter the 

student's aid package. I'm going to stop there with a couple 

of comments here. We, in response to the negotiator comments, 

have suggested additional language here. That's with “clear 

and accurate information” in H. To be clear, we believe this 

will provide important additional information to support 

students' informed decision making, so we have added there 

with clear and accurate information. And I just want to make 

that point that we had heard the concerns of negotiators with 

respect to that. Any concerns about H? As I said, just that 

one addition there, but I'll open it up to see if anybody has 

any concerns about that because I do want to go through it by 

paragraph.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Greg. Vanessa, if you could 

stop share for just a minute. Before we take hands, I need to 

make a couple of announcements here. Debbie Cochrane is in for 

state agencies, Brad Adams is in for proprietary schools. Dr. 

Anne Kress is joining back at the table with two-year 

colleges. Ashley Schofield is in for minority serving agencies 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 10

and Jessica Ranucci is back at the table for legal aid. With 

that, Amanda, you are up first.

MS. MARTINEZ: Okay, great. I want to pose a 

question. I understand in H, there's this added line of “clear 

and accurate information”, and I'm still a little bit 

concerned that's still broad and vague. And you know, the 

Department goes further into offering suggestions of what 

information should be provided. But it can go further and be 

improved. So, my question is why did the Department determine 

that, including in my proposal, there was just additional 

minimum information to be included, such as basic information 

like college costs, which include direct and indirect college 

costs, a distinction between grants and loans. Just a basic 

calculation of net price of what that student is expected to 

pay once the financial aid is taken out into account. Why was 

that not appropriate in, at least, this subpart when it comes 

to improving financial aid counseling? That I mean, all those 

items that I mentioned are in line with the information 

provided here under subpart H.

MR. MARTIN: Well, I mean, I will say that this the 

administrative capability, a rule that that that references 

clear and accurate information and what's been provided to the 

student. We have other areas of the regulations that that do 

address this. Institutions are already required, as a matter 

of publishing consumer information, to give students 

information on costs of the program. We do require under our 

disbursement rules that an institution inform the student 

through what is normally considered, what most schools would 

call an award letter, but basically it's just a notice by our 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 11

regulations called a notice that would inform the student the 

type of aid he or she is to receive, when they can expect to 

receive it, whether it's loans. So that is that is already 

covered as far as the standardizing of financial aid offers. 

And that being useful to this end, we do provide the college 

financing plan to institutions, and we encourage institutions 

to use it. If you've looked at our college financing plan that 

we have out there, I'm pretty proud of it, understanding that 

it's a one size fits all and that there are constraints 

associated with that. We don't have the statutory authority to 

mandate that everybody use that. But many schools do, and to 

the extent that they do, it makes it very clear what is loans, 

what is grants, what the students are required to pay out of 

pocket. So, I think we addressed those those areas in many 

parts of the reg. And, so, you know, building redundancies in 

here. We tried to make it very clear that we require the 

schools to make that information clear and to make it and to 

make it accurate and, and we are and we do reference here the 

source type of aid often so as far as like whether it's loans 

or grants, I think that's already that's already covered here 

and again stressed in the in the cash management rules, the 

method that students will receive the aid, the rights and 

responsibilities students have to it. So, I would argue that 

we have a lot of that already. However, that doesn't mean that 

we're not amenable to looking at other suggestions, but I 

would open it up to hear what anybody has to say about it. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Amanda and Greg. Jessica.

MS. RANUCCI: I think I just want to echo what Amanda 

said, particularly as to the grants versus loans. I do think, 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 12

just in a commonsense way, like it is not an administratively 

capable financial aid office if it cannot explain to students 

the difference between a grant and a loan. So, I do think that 

at least with that piece, this is an appropriate place to put 

it, even if the actual disclosures are somewhere else in the 

regulation. And I appreciate what you're saying that it may be 

included in the language, but I thought Debbie had a proposal 

that was maybe even clearer. That was just something simple, 

like the nature of the aid and whether it must be earned or 

repaid. So, I'd encourage the Department to think about 

something really to clarify that point here, because again, 

that's how people end up in our office is they have loans they 

didn't know were loans.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright, thank you. Alright, Greg, I 

don't see any more hands on that piece. Do you want to move 

on?

MR. MARTIN: I'm trying to think of how to do a 

temperature check. We're only dealing with 668.116. I mean, I 

know we just did the one thing, but I'd like to go by 

paragraph because it makes it easier than arbitrarily going 

back and saying, well, let's do it for three paragraphs or 

four paragraphs. Why don't we just see what people have to say 

about H. Let's take a temperature check to see how people feel 

about it as it is with the understanding that some folks would 

like to see some clarifications.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Can you define so that the 

negotiators are all clear as well as the public? 668.16 H, is 

that what you're doing?
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 13

MR. MARTIN: Yes, we're doing you know what, though, 

before we do that- I want to make sure I've covered all of it, 

and I don’t think I did. So, let's hold off on that for a 

moment. I'm just trying to make sure we don't do too much in 

here at once, so we'll hold off on that. And I don't think I 

went through the entirety of H. So, I want to go down to 

three, when we talk about the rights and responsibilities of 

the student with respect to enrollment at the institution that 

received financial aid. The information includes the 

institution's refund policy requirements under 668.22, the 

standards of satisfactory progress and other conditions that 

may alter the student's package. So, yeah, I want to make sure 

we read all of that. So yeah, with that in mind, then what 

we're looking at is H, and that goes down to right there. Just 

to make sure I have all that right down to where I began, so 

just down to the bottom of where we say may alter the 

student’s aid package.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, so it would be paragraph H 1, 2, 

and 3 inclusive. Okay, so can we see your show of thumbs as to 

where the committee is on this temperature check for that 

section only? Okay. Alright, I see one thumbs down. Amanda, is 

there anything else you'd like to add?

MS. MARTINEZ: No, nothing, I’d like to add. I think 

there definitely can be improvements, and I think the 

Education Department should really consider. I think the 

response of ‘we already have, we don't want to create 

redundancies.’ I think clearly this problem is large enough 

that clearly there needs to be better alignment, even more 

redundancies and even more clear guidance at a federal level 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 14

in these regs as many times as we can to actually try to close 

barriers in the specific part, it's related to financing. It's 

related to basic information that students are receiving. So 

whatever parts we can include that in, I think redundancy is 

actually a better thing then than no redundancy and we want to 

patch up the holes. So, I think if the Department could go 

back and really look at Debbie's comments and again, our 

comments with this in mind, that would be helpful.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MR. MARTIN: And just to clarify, I think what I'm 

hearing here is that, especially those of you who've seen 

students come to you with the problems, it is very important 

for students to know. Maybe in addition to how they were 

packaged, when we look at what a student actually has 

received, it's very clear what portion of that for that 

student is grants and what loans they have that need to be 

repaid. Right. So that's a very important thing you want to 

see stressed here because some students may be seeking help 

and saying that they didn't know that- that wasn't that wasn't 

evident to them. So, that's reiterated by schools, even in 

addition to any award letter, or we could call a funding 

notice, a student receives.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Sam.

MS. VEEDER: Thank you, I just wanted to kind of make 

a counterpoint to that. I mean, we many of the schools do use 

the template that is already provided, and even if we don't, 

there are already significant disclosure requirements that we 

do provide to students that, you know, explain this. It 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 15

doesn't mean that they always read it, no matter how many 

times we send them notices annually about how much they 

borrowed so far and where they are at and that it's a loan. 

I'm not sure that more regulations are the answer to the 

problem you described Jessica.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Sam. Jessica, you want to 

respond to that?

MS. RANUCCI: Yeah, I was just going to say quickly, 

you know, I'm not I'm not a financial aid professional. I 

defer to the Department, but to the extent that the Department 

thinks that this is an important thing to emphasize. I think 

that the grant and loan distinction is one of the places where 

students are just really hurt the most. So, I'd encourage the 

Department when considering its own priorities to consider 

that.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. Amanda, you have 

something new to add?

MS. MARTINEZ: Besides this point about distinction 

between grants and loans, I think generally a minimum

requirement institutions to be able to communicate to their 

students is college costs, both direct and indirect, so they 

have control over that. That should be something provided to 

students. And really, I want to demystify for students when 

they're getting this information, potentially maybe the 

assumption that they don't read it. I'm not sure if that's the 

right assumption. For instance, I recently read a story about 

a Latina high school student that did have when she entered 

college all this paperwork, and she was running through it by 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 16

herself. She's a first generation college student. Her family 

only speaks Spanish, so she's trying to communicate and 

understand the information to herself and then also trying to 

go to the high school. But the high school doesn't really 

understand and is trying to communicate with the institution. 

The institution didn't have sufficient counseling, and that's 

a separate problem, like financial aid counseling, and being 

able to respond to students and their needs when they're at 

the moment in time they're trying to make their decision. So 

really, that shows a lot of gaps in systems, right? It depends 

if you're a student that luckily you're going to an 

institution that has all of those services available to you at 

the right time, that you're fully equipped with a family that 

understands all those terms that think, hopefully, maybe you 

got a financial aid award letter that uses this encouraging 

financing plan. We don't really know how many institutions 

actually use that. As you said, it just encourages, not 

necessarily required. So, it's varied, right? So, the 

opportunity is not equal. So really, this is a direct cost. 

Both direct and indirect should be at least a minimum 

requirement, their distinction, and then also the grants, the 

distinction between grant, aid, and loans. And also, I guess 

I'll put this in the chat, but I would really like a data 

request for the college financing plan and how many 

institutions are actually taking up this example or the model.

MR. MARTIN: I'll take that back. I don't know that 

we have that data anywhere. I know outside entities have 

queried schools as to whether they've whether they use it or 

not. I think NASFAA may have done that at one time, but I'll 

go and take that back. I do want to say one thing with respect 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 17

to direct and indirect costs. Certainly, the discussion we're 

having here is a is a very good one, and any way that we can 

get students to understand their aid is in a better way is 

good. Whenever I step back from financial aid and try to look 

at it from the perspective of somebody who doesn't have any 

background in it at all, I think it becomes a little bit 

difficult sometimes to think about this concept of direct and

indirect costs because it's something you kind of know 

intrinsically if you deal with it. But I think it's very 

confusing to students because the indirect costs, you know, 

aren't billed to them. They don't necessarily owe that in the 

form of a of tuition fee to the school. Yet it's part of the 

way that their aid was determined, and it becomes very 

difficult, I think, to try to convey all these things to 

students without adding levels of complication. I struggle 

with that quite a bit. Yes, it does affect disproportionately 

lower income students, first generation college students and 

those kinds of those families. But I think it's a lot of 

families, and this runs the gamut. For instance, they wonder 

why if they got an outside scholarship, their aid gets changed 

because it's considered estimated financial assistance. And 

people will say things to me like, why am I being punished for 

getting another source of aid? All these things become very 

difficult to explain to students in how they how they come 

together and form a package. Which is not to say that we 

shouldn't strive to do a better job. But it is a complicated 

thing, and I think we have to keep in mind as we think about 

regulations, think about disclosures that we make them clear, 

concise and helpful. And we don't confuse people further. But 

it is an inherently confusing thing. I tried to read my own 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 18

daughter's financial aid offer going back to the last year 

when we got it, and tried to view it in terms of somebody who 

didn't know anything about it. And I thought to myself, yeah, 

this is not easy to decipher, you know? And so I do understand 

that as we move forward here trying to think of ways that we 

can make these disclosures or this counseling, you know, 

useful as opposed to just requiring it. Okay, I'll stop there, 

and any other comments we have?

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you. Johnson, you'll be 

next. But I want to note that Yael Shavit is joining us at the 

table for state attorneys general. 

Mr. Tyler: Hi, thank you. With respect to H and 

adding ‘with clear and accurate information’ below that in 

section three, the existing rule has to do with providing a 

refund policy. And this is, I know we’re supposed to save a 

transcript withholding for Wednesday, but this is this is a 

large reason that people end up with institutional debt. They 

don’t really understand the refund policy. And so anything 

that will help put more thought into providing information to 

students to avoid that would certainly be of great value to 

the institution as well as the student. So, I just wanted to 

add that.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Johnson, appreciate that. 

Yael. 

MS. SHAVIT: Thank you. I wanted to go back to the 

question of the nature of the information that's conveyed to 

students. And Greg, I do appreciate your comment that it's 

complicated to convey the complexities of student aid to
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 19

students. But I think it's a Department imperative to ensure 

that we're doing that and, frankly, our obligation to students 

to make sure that their efforts to get an education don't 

result in financial ruin because they didn't understand what 

they were signing up for. And I wanted to note that, frankly, 

the complexities that you're pointing to conveying this 

information clearly and accurately emphasizes the importance 

of ensuring that the Department doing the work to ensure 

consistency in the manner that schools convey this information 

to students and that it's not left to the institutions on an 

institution-by-institution basis to do so. And to the point 

about students not reading the letters, I will tell you that I 

have myself interacted with probably hundreds of students, but 

our offices deal with you know a large number of students that 

end up in trouble because they didn't understand the aid. And 

by and large, it's not students who aren't reading their 

letters or trying to understand them. It's 18-year-olds who 

don't have the tools to and 18-year-olds that might come from 

families where they don't have familial support to understand 

it. It is not laziness or inattention- it’s inability. And I 

think this is somewhere where the Department has an obligation 

to students and, frankly, to taxpayers as well to ensure the 

investment. But as to the issue of redundancy, I think that 

there are some elegant ways that redundancy can be both 

helpful and uncomplicated, including cross references to other 

areas and other regs where you may believe that there are 

more, more detailed descriptions of what information is 

required, where that's laid out. To the extent it's not laid 

out, I think it certainly could be laid out here, and if it's 

laid out elsewhere, I think a cross-reference might solve this 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 20

problem. But I do want to kind of blend the State AG voice to 

the importance of this issue and of specificity on this issue.

MR. MARTIN: I agree with you that we need to be we 

need to be mindful of what information we can convey to 

students. And I'll make one final go on record again as 

encouraging institutions to adopt the college financing plan 

where possible. As I said, I'm not going to go out there and 

say it's perfect in every respect, but we look at it every 

year when we make a concerted effort to craft it so that it's 

clear to students and provides them with a true picture of 

what their aid package will be. So, I'm very proud of it. I 

didn't do it myself, but I have had some contact with it and 

in reviewing it. So, I just want to go out there again and 

encourage the use of that form.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Greg, and all of the 

negotiators that spoke up. So that is section I. Did you cover 

everything in that?

MR. MARTIN: I believe I did.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, so you want to takeMR. MARTIN: No, I didn't. Okay, so we're looking at 

I: provides adequate career services to eligible students who 

receive title IV HEA program assistance in determining whether 

an institution provides adequate career services. The 

Secretary considers the share of students enrolled in programs 

designed to prepare students for gainful employment in a 

recognized occupation, the number and distribution of career 

services staff, the career services the institution has 

published to students and the presence of institutional 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 21

partnerships with recruiters and employers who regularly hire 

graduates of the institution. And we also have here provides 

students with accessible clinical or externship opportunities 

related to and required for completion of the credential or 

licensure in a recognized occupation within 45 days of the 

completion of required of required coursework. So, we have 

added additional factors here related to the types of career 

services that institutions public publicize to their students. 

We do not believe we should consider only job placement, and 

down here also reference again that we have maintained that we 

have the actual providing of the externship opportunity 

required for completion of the program. Again, the Department 

believes this is this is essential for students who are in a 

program where the where that clinical opportunity or 

externship is part of the program. It's one of the reasons why 

students would take that program because it is offered and we 

believe it's imperative that students actually be given the 

opportunity to complete that externship and have it provided 

by the school, not be something that the institution says to 

the student well, this is a required part of the program. We 

have seen this happen before. The student is required to go 

out and obtain the externship or clinical on their own and 

here we want to make certain that is the school offering this 

program. It's incumbent upon the school to also provide the 

internship or clinical opportunity.

MS. JEFFRIES: Vanessa, can we get you to please 

share the screen with that with section I so negotiators can 

see it. There you go. Thank you. No, section I. Scroll back 

up, please.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 22

MS. MORELLI: I think Greg read I and J, so. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MS. MORELLI: So, I first. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. 

MR. MARTIN: I'm sorry. You know what, Denise, I did. 

I did read I and J. That was the problem. I think the problem 

with this is that J was difficult to see. I was struggling to 

find the J and just alighted it. So yes, it was I and J. Thank 

you.

MS. JEFFRIES: So, the discussion will be on section 

I and J. Barmak, you were first.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yeah, I have issues with both I and 

J, but let's talk about I first, and then I'll come back to J 

when the time comes. I think you heard from several 

negotiators that the whole construct of the Department of 

Education judging the adequacy of career placement is 

problematic at multiple levels. And I don't think any of us 

object to the idea that if an institution is marketing itself, 

and again, we are here attempting to ensure good behavior. 

Institutions that make representations about jobs, about 

earnings, about career outcomes of their programs certainly 

should be held accountable to those promises. Most bad actors 

actually abuse those kinds of representations, and it's 

entirely appropriate for the Department to adjudicate that. 

But you know, honestly, this is almost meaningless. Greg, with 

all due respect, I have a lot of empathy for you because you 

struggled during the first session to describe how the 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 23

Department would make the determination of inadequacy. And 

some of us provided you language to suggest that the most 

concrete way for the Department to articulate what it's after 

and the most objective way for it to pursue anybody who does 

the wrong thing is to focus on what the institution promised 

and whether what it promised is being adequately delivered. So 

that's my first objection is just the platitude of just 

putting you have to have adequate services. It's neither 

meaningful on the front end nor particularly actionable in

court. I don't think you would have much success enforcing it 

so it becomes a meaningless, just noise in the system. And 

then secondly, I really do think you need to specify, even if 

you were to say you're going to judge them on the basis of 

what they promised, what exactly you will look at. And it 

can't just be abstractions, like number and distribution of 

career services staff, which is again, I think we all 

understand what you're saying, but it's a subjective judgment 

nobody can articulate. You can't defend it in court. I think 

there are more specific, more concrete ways to get at what 

you're trying to get at. We don't disagree with where you're 

going, but this isn't the way to get there. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Vanessa, you can take the 

screen down now, if you would please, your screen share. Thank 

you. Okay, Anne, you are next.

DR. KRESS: Sure. My question has, and I agree with 

everything Barmak just said, but my question has to do with J, 

and it's with the use of the word accessible. I'm a little 

concerned by the use of that term because within higher 

education, accessibility is typically aligned with ADA 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 24

accommodations. And here, I don't think that's how you're 

using accessible, but I do think it raises a red flag when you 

use that word in any Department of Education policy. So, if 

we're going to keep that in there, I would just strongly 

encourage the use of some other word.

MR. MARTIN: I will take that back. You're right, 

though, I want to point out we didn't use it within the 

context of ADA. We used it within the context of these 

opportunities are provided that that that the students 

actually get to them and take advantage of the opportunity. We 

have seen situations where what's being offered to the student 

is not reasonably accessible, given where the student lives 

and what measures the student has to go to to participate in 

that. But we'll take that. And also acknowledge Barmak's 

comment above.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, and certainly, Anne, if you 

have any suggestions on how to reword that, please feel free 

to put it in the chat or submit it. Thank you. Marvin, you are 

next.

Mr. Smith: Yeah, just wanted to reiterate the 

support of Barmak's proposed language on career services that 

isn't here, but I have a question on J. Is this in particular 

trying to address gainful employment programs because there's 

a lot packed in here about accessible clinical and externship 

opportunities. Wasn't sure what the 45-day requirement meant 

and whether some type of program, a nursing program or a 

specialty program, that started in summer with 60 days after 

the end of a spring term, if that suddenly becomes 

questionable. I think that this would be easier to support if 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 25

it said gainful employment, but it seems like it might, well, 

I guess I'm just still trying to figure out the problem you're 

trying to solve with this particular one, J.

MR. MARTIN: The problem we're trying to solve with 

it is the existence of some programs where the- and what we're 

looking at here, just to be clear, is clinical or externship 

opportunities required for the completion of the credential or 

licensure. So, these are not just programs where there's an 

externship or internship available. These are required as part 

of the programs. The student cannot graduate until and unless 

this has been completed, and we have seen instances where 

either it's not offered at all, whereas it's required. But 

students are essentially expected to obtain this opportunity 

on their own, and they don’t have the background or 

wherewithal to do that. And the other issue we see with it is 

a huge timeframe is going by where students have to complete 

the coursework, but because of the lack of availability of the 

externship or clinical aspect of the program, students are 

being required to wait for inordinate periods of time. And I 

could invite my counsel to respond, I think Denise might be 

able to add to what I've said there.

MS. MORELLI: I would just add, I do a lot of work in 

the field, so Greg's right, we're trying to plug the hole 

where we have students that know they'll be told they have to 

have an externship for the program. They either can't get one 

they carried for months and months. And then a lot of times 

they have to go on and quit the school because they need to 

get a job. They're put in provided externships that aren't 

even related to the program of study, so they're not 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 26

meaningful. So then, they get out and they can't actually work 

in the field because they don't have the requisite. So, that's 

we're trying to make sure that the schools are providing 

externships that are needed for the program so that the 

students can get out and get the job that they are expecting 

to get when they complete a program. So that's what we're 

trying to do here.

Mr. Smith: And not just gainful employment programs, 

but all programs?

MS. MORELLI: Programs that are requiring the 

externship for the credentials, so it would probably cover 

your nursing situation as well. I'd have to go back and talk 

to my colleagues on that, but it's the programs that are 

requiring the externship or completion of that program.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you. Brad.

MR. ADAMS: Hi, thank you. I'll stick to I for the 

time being, and then I can get back in line on J. But I want 

to second Barmak's comments here, and both of us provided 

text, although different, somewhat similar in concept that 

I'll put back in the chat. But just having the word adequate 

is still vague and very undefined. You know, we do support the 

additional subset three, requiring an institution to offer 

career services consistent with what they publicize because 

institutions should be doing what they say they do. But the 

rest of this section is very problematic. I don't understand 

what it means on the number and distribution of career 

services staff. Or is the Department going to set some sort of 

metric here that they want us to hit? And what does the phrase 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 27

presence of institutional partnerships mean? Is having one 

institutional partnership enough, or is the Department looking 

for more? Maybe explain what is in one, two and four what you 

mean there?

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, Greg, you took your mute off?

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, I just briefly, I mean, I know 

that there's no number in distribution of staff. We've not 

proposed any type of a formula here to hold schools 

accountable for, and I don't think we have. any intention of 

doing so. And I do realize that there is some area of room for 

interpretation, I should say when it comes to this. The intent 

is to give us the ability and authority to look at the 

schools, especially with schools where none of this is 

offered. Where institutions have clearly abrogated their 

responsibility to help students in this regard. So, I don't 

think anybody would want us to put into place some type of a 

metric to calculate this. But it does give us some way of 

holding the institution accountable, especially for those 

instances where we've seen this happen where no support in 

this area is given to students.

MR. ADAMS: Well, Greg, I would kindly request that 

you'd state that. Say, you know, you have to have support. 

None is unacceptable. Sorry, go ahead.

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, I get that. We do have a similar 

requirement for financial aid staffing. Some entities have put 

a staffing model in place, but the Department does not do 

that. And if we have ever written schools up for that, I would 

imagine it's in cases where it's pretty egregious. I don't 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 28

think we've ever gone to a school and said, you know, based on 

the way I'm looking at this, you've got three financial aid 

staff and I, representing the Department, believe you ought to 

have five. We've never done that. And the standard that 

applies to financial aid is moving that over here into

offering career services. But I will say that I've heard your 

your thoughts on it, I will take that back.

MR. ADAMS: And thank you. I'll put the language in 

the chat that we submitted. Thank you. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: Thank you very much. I agree 

wholeheartedly with Barmak that this seems an odd way to come 

at this issue, although I certainly agree that if there is 

misleadingness or failure to provide what's promised or 

committed, that the Department needs to be able to do that, 

and if it wants to include this example, fine. It is the way 

it's described here is really a quality issue that belongs in 

other hands, and if others are not doing their job, the 

Department has tools for that. I am told that professional and 

specialty accreditors, for the most part, specifically look at 

career services. Laura, the alternate, is available if you 

have questions about that. She's looked into it, and 

institutional accreditors look broadly at the question of 

career services as one element of student services. In any 

event, picking up on the last discussion, that notion of the 

number and distribution of staff is not really a good way to 

evaluate adequacy, anyway. And I appreciate your comments, 

Greg. The Secretary could consider the number or absence of 

staff if he or she wanted to without putting it into the 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 29

regulation. But putting it there, I think is confusing to the 

field. It makes Marvin and his colleagues wonder if they're 

supposed to be counting noses. I think there is a distinction 

between the previous one, financial aid, where the Department 

is in the best position to judge financial aid service 

provision, and career services, which is something else, and 

for many institutions, is an education program. So, I don't 

see an inconsistency between respecting the prior provision 

and considering a change in this one. Maybe it would be 

clearer for all of us. I'm going to double back to the basics 

right now. If Greg or you and/or Denise and your colleagues 

could tell us a little bit about how administrative capacity 

works, because this isn't saying the Department will review 

every school for career services. Do you do you look when 

something is triggered or there is an issue on an element like 

that? Or if there is a misleading, this issue that brings this 

to your attention? I think that might speak to some of the 

things that Marvin, Brad, and others were raised.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you, Jamie. If you have if 

you want to put any of those questions into the chat, that 

would be most helpful. Jessica.

MS. RANUCCI: I just have a minor point on J, but I 

can hold it if we want to finish I and then go back.

MS. JEFFRIES: Oh, that's fine, I think a number of 

people are holding comments on J and there was a request to 

separate the two out. Greg, are you okay with that or?

MR. MARTIN: I am. Yeah, I apologize for the 

confusion before. It's just I don't know what it is with my 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 30

mind and Is and Js when it comes to regulation. They just kind 

of meld together sometimes. I was desperately searching for J 

and thought it was there, but I'm very thankful to Denise. 

Denise got my mind back there. So yes, we can look at them 

separately, that's not a problem. If we can look at what 

people have to say about I, and we'll move on to J.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. I don't see any more hands on I. 

The ones that were up went down, so I'm assuming those were 

for J. Do you want a temperature check on I or?

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, let's go ahead and do it. I know 

it's kind of small, but it keeps us going paragraph by 

paragraph.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, sounds good. So, if we could see 

a show of your thumbs on 668.16 section I, 1, 2, 3, and 4. I'm 

seeing I think three thumbs down, I believe. Okay.

MR. MARTIN: I think we have a pretty good idea. We 

already have a pretty good idea of why those people feel the 

way they do there, so I thank everybody for the very good 

conversation on that.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you, everyone. Appreciate 

it. Alright. So, moving on to section J, and you weren’t the 

only one who didn’t see that Greg, because a lot of red and 

that bottom of the J always gets cut off by the underline. So, 

I'm right there with you.

MR. MARTIN: I've been looking at it for 30 years, so 

it should have been clear. 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 31

MS. JEFFRIES: Well, it happens. Alright. Jessica, 

your hand is up.

MS. RANUCCI: Thanks. This isn't just a minor point, 

but I don't understand the “related to” language. Obviously, 

the Department had a reason for adding it. I'd be curious to 

know what that is, but both Denise and Greg, when you were 

speaking, it sounded like you were really thinking about 

[inaudible] required for graduation or licensure. And is the 

idea that not all programs required for that would be related 

to the program? So, I just don't understand, so if you could 

clarify.

MS. MORELLI: Greg, I'll jump in. I think what 

Jessica related was an example that I was talking about 

before. We've seen situations where a student, let me say 

surge tech, and then the school puts them in an externship and 

all they're doing is filing medical billing kind of things. So 

that's what we're trying to get at. And if you have a 

different way to word that that'd be great. That's what I'm 

trying to get at with the “related to” so that it's actually 

related to the training. And not that they're just throwing 

them into some kind of job just so they can say they had a job 

where it actually isn't related to the training and what the 

credential they're trying to get is. 

MS. RANUCCI: I think it just might need a clause 

rather than adjective.

MS. MORELLI: Okay. Anything in that area, just let 

us know we can come up with.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 32

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. I want to announce that Dr. 

Laura Rasar-King is in for accrediting agencies. Carolyn, you 

are up next.

MS. FAST: Wanted to say a quick word in support of 

including section J. I think it is a very important issue that 

comes up a lot for students who may find it really difficult 

to find an internship slot. Sometimes the institution actually 

puts the responsibility on the student to somehow figure out 

how to do an internship, and this puts students in a very 

difficult position. And in fact, in many cases, prevents them 

from graduating. And it's very frustrating for students who 

really did everything that they were supposed to do. But the 

institution let them down in that way.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Carolyn. Brad.

MR. ADAMS: Yes. So, the Department's changes here, I 

believe, are an improvement over what it had previously 

proposed. However, it still may be difficult for institutions 

to determine if they're meeting the standards set here. The 

Department wants the institutions to provide students with 

accessible clinical or externship opportunities. The word 

“accessible” typically means obtainable, but is the 

institutions need to put students in a position where they 

could reasonably hope to obtain a clinical externship 

opportunity? Is the Department looking for something more like 

some sort of guarantee of placement? Many programmatic 

accreditors, especially in healthcare, already require this 

practice. I think the Department still needs to consider 

building in some language so that labor market conditions are 

factored in. It might be fairly reasonable for institutions to 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 33

help line up externships. Those opportunities could dry up in 

a recession or during a pandemic. We know what just happened 

in nursing and hospital systems when they stopped accepting 

nursing students during COVID-19. But I'll drop some language 

that just adds the words “under the circumstances” to what's 

already there to kind of protect against the pandemic piece of 

this.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Brad.

MS. JEFFRIES: Laura.

MR. ADAMS: I guess, to my question, though, is can 

someone address what the Department may be looking for here, 

are they looking for a guarantee of placement?

MR. MARTIN: Certainly, if a student didn't meet the

academic requirements, that's understandable and not something 

we're addressing here. But what this has to do with is where 

these are offered as part of a program. Often, schools 

advertise these opportunities because students rightly assume 

that a program that has an internship, externship or clinical 

opportunity is one that will help them to secure employment. 

Right? So, if I have an internship or something like that, 

that's going to give me an end towards getting a job, which it 

often does. So, if it's going to be advertised as part of the 

program, as we said here, required for completion or 

credential of licensure. You're training a student for this 

profession. It's required for part of that profession. 

Therefore, it is as integral to the program as any of the 

coursework the student takes. So, it needs to be there as we 

expect the coursework to be there. This has to be there as 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 34

well. So, we understand full well the effects of the pandemic 

and what effect it's had on society and the availability of 

many things. And so I think we have to acknowledge that. But 

also to understand that we are regulating here in general, not 

to the pandemic. And we are you know, on fairly firm ground 

here and saying that that if it's part of the program, it 

needs to be there. =If the student has met their side of the 

bargain by doing what they are supposed to do academically, 

and they've done everything they're supposed to do, and then 

there should be no impediment to that internship or externship 

opportunity based on the school saying, well, you know, we 

know that it's part of the program, but we can't find a place 

to place you or employers aren't out there or whatever because 

it has been marketed to the student as part of the program. So 

that's where we are with it. I'll let Denise add to that or 

say anything she wants to.

MS. MORELLI: No, I think you covered it Greg. Like I 

said, it's part of the program. The student needs it to 

graduate from the program to get the credential. So, we expect 

the institutions to provide those externships and provide 

meaningful ones. And the accessible question where students 

may be going to cities and public transportation and they 

provide a list of externships that are 50 miles away from the 

student or from school. Those are the situations where we're 

going to [inaudible] accessible. So, we need to revise that to 

not get it confused with ADA. But that's what we're looking 

for, if anybody has any additional thoughts on that language. 

But that's the situation we're dealing with. We're trying to 

deal with the word accessible. 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 35

Ms. JEFFRIES: Okay. Laura, you're next, but I just 

want to point out, Denise, your audio seems to be very 

distorted, so I don't know if you logged in with voice or not, 

but if you go to your private chat, Brady will work with you 

on that.

MS. MORELLI: Yeah, he was trying to. So, we'll see 

if I can. I may just have to call in and not be on video then. 

I will figure out how to do this.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you. Alright. Laura, you 

are next.

DR. KING: Thanks. So I'm plus one to Greg's 

concerns. Absolutely. I think this is really critical and just 

really important to have in the regulations. I wanted to 

clarify something that concerns me about a potential other 

kind of iteration of this problem. So, in many programs that 

require clinicals, the clinicals are actually part of the 

required coursework. Or they're integrated throughout the 

required coursework. And what I have seen in some programs is 

that they are slow walking, providing the internship or 

whatever it is that's needed throughout the program so that it 

lengthens the program and potentially the cost of the program. 

And so it's not only following the completion of required 

coursework, it's actually if it's part of the required 

coursework, if that makes sense. And I don't want there to be 

a loophole that says that that would be allowable either 

because I think it could increase time and cost. So, I was 

thinking something like an “if then” statement. So, if the 

clinical or externship components are integrated into the 

required coursework and adequate clinical placements are not 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 36

available to students that may not increase program length by 

X time or X percent or something like that might be a way to 

address that. But I'm not a regulation writer. I just wanted 

to raise that issue.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you. Alright, I don't see 

any further hands on section J. So why don't we go ahead. 

Greg, do you have what you need?

MR. MARTIN: I believe so. Yes, thank you very much.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, so you want to go ahead and take 

a quick temperature check on J to stay consistent with 

paragraphs?

MR. MARTIN: Yes, please.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Alright. If I could kindly see 

the negotiators’ thumbs. Okay, I'm seeing one thumb down, I 

believe. Is that correct? Anybody, okay.

MR. ADAMS: Yeah, you know, I made my comment. I'll 

think about it. It may not be substantial, so let me think 

about it. I may be a sideways.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Alright.

MR. ADAMS: “Under the circumstances” would be 

helpful for us. It's not a yes/no, it's a yes. But you know, 

there could be another issue out there.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Appreciate that statement, Brad. 

[Audio] Not sure what that was. There's a number of good 

suggestions in the chat as far as possibilities. I want to 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 37

remind the negotiators that in between sessions is a great 

time to develop some text of your own and send it in to the 

Department for consideration. Just to back that up in the 

chat, okay? So, with that, Greg, you want to move us on to K?

MR. MARTIN: K, correct, yes. And I see K coming up 

here, that's great. So, K is “disburse funds to students in a 

timely manner consistent with the with students needs as 

required in 34 CFR 668.164”, that's subpart K, cash 

management. Violations of which may be assessed using student 

complaints, high rates of withdrawals attributable to delays 

and disbursements, disbursements delayed after the withdrawal 

date requirements in 34 CFR 668.22 B and C, disbursements 

delayed with the effect of ensuring an institution passes 

90/10 or other methods. So, in response to the negotiators’ 

suggestions, we have made this “students' needs” plural rather 

than student needs. We've also added the cross reference there 

to add to add clarity. So, entertain any comments related to 

paragraph K.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Vanessa, if you could stop 

share, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Alright, Jamie. Oh, you 

forgot to put it down. No worries. Not a problem. Marvin. 

MR. SMITH: Does the Department have in mind what is 

a high rate of withdrawal?

MR. MARTIN: I didn't specify anything particular 

here. But remember, we're looking at the timely disbursement 

of funds, but then looking at violations of that and just 

looking at areas that might come up to indicate violations of 

student complaints, high rates of withdrawal that are 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 38

attributable to delays and disbursement. So, we're not looking 

for a particular figure here or a bright line, but where we 

see that schools delaying disbursements have resulted in

students withdrawing as a result of that. That would be an 

indication that the disbursement protocols the schools 

operating under are not consistent with administrative 

capability.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Anything else, Marvin? Oh, okay, 

Brad.

MR. ADAMS: Thank you, and plus one to Marvin's 

question, I had the same thing, so I'll add to that. On the 

other piece, you know, we noticed the Department has amended 

to reference funds under 668.164, and we agree with that and 

appreciate that. But if that's being added, then why would the 

rest of this provision even be necessary? If institutions are 

complying with the disbursement rules under 668.164, then why 

have all these other measures here?

MR. MARTIN: Well, you know, obviously 668.164 is 

where we have our cash management rules. So, we felt the need 

to reference that. 668.164, if I recall correctly, the only 

requirement there is that institutions disperse funds at some 

point during the payment period, and that was done to give to 

provide latitude where such latitude may be necessary and may 

well be in accordance with students' needs. There are 

instances where schools divide up payment periods into 

modules, and, as most of you are probably aware, we do allow 

payments for a payment period to be broken up into multiple 

disbursements. So, it might be that that the school breaks up 

that payment for the payment period into disbursements for 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 39

each module, which may well be in keeping with the student's 

needs, but that that particular section does not address how 

that meshes with the needs of students. Nor does it address 

areas where we feel there have been disbursement procedures at 

schools that don't mesh with the needs of students where 

there's delay and that delay is attributable to institutional 

concerns or the desire of institutions to avoid certain 

regulations rather than to be consistent with student needs. 

So, that's why we believe it is necessary here to add that 

element to it that not only do you have to look at what is 

required is 668.164 with respect to the procedural rules for 

disbursement, but also a line that disbursements with student 

needs such that they are timely. Students need this these 

funds not only to pay tuition and fees, but to pay for their 

indirect expenses. They have to pay rent, many of them without 

this money have no means of paying rent or securing food or 

transportation. So, it's we believe it's important that these 

funds be disbursed to students timely and hence this 

requirement.

MS. JEFFRIES: Sorry about that, thank you. Kelli, 

you are up next.

MS. PERRY: Alright. And I put this in the chat. I 

wasn't sure if I should say it out loud as well, but I would 

suggest removing “consistent with students’ needs” because I'm 

unsure how that relates to what's in 668.164. I know, Greg, 

you just talked about the fact that you want people to 

consider both: what's in that regulation on top of what the 

students’ needs are. But if that's the case, my first 

recommendation is to “remove consistent with students' needs”. 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 40

If you need to have them both in there, I think this needs to 

be reworded because it makes it sound like 668.164 talks about 

students' needs, which it does not. I would recommend taking 

that out.

MR. MARTIN: Okay. Okay, we'll take that back.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Kelli. Greg and the 

Department, I just wanted to- Oh, never mind. Denise is back, 

I was just going to point out Denise had gone into a breakout 

room with Brady to try to fix her audio, but she is back. So, 

Jamie, your hand is up. And you are on mute, dear.

MS. STUDLEY: This is maybe a very quick question. Is 

K meant to say disperses funds to students as required in 

668.164, and here are some examples and 164 reflects students’ 

needs? Or is it meant to raise the bar and do something beyond 

what 164 now does? I think that's what you've got us into 

thinking about, Greg. This isn't even on the merits. The 

Department may feel that 164 is not sufficient, but I think

we're confused here about whether this is descriptive, in 

which case none of the language for violations is needed 

because the Secretary can determine 164 violations anyway she 

wants, or he currently. Or it's just restating current law and 

maybe creating confusion in doing so. 

MR. MARTIN: Yeah. Again, yeah. On 164, you're 

correct in pointing out 164 does not address students' needs. 

164 cash management is more of an accounting view of 

disbursements. I think that I would point out that the Pell 

regulations have always had a provision about disbursing Pell 

in a way that meets students that's in accordance with 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 41

students' needs. So, I think this is not completely 

unchartered territory we're in here and not completely novel 

for the Department to consider that. We've given some examples 

of what schools do, what schools have done, some schools 

that's not in accordance with student needs, which used to be 

a bigger problem than it is now. But we used to have a lot of 

schools that just didn't want to do R2T4. They just thought it 

was administratively burdensome, didn't want to do it. So, 

they waited until 68.1 percent point to disburse funds to 

students. That's certainly not in accordance with student 

needs, though. If you would look at 164, just verbatim without 

anything else, it could be argued that 164 gives us the 

flexibility to disburse at any time during the payment period, 

and that's what we did. The Department believes, I believe as 

well, is that getting these funds to students in a timely 

manner is a compelling issue. Especially since many of them 

cannot find a way to pay expenses without this money. And it 

was factored into their award. The award the student is given 

is inclusive of these costs that students incur, often up 

front, not 50 percent and not 60 percent in.

MS. STUDLEY: I think that answers my question. This 

is meant to do something more than 164, and so the :timeliness 

consistent with students’ needs” is actually saying something 

that is not just parroting another regulation.

MR. MARTIN: I would agree with that.

MS. STUDLEY: Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Brad.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 42

MR. ADAMS: You know, I just think back to many 

schools for new students have 30-day holds on pulling down 

funds as required actually under HCM1, so I'm still confused 

on what is the definition of a timely disbursement based on a 

student’s need. It's, tough for me to without putting a date 

on it, I fall back to 668.164. I just think undefining it is 

wide open and needs a benchmark there to measure against.

MR. MARTIN: Well, as I said, we're certainly willing 

to take any comments anybody has with respect to 

reimbursement. I would say that or you mentioned HCM, whether 

it's HCM1, HCM2 reimbursement, that with those provisions, 

those rules affect when an institution can actually draw title 

IV funds. And remember that under those provisions, the 

institution is still required to disperse in advance of 

requesting those funds from the Department. So, I don't view a 

disbursement date and when the institution can request. 

reimbursement issues as negating this or in any way getting in 

front of it. The institution can still disperse at a timely 

point, irrespective of when it has actually drawn title IV 

funds. But I take the points, and we will consider them.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. I don't see any additional 

hands. So, let's go ahead and take a temperature check on K. 

Jamie, I can't see. Need a temperature check on K, please, 

Jamie. Okay, I'm seeing one thumbs down. Anything additional, 

Brad?

MR. ADAMS: No, not other than what I've said, but I 

did want to point out, I think there were two thumbs down.

MS. JEFFRIES: Yep, I did see that. Yep.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 43

MR. ADAMS: Alright.

MS. JEFFRIES: Kelli, do you have anything 

additional?

MS. PERRY: I do not. I'm going to put additional 

language in the chat based on the description and what Greg 

said he was trying to accomplish.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, great. Thank you. Alright. It is 

2:24. I do intend to give the team about a 10 minute break 

this afternoon. Greg, do you want to do it now or do you want 

to move on with a couple more?

MR. MARTIN: Let's do M next.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. L has no changes from theMR. MARTIN: Right. So, seeing I don't think I've 

made any blunders there this time. We'll move on, but stay 

tuned. We'll move on to M for an institution that offers 

gainful employment programs subject to the requirements in 

subpart Q. For this part, which would exist under these 

proposed rules but doesn't now, receives at least half of its 

title IV revenue in eligible programs from such programs that 

are passing under subpart Q, or has at least half of its 

regular enrolled students enrolled in such programs that are 

passing under subpart Q. We're just going paragraph by 

paragraph. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, appreciate it. Vanessa, could 

you please stop share for discussion? I want to note that Adam 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 44

is coming back to the table for state attorney general. So, 

any questions, comments? Brad.

MR. ADAMS: Yeah, so I know we'll spend all day 

tomorrow on gainful employment, but given that the

administrative capabilities issue paper covers all schools I'm 

wondering why the Department's adding a gainful employment 

rule that is applied to approximately 25 percent or less of 

other programs that are subject to gainful employment. If 

they're passing a debt to earnings ratio for 50 percent of the 

programs, it's important not to link administrative

capability. Then it should apply to all programs and not just 

those that lead to gainful employment. Also, the GE issue 

paper, as currently drafted, allows for programs to fail for 

at least two years out of three before you lose your title IV 

funding. So, does this proposed statement then push that 

threshold to losing title IV eligibility after just one year? 

It says if more than 50 percent of your programs failed, then 

it looks like you could lose your title IV, and that would be 

after one year. There’s a disconnect there. But also, how did 

the Department settle on a 50 percent threshold?

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, Greg.

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, well, again, we could have the 

discussion about which programs fall under gainful employment. 

The whole idea of the accountability being in this respect, 

limited to gainful employment programs and why we view those 

as different from other types of programs. Here, for an 

’institution that offers gainful employment programs subject 

to the requirements of subpart Q receives at least half its 

revenue in eligible programs from some programs that are 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 45

passing or has at least half its regular students enrolled in 

this. What’s in subpart Q does affect actual eligibility, like 

there's a built in, loss of eligibility for that program after 

two failing years. Here, this is just an indication of 

administrative capability, not a standard for removal of a 

program's eligibility. I would point out that as far as the 50 

percent is concerned. We have settled on that as a reasonable, 

and I think any time you look at a percentage to look at 

50/50, we've just built in here at least half of half of the 

programs is the standard that we've used. We are open to 

whether or not that is an appropriate standard or any other 

suggestions negotiators may have.

MR. ADAMS: So, can I add to that? Then why just 

apply it to gainful employment programs here in administrative 

capabilities? What's the thought behind that?

MR. MARTIN: Well, gainful employment programs are 

the only programs that are where it is required that they that 

there be a test of what the program. Does the program lead to 

gainful employment in terms of the metric that we that we have 

established. Currently these are the only programs that are 

that are that are measured that way. And this is n looking at 

whether such an institution that has those programs is 

administratively capable, just looking at when you have an 

inordinate amount of revenue from the institution coming from 

programs which don't pass that measure, that that is an 

indication of administrative issues at the institution.

MR. ADAMS: Okay, the last comment here, and I just 

want to clarify that I know it doesn't always happen, but if a 

school is deemed not administratively capable, it could lose 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 46

its title IV funding. So, in theory, after one year of GE, a 

school could be deemed not administratively capable, but still 

allowed to have those GE programs continue, but lose title IV 

under administrative capabilities. Just want to clarify that. 

MR. MARTIN: Technically, the Department can always 

take action to remove an institution's eligibility. It would 

be like- maybe Denise would be the better one to address this. 

Administrative capability is generally looked at holistically. 

We generally do not move to limit, suspend or terminate an 

institution's eligibility for failure of one administrative 

capability of standard. So, usually when you see an 

administrative capability finding, it's the institution has 

problems in several areas. So, while technically, yes, the 

Department could move to remove the participation of any 

institution under for a violation of the rules. But we don't. 

I don't think we ever generally do that, and it would not be 

our intention here to use this for that purpose. It actually 

would be a longer path to that through this than it would be 

if a school's programs lost eligibility under the GE rules. I 

don't know if Denise wants to address that or not.

MS. JEFFRIES: Denise, you're on mute.

MS. MORELLI: I'm having a heck of a time. I think 

Greg is correct. We look at administrative capability as a 

holistic issue, not that you have to meet the standards, but 

in terms of us taking an action. Usually, it's a school that 

violates more than one provision of administrative capability. 

But I do think we can, Brad, we can certainly look at what you 

were discussing and see if we determine if there's any

conflict with the absentee provision.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 47

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you, Denise. I want to 

note that Adam is back at the table for state attorneys 

general and that Emmanual Ezeugo will be coming in to ask a 

question. Barmak, you are next.

MR. NASSIRIAN: First, I want to express some 

sympathy for Brad's sense of injustice because he understands 

that what we're talking about here is almost entirely limited 

to the for-profit sector because as of now, while gainful does 

apply to all institutions, it is very unlikely that most 

nonprofit or publics would derive more than 50 percent of 

their revenues from GE programs. But having said that, it's 

remarkable how it says something about the ethos of this 

Department, historically, that it extends the benefit of every 

doubt to the institution, instead of to the to the students 

who are making a decision that could really adversely affect 

them for the rest of their lives. It makes perfect sense to 

me. I don't see how there is any inconsistency in suggesting 

right or wrong. We have a gainful mechanism such as it is that 

has made a determination that a set of programs fail. So, the 

idea that you have, that's that you allow entities, half of 

whose offerings or that shoddy to still participate strikes me 

as overly generous and exceedingly charitable in the wrong 

ways. If it were me, I would draw the line at 75 percent pass 

rate. You know, we have an odd system in which we trust 

institutions under title IV programs instead of focusing on 

the programs. But I got to tell you, an institution, half of 

whose products are rotten, probably shouldn't be trusted with 

offering any products until it cleans up its act. So, you 

know, I appreciate Brad's point. We need to judge all programs 

on the basis of ability to service the debt. But right now, we 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 48

have this mechanism and, and the 50 percent threshold strikes 

me as more than generous, quite inappropriately so under the 

circumstances.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you. We have one, two, 

three, four hands up, and then I do want to take a break. It's 

been a long session and let you stretch your legs. So,

Jessica.

MS. RANUCCI: Thanks. I want to echo Barmak's point 

that I do think that there are important protections to build 

in here, and I think that this is among many ways in which the 

Department has a tool to protect students who need protecting, 

and I really support that. As a drafting matter, I wonder a 

little bit about the [inaudible] that are, quote unquote are 

passing here just doesn't seem to be quite how the GE rules 

are. If I'm understanding them correctly. And I'm just 

wondering, when the Department goes through a program review, 

like what time period are they talking about? Are they talking 

about now and how the students now will do on GE in the 

future? Or are they talking about how past students did on the 

latest GE metrics? So, I just would ask the Department to 

think about that. I don't have a good solution. I'm not the 

expert here, but it led to some confusion in my head.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. I don't know if the Department 

has an immediate response to that, Jessica, so they will take 

a look at that and get back to you. Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: Oh, my-I was sort of thinking about out 

loud about the purpose of the administrative capacity rules. 

It's a little philosophical, but we can't let Barmak have a 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 49

monopoly on that approach. It seems to me, but the Department 

can correct this if I'm off base, that what they're looking 

for here is the competence to manage the institutions, 

programs, services, finances and so on, and that this 

provision could be seen as saying that the ability to design 

programs that can pass GE is one factor that the Department 

could take into account about whether it can do the job for 

which they are responsible. There may even be an element also 

of the financial fragility that affects the administrative 

capacity of the institution, even if the Department thinks 

financial fragility or sustainability is a separate question. 

This does go to the ability to design, operate, respond to 

rules, manage the program of the institution at a level as

promised that suggests that it can continue to do so on a 

quality level in the future. So, the provision seems 

reasonable to me if that's the foundation.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jamie, for that. Debbie.

MS. COCHRANE: Thank you. I wanted to make a couple 

of points. The first one is very similar to what Jamie was 

just saying. I think I really appreciate what the concept that 

the Department is trying to get at here. And I think it makes 

sense that the administrative capability of an institution 

would be called into question if most of the students or the 

revenue was being derived from programs that weren't in 

compliance. So that seems, as a general matter, appropriate. I 

actually also, just with respect to what the right thresholds 

are, which I think are important questions. I guess I will 

just also flag that the Department, of course, put out a 

proposal for the gainful employment rule for this session, 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 50

which we haven't yet gotten to. I knew that proposal stems

from the 2014 rule, but also there's a lot of foundational 

questions that were in the paper around additional metrics. I 

think it's hard to have some of the questions around what the 

specifics should be until we really have that other discussion 

about the GE rule.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you. Emmanual, first, I 

want to apologize for mixing up your name when I announced it, 

it is Emmanual Guillory who is at the table. Thank you.

MR. GUILLORY: Thanks for that. My question was 

really around the drafting. So how I read this particular 

paragraph. Basically, it's putting the GE programs into 

another sub part. So, what I mean by that is, “receives at 

least half the title IV revenue in its eligible GE programs”. 

I'm assuming that's what that's referring to [inaudible] 

programs, it's eligible GE programs from such programs that 

are passing for the overall institution. I think about in our 

sector, you know, we may have, let's say we have 10 programs 

that are GE programs on a campus. And out of those 10, then at 

least half of the title IV revenue from those 10 should be 

coming from passing programs within the 10 programs on our on 

the campus. If that is indeed accurate in how I'm interpreting 

that, then the remainder of that sentence, I believe, needs a 

little bit of tweaking to basically read “or has at least at 

least half of its regular enrolled students enrolled in such 

eligible GE programs enrolled in such programs that are 

passing” just to keep that subpart there. So basically, you 

have the example I give is that our campus has 10 GE programs. 

Out of those 10 programs, at least half of the title IV 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 51

revenue is coming from programs that are passing within those 

10 and then students, at least half of students are enrolled 

within eligible programs within those 10 that are passing. 

Does that make sense? Yes, Greg, does that make sense.

MR. MARTIN: I was reading it again with you, yeah, 

we'll take that back. I want a chance to mull that over a bit, 

but I see what you're saying.

MR. GUILLORY: Yeah, and I can put the suggested 

language in the chat.

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, go ahead and do that.

MR. GUILLORY: Just to clarify. I want to make sure I 

understood that that is indeed how it should be interpreted. 

Is that accurate?

MR. MARTIN: Yeah. So, it's half, the revenues, at 

least half the revenues have to come from those programs that 

are that are eligible. So, you would look at whichever of 

those 10 programs you have that are that are that are eligible 

programs that are passing under subpart Q, the revenue would 

have to come from those passing programs. You know, 

irrespective of how many there are, right? So, I don't know if 

I break you down in the numbers, it would just be looking at 

the revenue. Where was the revenue derived from which 

programs? At least half that revenue have to come from those 

programs that have passed. That's the way I view the reg that 

was intended.

MR. GUILLORY: Okay, I just wanted to clarify. For 

non-for-profit, you know, for the public and the private 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 52

nonprofit institutions out there. All of our programs are not 

going to be GE programs on our campuses. And so some campuses 

may have, and I use the example of 10 GE programs. So from 

this language, only those 10 programs.

MR. MARTIN: Oh, I see what you're saying, only those 

programs are subject to subpart Q. Yes, yes. Now you're 

looking at your all your revenue. You know, the fewer 

obviously, the fewer programs you have are subject to subpart 

Q, the more of your revenue will be derived from those that 

aren't subject to subpart Q at all, irrespective of passing or 

failing. But yes, it would only be in looking at the revenues 

would be at least half the revenues from those programs that 

are passing. 

MR. GUILLORY: That are GE programs.

MR. MARTIN: So I think I see what you're saying. 

You're looking at it from the standpoint of how that's going 

to mesh with overall number of programs, right? Yeah. Well, 

I'll take that back and look at it. Thank you. I appreciate 

that.

MR. GUILLORY: Thanks.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. Thank you. Brad, do you have 

something new because I do want to move on?

MR. ADAMS: I do think that's what Emmanual just 

asked is very important for me to understand as well if we're 

talking about half of its students from just the subset of GE 

programs or if only 10 percent of your revenue is coming from 

GE programs, would you automatically pass?
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 53

MR. MARTIN: I think that's a very good point, and I 

thank Emmanual for bringing that up and we'll definitely 

clarify that.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Alright. Let's go ahead and 

take a temperature check on this, and then we’ll take a quick 

10 minute break and come back and wrap this up before public 

comment starts at 3:30. For the public, for the people who 

have registered for public comment and those on the wait list, 

I’d like to invite you to log in early to get into the waiting 

room so that when we get into the public comment period, we 

can get to as many of you as is possible. So, with that, let's 

go ahead and take the temperature check on M. Okay, I see one 

thumbs down, is that correct?

MR. ADAMS: That's correct, but I'm wondering if it'd 

be more thumbs down once you define whether or not what we 

just talked through.

MS. JEFFRIES: It may, Brad. Oh, that gave me a kink 

in my neck, Brad. Alright, it is 2:44, let's go ahead and take 

a 10-minute break. Let's come back at five minutes to three 

and finish up with the administrative capabilities. Thank you. 

Welcome back. So, let's continue on with moving forward in 

issue paper two, administrative capabilities. And that brings 

us to section N, Greg.

MR. MARTIN: Section N, right, and before we move on, 

I want to correct one more thing I said earlier today. I think 

earlier we were talking about ATB, and we were talking about 

the completion rate. I referenced 668.16 where the withdrawal 

rate was found, and I said it was 668.16 I. It's actually 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 54

currently in 668.16 L. But given my difficulties today with 

I's, L's, and J's, that's not surprising. So, I has to do with 

something with compliance with fiscal reports. It's actually 

L. So again, I want to apologize for that. Just remembered to 

correct myself there. So, we are now, as Cynthia said, looking 

at N and because it's so small, if I can beg the indulgence of 

the group, why don't we look at N and O together? I try to go 

paragraph by paragraph. But in this case, it would seem to be 

in the interest of expediency to do both. So, we'll do that. 

We'll look at N and O. N does not engage in 

misrepresentations, including as defined in subpart F of this 

of this part or aggressive recruitment included in as defined 

in subpart R of this part. Moving on to O, has not been placed 

under significant negative action by state or federal agency 

or an accrediting agency, and has not lost the ability to 

participate in another federal educational assistance program 

due to administrative action against the school. So, we'll 

look at those two areas, excuse me. At the suggestion of 

negotiators, we have clarified this item could be inclusive of 

misrepresentations or aggressive recruitment practices that 

are not included in the regulations if such situations arose. 

Let's open it up for discussion, then, with respect to N and 

O.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you for that. Brad.

MR. ADAMS: I'll start with N, and then I’ll get back 

in line for O. But the term, and I mentioned this in week one, 

but the term aggressive recruiting is still not defined in the 

regulations, and the previous negotiated rulemaking panel did 

not come to consensus on the definition. I'm struggling to 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 55

know how the Department expects negotiators to agree on a 

definition that doesn't exist in the regs. On the second piece 

around misrepresentations, I do believe we need to have a 

“substantially” threshold for misrepresentations. Institutions 

should not be deemed administratively incapable for minor and 

accidental misrepresentations. So, I'm going to suggest we add 

the word substantial in front of misrepresentation within this 

part and then delete the comment on aggressive recruitment. 

And I'll submit that in the chat. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Brad. Carolyn.

MS. FAST: I just wanted to offer support for the 

changes the Department made in adding the word “including” 

which addressed some significant concerns that we had, that we 

didn't know what the language was going to be and that it 

potentially be even narrower than what would, for example, be 

considered a misrepresentation under state law. So, I think 

this change is really helpful in M. I'm sorry, in N, that 

added the word including. That really made it a lot more 

acceptable in my mind. And I also wanted to offer support for 

O, which I think is a very useful addition and will create a 

really useful and meaningful protection for consumers, for 

students.

MR. MARTIN: I just want to clarify, because we said 

as defined in subpart F, that is the subpart that deals with 

of the general provisions, that is misrepresentations, and I 

should have pointed that out.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Greg, for clarification. 

Barmak.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 56

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yeah, I also want to support the 

language, including as a more expansive construct here under 

N. And then I wanted to raise an issue under O, which is that 

I know the VA does not render judgment, unlike the Department 

of Education, about the entire institution. The VA deals with 

specific programs, so loss of eligibility does not necessarily 

have to be institutional. It could be programmatic, and it 

could be due to significant compliance issues. So, I would 

suggest you somehow need to wordsmith O to clarify that loss 

of eligibility of any program offered by the institution due 

to noncompliance could be a trigger for loss of institutional 

eligibility for a judgment of lack of administrative 

capability under this section.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thanks, Barmak. Brad, you are 

next. 

MR. ADAMS: Yes, on O, the reference to significant 

negative action by a state or federal agency or an accrediting 

agency. I wanted to confirm, are we talking about a 

programmatic accreditation? Are we talking about something 

else? Are we getting down to the programmatic level here?

MR. MARTIN: We've not specified that here. We simply 

say, is not is not subject to a negative action by a state or 

federal agency. That could be any negative action. I think 

with respect to a program or the school where we say has not 

lost eligibility to participate in another federal assistance 

program due to an administrative action against the school. 

So, the way it's worded here, I know Barmak had just asked 

that be that be tightened up. But the way it's worded here, 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 57

that would refer to an action against this. That would be the 

loss of eligibility due to an action against the school.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. Barmak.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Brad, you shouldn't have asked that 

question, because this sort of brings me back to Jamie's 

earlier excellent point. If an institution loses programmatic 

accreditation of one of its offerings, isn't that a reflection 

of poor institutional capabilities? I mean, to me, this 

concept of all or nothing doesn't make sense. To me, it seems 

like the institution has voluntarily, to the extent that 

programmatic accreditation is not a mandatory requirement for 

participation in title IV under most circumstances, the 

institution has subjected itself to the jurisdiction of an 

accreditor. That accreditor is finding not insignificant 

noncompliance. 57hat says something about the administrative 

capabilities of that institution, if nothing else about their 

poor judgment in seeking that accreditation in the first 

place. So, it seems to me like that's a fairly relevant thing, 

and you really do need to be fairly granular here.

MR. MARTIN: Okay, we’ll take that suggestion back.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you. Brad.

MR. ADAMS: I think the word significant is helpful 

here, but to Barmak’s point, I mean, if you had an issue with 

a program that’s less than 1 percent of your total students, 

or maybe it’s at one location out of 20. Again, I don’t think 

it would raise the level of significance, so hopefully that 

will be better defined, but you know I think it should not be 

at the programmatic level.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 58

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Alright. Seeing no 

additional hands in sections N and O, Greg, do you want to go 

ahead and take the temperature check?

MR. MARTIN: Sure. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. So, this temperature check 

will be on N and O. Can I please see your thumbs? Okay, I see 

one thumbs down. Brad, anything additional or new you thought 

of?

MR. ADAMS: Just let me ask the question, are we 

going to have a definition of aggressive recruiting by March?

MR. MARTIN: We will not have final regulations by 

March. You're right, that there was no consensus reached on 

that. The Department will provide an NPRM and then there will 

be comments. I cannot say exactly what the wording of that 

will be, but there will be a definition of aggressive 

recruiting there.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you. So, Greg, that brings 

us up to section P. You want to take us through however many 

of these you think make sense?

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, sure. I think we need to move down 

to, if I've got my lettering correctly here, Let's go down to 

Q where we actually have some changes. Oh, no, that is P. 

You're right. I should stop. I should quit while I'm ahead. 

Nothing in P. We are going to Q. Q is not and does not have 

any principal or affiliate of the institution, as those terms 

are defined in 2 CFR parts 180 and 3485. This is an addition 

that we did at the suggestion of negotiators: a former 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 59

director, officer, executive or principal of an institution 

whose misconduct or closure resulted in liabilities to the 

federal government in excess of 5 percent of its title IV HEA 

program funds. So, I'll open it up for discussion.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. Thank you, Vanessa. Brad.

MR. ADAMS: I'm going to start with, I'm happy to see 

a threshold, I'll just go ahead and say it, Greg. That's good 

that we have a defined number here. The concern I have is we 

need the language to be clear that the person was actually 

employed by the institution at the time of the misconduct or 

closure. What if the executive left the institution years 

before the misconduct or closure occurred? And then the second 

piece is, I don’t think the Department means every director or 

officer, executive or principal of an institution, but really, 

they’re really looking at here, in my opinion, is those that 

exercised substantial control over the institution. So, I 

think this would be necessary [inaudible] the Department's 

past performance regulations at 666.15 C. So, I can submit my 

proposed language in the chat to those two points.

MR. MARTIN: Okay, thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Jessica.

MS. RANUCCI: And I don't necessarily disagree with 

Brad on principle that there could be lines drawn here, but I 

really want to push back against the idea that, for example, 

someone would have had to be employed by a school at the time 

of closure. I think someone who bails early on a sinking ship 

is often the person who knows that the ship is sinking. And I 

think that you know people don't have a right to a job in a 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 60

title IV program. So, I would just encourage the Department to 

think about this broadly to make sure that the [inaudible] are 

effectuated.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MR. ADAMS: Sorry, I don't recall the section, but 

isn't that already addressed somewhere that if a company goes 

out of, a school goes out of business, isn't the executives 

forbidden from being an executive at any schools going 

forward?

MS. MORELLI: [Inaudible] if they owe liabilities to 

the Department. At least currently, that's 174. The past 

performance provisions of 174.

MR. ADAMS: I'll need to go read that [inaudible].

MS. JEFFRIES: One second, Barmak. Jamie, you put a 

question in the chat that I'm not sure you articulated to the 

Department. So, you may want to get in queue and bring that 

up. Thanks. Barmak.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yeah, I just wanted to echo Jessica's 

point and encourage the Department to think expansively about 

this provision. I mean, you know, sadly, the track record of 

this Department has not been particularly spectacular over the 

course of the decades when it comes to preventing massive 

fraud against students and against the taxpayers of this 

country. And one of the reasons, obviously, is you don't have 

any, you know, there are no criminal penalties here that we 

can apply to folks who do the wrong things. And it seems to me 

that most of your triggers are set too late in the process to 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 61

really recover anything. But the one effective thing you can 

do is stop this sort of group of itinerant fraudsters from 

setting up shop on their new corporate banners to basically do 

the same thing over and over again. So I agree with Jessica. 

There is no entitlement to employment in a title IV 

participating institution. And if you want to change the 

institutional behavior, you need to change people's behavior 

and exclude people that have demonstrated pretty horrific past 

behavior. So please think broadly because you know the ugly 

little truth we're all dancing around here is that none of the 

stuff you're doing here would have stopped most of the most 

spectacular failures. I think this is one of those things 

that, if done right, could really make a difference. So, I 

would encourage you to think very broadly about it. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Barmak. Jamie has a 

question, and I see no hands after that, so perhaps we'll take 

a temperature check at that point. Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: Well, at your invitation, Cindy, the 

point I was making there related to an earlier discussion 

about whether an institution can say, wait, that wasn't 

significant or sorry, Mr. Secretary, we don't think that's 

something that should stand for a determination that we're not 

administratively capable. So, I think to the extent that these 

things are determined, but then the institution can respond 

that may address some of those special circumstances that Brad 

was talking about. Two quick thoughts. I thought when I signed 

a program participation agreement for an institution, I 

actually thought that there was criminal liability. Maybe it's 

not for all the elements of it, but I thought, Barmak, that
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 62

there was a very high bar. GC can answer us later. It may not 

be relevant right now. But I thought some of those protections 

were in place. But difficult to meet a criminal standard or no 

longer available, there are all sorts of other reasons, but I 

thought that was one door of the barn that had been at least 

considered, and there was a lot.

MS. MORELLI: Cindy, I'm going to go ahead and 

answer. Jamie, you're correct that the Department determines 

either that they're going to take action to deny 

certification, terminate a school, revoke a participation 

agreement. The school, based on administrative capability 

grounds or any other grounds, the school has a right to appeal 

within their different mechanisms. And even if it's an 

administrative capability finding in a program review 

determination, a final determination, the school has a right 

to appeal that to us. They can bring up any of those other 

issues in terms of whether it's, you know, material, or all 

the different things that have been raised that could be 

raised in the appeal process.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Denise, appreciate it. So, 

Greg, seeing no further hands. Okay, to go ahead and take the 

temperature check?

MR. MARTIN: Yes.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. And that is on cue. So, could I 

please see your thumbs? Okay I see one thumb down. Brad, have 

you articulated everything you wanted to put out there?

MR. ADAMS: I put the language in the chat.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 63

MS. JEFFRIES: I see that. 

MR. ADAMS: Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Great. Thank you. Alright, Greg, you 

want to keep moving here?

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, we have 15 minutes until public 

comment, right? So, let's move on. We have some numbering 

changes throughout, but the next area of change is in V, as in 

Victor. And so let's move to the- I may make mistakes 

sometimes in this lettering sometimes but I do know my NATO 

phonetic alphabet. That I will not make any mistakes, I don't 

think. Okay, so here we are with V. This has to do with high 

school diploma. So, let's look at that. Develops and follows 

adequate procedures to evaluate the validity of a student's 

high school diploma if the institution or the Secretary has 

reason to believe that the high school diploma is not valid or 

was not obtained from an entity that provides secondary school 

education. And we have revised the language here to refer 

consistently to high school diplomas. So, the adequate 

procedures to evaluate the validity of a high school diploma 

must include obtaining documentation from the high school that 

confirms the validity of the high school diploma, including at 

least one of the following transcripts, written descriptions 

of course requirements or written in signed statements by 

principals or executive officers at the high school attesting 

to the rigor and quality of coursework at the high school. And 

if the high school is regulated or overseen by a state agency 

confirming with or receiving documentation from that agency 

that the high school diploma is recognized or meets 

requirements established by that agency. Looking at two, a 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 64

high school diploma is not valid if it is not recognized, or 

does not meet the requirements established by the appropriate 

state agency in the state where the high school is located, 

has been determined to be invalid by the Department, the 

appropriate state agency in the state the high school is 

located or through a court proceeding, was obtained from an 

entity that requires little or no secondary instruction or 

coursework to obtain a high school diploma, including through 

a test that does not meet the requirements for a recognized 

equivalent of a high school diploma under 600.2, or was 

obtained from an entity that maintains a business relationship 

or is otherwise affiliated with the eligible institution at 

which the student is enrolled and is not accredited. So, some 

things we've done here. We, at the negotiators' suggestion, 

have replaced education with instruction to clarify the 

meaning of the provision and specify that it is secondary 

instruction. Also, at negotiators requests, we have expanded 

the list to include unaccredited high school diploma providers 

with which the institution maintains a business relationship 

in that list of what makes a high school diploma not valid. 

So, with that, I will open the floor for discussion.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you very much, I want to 

make note that Beverly Hogan is returning to the table for 

minority serving institutions. Welcome back, Beverly. Barmak.

MR. NASSIRIAN: So, I kept thinking about this, and 

it may just be me. But it strikes me that you’re attempting to 

deal with two distinct problems, and that the legitimate 

solution to one problem becomes a pretty big loophole for the 

other. The two issues that I suspect the Department is 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 65

concerned with are a) the possibility that the student has not 

legitimately graduated. The student attended seemingly like a 

regular high school or legitimate high school, and there is 

some doubt as to whether the student actually graduated and 

has a diploma. The cure to that would typically be a 

transcript. By the way, a written description of courses is 

neither here nor there. In registrar circles, the proof of 

graduation is not the diploma, which is a decorative 

instrument, but rather the transcript. You make the additional 

accommodation in case there are extenuating circumstances that 

are written, signed, statement by the principal, etc., etc. 

That's cure to suspicions about the student. Unfortunately, 

that's also a loophole if your second concern comes to pass, 

which is that the school is a sham because if the school is a 

sham, they will issue a transcript, they will sign a 

statement, they'll provide you with whatever you want. They'll 

go out of their way to convince you that the student 

graduated, so I would separate the two if I could. Maybe I'm 

reading it wrong, but I would absolutely separate. Typically, 

by the way, suspicions about students tend to, you know, we 

always talk about official transcript. People think it's just 

like how lawyers talk about null and void, but there are two 

distinct notions. Transcript describes the formatting of the 

document. Tt has to include certain things to be considered 

the transcript. Official means it hasn’t been tampered with. 

So, typically if there's suspicions about a student, it's 

because the school has reason on the basis of the initial 

transcript it received, not the final transcript- at the 

application point that there's something fishy going on. So, I 

would separate the two. I would focus on solving the diploma 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 66

mill problem. You know, you can't have the “out of submission 

of transcripts” because diploma mills will submit transcripts 

to you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. Thank you, Barmak. Brad, you 

are up next.

MR. ADAMS: So, I’ll start with one romanette 1, and 

I’ll come back in for 2. Under one romanette 1, I do think we 

need to add in language here that if the high school is still 

open, you’ll get either ABC, and I'd like to add a new one 

under transcript, written description of course, or written 

statements. I think just getting a copy of your diploma or 

other official record from that high school should suffice as 

an option. I submitted that in the chat after our first week 

session and didn't get a response. Is there a reason why we 

would not want to get a diploma or other official record as 

one of the four options under one romanette 1?

MS. JEFFRIES: I'm not sure that the Department-. 

MR. NASSIRIAN: Can I answer that? 

MS. JEFFRIES: Go ahead.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Diplomas, in registrar land, diplomas 

are not proof of graduation. Transcripts are. Diplomas are 

given to people so they can hang them on the wall. They're not 

proof of graduation.

MR. MARTIN: If we go back to one, the adequate 

procedures to evaluate the validity of a high school diploma 

itself- we're talking about obtaining documentation from the 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 67

high school to confirm the validity of the of the diploma. So, 

if the diploma is in question, then the diploma would not 

validate the diploma. I think that's what we're looking at 

here. And in these cases these are cases where the institution 

or Secretary has reason to believe a high school diploma is 

not valid. So, we're generally not looking here at instances 

where the school already is in possession of transcripts. In 

many cases, schools don't routinely require anything beyond 

students' indication on the FAFSA, that he or she completed a 

high school education, and we are looking at two things here. 

I recognize the complexity that you're looking at the student, 

the possibility of the student being at issue and also the 

school. So, we’ve tried to work that into one and two to go 

back to Barmak’s point. Looking in two that a high school 

diploma is not valid if it doesn’t meet the stipulations that 

we have below there. So, I guess that's how I would describe 

our effort to make sure that we address both of those both of 

those concerns.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Greg. Brad.

MR. ADAMS: So, just to confirm Greg, so under this, 

what you just described, the assumption is you already have 

the diploma and you believe it's not valid. So, because of 

that, you're doing steps ABC. Is that- I just didn't read it 

that way. I just want to make sure.

MR. MARTIN: I think it could be. I mean, maybe 

Denise has some comments here. It could also mean that- see 

and before we had high school completion. The issue that comes 

in here with diploma, because the school may or may not be in 

possession of the diploma, it could be in a possession of a 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 68

diploma which indicates that it's from a less than above board 

institution, there could be to be no diploma, there could be a 

student that may have indicated that that they have completed 

high school, you know, via what's on the FAFSA. And then it 

could be other conflicting information at the school, which 

would indicate otherwise it would necessitate the school going 

out and getting something else. I think what you're asking, 

Brad, is if that were the case and the school got that 

diploma, if once in possession of the diploma, it had no 

reason to believe that there was a problem, could they stop 

there? Yeah, I think if they had no cause to believe beyond 

that, if the issue were a completion issue and the student 

provided the diploma and the school had no reason to question 

the validity of that, I don't think they would have to go 

further. But =I’ll ask Denise for her take on that.

MS. JEFFRIES: Denise, go ahead.

MS. MORELLI: Well, I actually was going to ask 

because I think Anne, Barmak and Anne both said the same 

thing. So, you're saying that the transcript is what you would 

be looking at, which is, I think, what we were talking about 

as backup because the students could self-certify and a lot of 

schools, they don’t, but some schools allow selfcertification. So, this is what we're looking at, if we doubt 

that or the school doubts that, the diploma. So, I just want 

to make sure I was understanding what Barmak said, that the 

transcript is really the valid document for completion. Okay. 

And then, Brad, did Greg clarify what you were talking about? 

I mean, basically we added on to the provision that was 

already in the regulation. It was very simplistic before that: 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 69

we would have the ability to look behind if either the 

Department or the school didn't think that the diploma was 

valid, that we would be able to look behind it. So, we wanted 

to add some more things to clarify what we would be doing to 

look behind it and what we don't consider valid, which 2 is 

really getting at. I think it's 2, what Barmak was talking 

about or what we consider not to be valid diploma situations 

that we run into for what we would call diploma mills, high 

school diplomas.

MS. JEFFRIES: Brad.

MR. ADAMS: Yeah, so I'll just let Greg come back to 

that, you know, at a later point in time, just confirming that 

it would only if you've got the diploma and have reason to 

believe that it's invalid, which I read there with Victor. 

Then you would do steps ABC. And so I'm good on that. On 2 

though, I did want to make a point on 2 romanette 4. Help me 

understand what a business relationship means in this context. 

And then, on the accreditation piece, you know, accredited by 

who? I'm not following, I guess A and B under romanette 4, 2 

romanette 4.

MR. MARTIN: In the time we have left, I know we're 

getting down to the wire here, so we're talking about a 

business we have seen. This is to address situations that we 

have we have seen, and Denise, obviously more so than I have 

because she works there in the field, where schools maintain a 

relationship with an unaccredited, basically a mill where they 

funnel students from that entity. And then, there's not really 

a high school education taking place there. It's brief, the 

tests are minimal. It's just meant to stamp someone's 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 70

eligibility so they can go on to the school. And in these 

cases, the post-secondary institution had an actual 

relationship with that entity to funnel those students in 

which both benefit from the mill and presumably get some type 

of payment, or the fact that the school has referred students 

to it and then the post-secondary entity benefits in that it 

gets students who wouldn't otherwise have a high school 

diploma funnel to it through this through this nefarious 

entity that's sending students over to it. And I'll just say 

to Denise in that 30 seconds, did I describe that correctly?

MS. MORELLI: Yes, you did, and I think number 

romanette 4 we were trying to address, Barmak, I think you 

raised it with the business relationship. I think it was 

critical because we have run into it in the field where 

they're steering people. And I think you said accredited. We 

were struggling with it. And if anybody has any additional 

comments, we would appreciate them. Because we had looked at 

just saying if there's a business relationship. But I but some 

of my colleagues believe that there were some legitimate 

business relationships too, so we added the unaccredited part. 

So we want to make sure we're covering our concerns, and we've 

been seeing it a lot where they hook up with some buddy down 

the street that has a computer test or something, and then 

they funnel everybody. So, I want to make sure we were we want 

to make sure we're covering all that.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. I'm going to defer all the 

rest of the comments. Debbie right now, you're the only one 

with your hand up. So, first thing tomorrow morning because we 

must move to public comment. I do not want to spend much time 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 71

on questions with this because you have a very full day 

tomorrow with gainful employment as well. Okay? So, with that, 

we are going to move to our public comment period. Brady, can 

you please- AmandaMS. MARTINEZ: I apologize. Before we, this is on 

the topic of public comment. I know that we're going to 

switch into that, but I was hoping, in the spirit of open 

democracy and just getting in as many public comments as we 

can, we've been hearing that there's been waiting lists. I 

know there's a wait list in the past. So, how do we ensure 

that those on the waitlist are able to alsoMS. JEFFRIES: They only get, they, Amanda, they 

only get called upon if there's extra time, like maybe a 

scheduled person does not show up or they don't take their 

full time. If they're not called on when they're on the wait 

list, then they need to try to reregister the next day. 

Okay, we mustMS. MARTINEZ: Is it possible for this committee to 

extend one like one person for two minutes to add so that 

they can have [interposing] speaking time?

MS. JEFFRIES: Amanda, please, we need to move on. 

We are taking up time from the public commenters. I'd be 

happy to discuss this. It is published in federal registry 

from 3:30 to 4:00, and we must adhere to that. Okay. But I'd 

be happy to have more conversation with you. But at this 

point, I need to move to public comments. Thank you, though. 

Brady, who is first?
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 72

MR. ROBERTS: I just admitted Nathan Arnold, who's 

here representing the Education Council.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, welcome, Nathan. He is 

connecting his audio. And then he's good to go. Welcome, 

Nathan.

MR. ARNOLD: Can you hear me okay? 

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes, we can. You have three minutes to 

speak and that starts whenever you're ready.

MR. ARNOLD: Hi, there. My name is Nathan Arnold. I'm 

a senior advisor with Education Council. We work to advance 

policy that improves outcomes for students, particularly those 

that have been poorly served by our system of higher 

education. And before that, I was actually at the Department 

of Education for about eight years, where I mostly did what 

you're doing right now, writing regulations governing the 

student aid programs. I'm here today to alert you to a new, 

statutorily required risk-based review system to protect GI 

Bill recipients and to report on this new system with findings 

and policy recommendations we released a few weeks ago with 

the American Legion. You can find the report, which has direct 

applicability to this rulemaking linked from the front page of 

our website EducationCouncil.com, and there's a five-page 

summary there if you don't have time to review a full 30-page 

report plus appendices. But in this work, we were able to 

successfully predict bad outcomes based on public data and in 

a context that is directly analogous to what the Department is 

trying to do right here. So, there is direct legal and 

research support for the policies the Department is trying to 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 73

achieve with these proposed rules, and there are three clear 

policy recommendations supported by our work that apply to the 

rules you're writing. First, on gainful employment, we found 

that one of the metrics the Department's considering, earnings 

above a high school graduate, were strongly predictive of harm 

to students. Schools with fewer students earning above a high 

school graduate were much more likely to have students making 

complaints to oversight agencies, much more likely to have 

complaints directly related to academic quality and much more 

likely to be subject to a state or federal investigation. So 

again, there's both legal and empirical support for using the 

high school earnings threshold as an indicator for gainful 

employment. Second, on financial responsibility, we found six 

public metrics that successfully predict whether an 

institution has sufficient cash on hand, current assets and 

net worth to withstand an adverse financial event. So, for 

this reason, we recommend that you add the following six 

metrics as discretionary triggers for financial 

responsibility: low completion rate, low completion rate among 

Pell recipients, high net price, large year to year changes in 

tuition prices, big swings in year to year enrollment, and 

high cohort default rates. Finally, we recommend that if an 

institution hits any discretionary trigger, regardless of 

whether the Secretary imposes a letter of credit, the 

Department must require the institution to submit its most 

recent financial information, including its balance sheet, 

cash flow statements, and income statement. These schools have 

demonstrated a sufficient risk that the Department should know 

how their current financial status is in detail and use that 

information to determine how likely it is the school could 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 74

suddenly close. Again, these findings and recommendations can 

be found linked directly from our website 

EducationCouncil.com. Thanks for the opportunity to share 

these recommendations.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you very much, Nathan, for your 

comments. We appreciate it. Who do we have up next?

MR. ROBERTS: Cindy, I just admitted to Tashani 

Gaskins, who is a former student at Walden University.

MS. JEFFRIES: Great. Thanks, Brady. Tashani, can you 

hear me?

MR. ROBERTS: It looks like she’s still joining, so 

she just has to accept, but she was in the waiting room 

before. You want me to move on while she gets connected?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes, if you could, please. 

MR. ROBERTS: I just admitted Marc Jerome, who is the 

president of Monroe College.

MS. JEFFRIES: He’s connecting to his audio. Good 

afternoon, Marc. Welcome to the public comments. Can you hear 

me okay? 

MR. JEROME: I hear you fabulous. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Perfect. You will have three minutes 

to speak, and that three minutes will start whenever you are 

ready.

MR. JEROME: Ready now.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 75

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Go ahead.

MR. JEROME: Hi, my name is Marc Jerome, I'm the 

president of Monroe College in the Bronx. Thank you for 

allowing me to share my perspective today and actually thank 

you for your work. I was a federal negotiator twice, and I'm 

actually still recovering from the experience. There are a lot 

about good policy protecting students and holding institutions 

accountable, and the Department has repeatedly identified high 

student debt and low earnings to be a major crisis. I really 

couldn't agree more. I really believe students should have a 

reasonable expectation that if they take a student loan, their 

earnings will be enough to pay the debt and colleges should be 

held accountable if debt is too high and salaries are too low. 

Yet that is not happening across higher ed. You, the 

negotiators, have an opportunity to address the student debt 

crisis that can be found all over the country, and I believe 

you can tackle it in three areas. The first is standards of 

administrative capability. The second is certification, and 

the third is when you revisit gainful employment. I have three 

requests for you today. The first, bring more transparency to 

the student debt crisis by openly and honestly examining the 

data about the programs that saddle students with the most 

debt relative to their earnings. The facts in the data 

actually need some sunlight. Number two, consider how the 

Department can use the eligibility process to identify and 

improve programs that have too much debt and earnings that are 

too low. And three, something very important to me, consider 

how we can assure that students and their families have 

relevant information to compare degree programs across 

institutions and sectors. I believe the Department has the 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 76

authority to do these things and to protect students and 

consumers from any program that has too much debt and earnings 

that are too low. Now, I've been tracking this data for over a 

decade since my first gainful employment negotiation, and I 

really believe the policies have not caught up with the data. 

Whether you look at programmatic debt and earnings or 

institutional debt and earnings, the problem of high debt and 

low earnings can be found across all of higher ed. And this 

should lead you to question the 8 percent rate that you're 

looking at because huge swathes of higher education wouldn't 

pass it. And maybe most importantly, to me, some really great 

programs that have the best earnings and the lowest debt would 

be closed while some of the worst programs would continue to 

welcome students. This is not just theoretical for us.

MR. WAGNER: Excuse me, Marc, you have 30 seconds 

remaining.

MR. JEROME: My institution actually has students 

that come look at our criminal justice program and Grambling 

State's criminal justice program. At a programmatic debt 

level, our program for borrowers has a 9 percent rate and 

Grambling has a 23 percent rate. The Department and the 

federal government wouldn't want to close ours and have 

students go to the other program with high debt and low 

earnings. It's not just good policy. We have a chance to get 

this right. It's really important. I thank you for your time.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Marc, appreciate it. Brady.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 77

MR. ROBERTS: I'm going to try to Tashani again. 

Okay, it looks like she's able to join this time. She's just 

waiting to- there we go. She should be able to hear us now.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. 

MR. ROBERTS: And this is Tashani Gaskins 

representing, she's a former student at Walden University.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Hi Tashani. Can you hear me 

okay?

DR. GASKINS: Yes, I can. Can you hear me?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes, we can. You will have three 

minutes to speak Tashani, and whenever you're ready, your 

three minutes will start.

DR. GASKINS: Okay, so as you guys mentioned, my name 

is Dr. Tashani Gaskins and I'm from Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Thank you for allowing me to speak today at the negotiated 

rulemaking session. My understanding is that you're interested 

in how schools who take federal loan money are being 

responsible to the students who take on that debt. And I think 

it's important for you all to hear from the students directly. 

So, I do welcome the opportunity to speak with you today. So, 

in 2019, I graduated with a Doctorate of Business 

Administration degree from Walden University, which is an 

online for-profit college. I had to borrow almost 100,000 

dollars in order to from the federal government in order to go 

to Walden. I also have private loan debt, so, you know, 

earning a doctorate degree was important to me, so I 

completely prepared to borrow the money and to do the 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 78

coursework. However, Walden misled me, and I ended up 

borrowing almost as twice as much as I needed debt in order to 

finish at Walden. So, what happened was when Walden recruited 

students, it described a program where we had coursework and a 

dissertation process that was supposed to be completed over 

five course periods with 20 credit hours. I had no problem 

getting through the coursework. However, the problem came when 

I went through the dissertation process. The full program was 

supposed to cost about $60,000. I did commit again to borrow 

that money and to pay tuition, and I was prepared to do the 

work. But Walden kept me and many students like me in the 

program much longer than it represented, and I ended up in 

debt much deeper than I planned. Again, no problem completing 

the coursework, but the dissertation process was dragged out. 

It's much longer to get feedback than was promised, and 

because of the delays, it took me three times as long and 

three times as many credits to finish my dissertation. And of 

course, I was charged by Walden for all that extra time and 

that's something they never told me or other students when we 

enrolled. From what I could see, most of the students in the 

program were older students, students of color, and women. 

Once I enrolled and the process was dragged out, I had no way 

out. I had to continue to keep paying to finish the process or 

all the time and money that I already spent had been wasted 

would be wasted. This has been going on for years, and I think 

students like myself need the Department of Education to watch 

closely for high schools like Walden run up the cost for 

students. There are many other former students that I've 

talked with who have a huge amount of debt to the Department, 

and that this is not what we signed up for, but it is 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 79

heartening to hear that there's a possibility for rules to 

change and protect future students.

MR. WAGNER: Tashani, you have 30 seconds remaining.

DR. GASKINS: Sure. So again, it's great that you 

know there's a possibility that this might change for future 

students. So, my question to you is, what are you going to do 

about this? And that's all I have for today.

MS. JEFFRIES: Brady, who do we have next?

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you for the comment. I'm now 

admitting Ella Azoulay representing Generation Progress.

MS. AZOULAY: Hello.

MS. JEFFRIES: Hi, Ella, can you hear me alright? 

MS. AZOULAY: Yes, sorry, I just think there's an 

echo. Hello. Okay, can you hear me?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes, we can. So, Ella, thanks for 

joining us today. You will have three minutes to speak and 

that begins whenever you're ready.

MS. AZOULAY: Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity 

to comment today. I'm speaking on behalf of Generation 

Progress, and I'll be sharing the stories of some of the 

thousands of student loan borrowers we hear from who have been 

misled or scammed by predatory for-profit institutions. I want 

to make it clear, these student experiences are the rule and 

not the exception. Any policy process that aims to be 

equitable must center the experiences of those who are most 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 80

harmed by existing structures. In this case, we see Black and 

brown borrowers and students from low income backgrounds being 

disproportionately targeted by low quality for-profit 

institutions. The Education Department must instate a strong, 

gainful employment rule. Some colleges care more about their 

profits than the quality of education they're providing for 

students, and the Department must hold those schools 

accountable. Due to the current lack of accountability, 

students are taking on debts they are unable to repay, and 

graduates are not qualified for jobs in their fields. Please 

remember the following student stories as you discuss the 

gainful employment rule tomorrow. Students have granted 

permission for their names and stories to be shared. A 

successfully implemented gainful employment rule would have 

prevented Orinda F from Florida from suffering at the hands of 

the Art Institute. Her story would have ended entirely 

differently. Orinda owes around 70,000 dollars in student 

loans, and her loans are in forbearance due to her autoimmune 

disease and limited income. Orinda, a parent from a low-income

background, wanted to be quote "the first Hispanic person in 

my family to get a higher degree. I wanted to better my life 

and do something for a career I've always dreamed of." But 

instead, she was targeted by a predatory institution with low 

quality programs. She says, "My experience at the art 

institute was so scarring that I burned out and had to stop. 

Loans were piling up while I felt I hadn't earned enough. 

Their work assistance consisted of sending Craigslist or other 

links instead of the help they said they would provide me. I 

have a 20 something percent interest rate on a car because of 

my student loans. I can barely pay for my car health insurance 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 81

and what it takes to keep my autoimmune disease in check. If I 

paid those student loans, I wouldn't have any money for any 

other things. We've been fighting for years to get our loans 

dismissed, like what's happened for other schools, but that 

went down to no avail. I would like to be able to go back to a 

reputable university to get a higher education, but I can't 

keep piling on debt." Another borrower, Christina H. from 

Pennsylvania, is a first-generation student and parent who 

attended Ashford University and owes 160,000 dollars in 

student loans. Christina pursued a degree in mental health so 

that she could help others, and she's now a school counselor. 

As a first-generation student, she was unfamiliar with the 

differences between nonprofit and for-profit schools. She was 

a stay at home mom, working overnights to support her family 

while attending school full-time so she could live the 

American dream. Christina says, "My debt to income ratio is so 

high that I'm not able to get a decent credit card, car loan, 

or if I wanted to leave my marriage, I could not because of 

that debt to income ratio. That debt will hang over my head 

for the rest of my life."

MR. WAGNER: Excuse me, Ella, you have 30 seconds 

remaining.

MS. AZOULAY: That's okay because I'm all done. Thank 

you so much for your time.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you very much, and we do 

appreciate the use of first names only. We just don't want 

people to be personally identifiable if they're not present. 

So, we do appreciate the fact you use the first name only. 

Have a great day.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 82

MS. AZOULAY: Thanks, you too.

MS. JEFFRIES: Who’s next, Brady? 

MR. ROBERTS: Cindy, I just admitted Sergio Solorza, 

who is a former University of Phoenix student.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Hello, Sergio. How are you 

today?

MR. SOLORZA: Good, how about yourself?

MS. JEFFRIES: Just wonderful. Thanks for joining us. 

You have 30 minutes to address the committee with your public 

comments and that three minutes- did I say 30?

MR. SOLORZA: Yes, 30.

MS. JEFFRIES: I meant three. I got 30 on the mind. 

You got three minutes. I’m sorry. And that will start whenever 

you’re ready to begin.

MR. SOLORZA: I’m ready already [inaudible].

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright, go for it.

MR. SOLORZA: Hello, my name is Sergio Solorza, and 

I’m here today to speak about my experience as a student of 

the University of Phoenix MAOM Program, or Master of Arts in 

Organizational Management Program. My experience to enroll in 

this school was much like the other stories I’m sure you’ve 

heard. The school’s financial counselors were quick to offer 

loans with the promise of finding gainful employment after 

graduation. Well, it never happened. They lied about their 

employment rates and promised me a career that could never be 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 83

possible with their name on my diploma. After several years, I 

found out that the University of Phoenix actually discontinued 

their master’s degree program I was enrolled in. When I called 

to inquire as to why, all they would say was times had changed 

without further explanation, probably because it didn't work. 

I've tried to apply to jobs and use my degree to start my 

degree, my career, I'm sorry, like you're supposed to do after 

college. But employers never took it seriously. All they knew 

was that the University of Phoenix had a bad reputation, 

especially when a lot of military students from my area near 

Fort Bliss Army base in Texas had also complained of being 

defrauded by the school. My degree has only harmed my 

prospects of employment, and my debt makes it almost 

impossible to move forward with my life. I am currently 

retired and only receiving Social Security while living and 

taking care of my 92-year-old mother. I'm renting my house 

that I can't afford to live in because the mortgage payment is 

too high and I am stuck with over 70,000 dollars of debt. I've 

tried to refinance my home, only for there to be red flags all 

over my credit check because of the mess it involved the 

student loan. It feels criminal that I have to pay for a 

degree that doesn't exist, and it's not respected in any way. 

I have been turned down for a government contractor jobs 

because of my extensive student loan debt. The University of 

Phoenix has forced me to put parts of my life on hold, the 

exact opposite of why I had signed up in the first place. I 

need a way out, and I am not alone. The Department of 

Education has an opportunity to right the wrongs this school 

has done to me and thousands of students like me. We've all 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 84

suffered at the hands of the [inaudible] college, and it's 

just not right. That's it.

MS. JEFFRIES: Sergio, thank you very much for 

sharing with the committee. Brady, who is next, please?

MR. ROBERTS: I am admitting Adnan Medic, who's 

representing themselves. Looks like their camera is not 

working.

MS. JEFFRIES: Adnan, can you hear me? Adnan, can you 

hear me? Brady, do you want to admit someone else and work 

with Adnan on that connection?

MR. ROBERTS: I'll message them. I just admitted 

Emily Escobar, who's here representing the United State of 

Women.

MS. JEFFRIES: Emily, are you there?

MS. ESCOBAR: Yes, I'm here.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. I don't know if you have video 

capability or if you feel like turning it on, you're more than 

welcome to do that. Otherwise, you have three minutes for your 

public comment and that will start whenever you're ready.

MS. ESCOBAR: Okay, thank you for the opportunity to 

comment. I'm speaking today on behalf of the United State of 

Women, an initiative of Civic Nation which aims to create a 

world in which women and people of all marginalized genders 

can thrive. I'd like to share the stories of student loan 

borrowers who fell prey to predatory bad actors and are now in 

a financial hole without a decent paying job, without a 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 85

quality degree, with no way out. The students gave me 

permission to share their names and stories. Heather, from 

Washington, is a multiracial Latina LGBTQ student loan 

borrower from a low-income background who attended Argosy 

University until 2009. She says, "I thought I'd graduated and 

then found out after they had gone bankrupt that they withdrew 

me and did not notify me, so my degree is useless." Interest 

accruing over the years has caused her student loan balance to 

balloon from 140,000 to around 283,000 dollars. She is 

struggling to afford payments. Heather says, "I think about my 

future daily. What if I get sick? What if I injure myself? I 

can't afford healthcare and I work on my feet as a server. If 

I get hurt, I don't get paid and there is no backup plan for 

restaurant people. If I'm paying off my debt for the next 30 

years, I'll be in my seventies when they're paid off. No one 

should be in the position that I am in. I'm one of many that 

was taken advantage of by a for-profit college. We were kids 

brushing our adulthood [phonetic]. We were not prepared to 

take on or understand how these colleges were going to take 

advantage of us. I want to get on a bullhorn and warn everyone 

to stay away from those types of colleges." Heather's story is 

a perfect example of why for-profit colleges must be 

regulated. We need to ensure they're able to give their 

students the education needed to succeed in their field and 

have a fighting chance of paying off their loans. No one 

should be stuck in Heather's position. Ellie is low-income 

first-generation student who graduated from the Art Institute 

of Pittsburgh. Ellie now owes $130,000 in student loans and is 

struggling to afford payments. The predatory behavior by the 

Art Institute has had a monumental impact on Ellie and changed 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 86

the course of her life. She says, "Because of my debt, I 

cannot afford to move away from my home and be independent. 

Because of where I currently live, I'm not able to get highspeed internet that would allow me to telecommute for a better 

paying job or to work from home and minimize my exposure to 

COVID 19. My student loans cost so much each month. There is 

no possible way I could afford to live, even if I cut all 

possible corners financially up to, and including, not eating 

and not taking necessary medication every day. If I stopped 

paying, my cosigner will suffer the consequences." To prevent 

future students from falling into the same trap. I urge the 

Department to pass the strong gainful employment rule. Thank 

you for your time.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you very much, Emily. We 

appreciate it. Brady, who do we have next?

MR. ROBERTS: I'm admitting the last person in our 

waiting room right now, Alphi Coleman, representing 

themselves.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Alphi, can you hear me? 

MS. COLEMAN: I can. Can you hear me?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes, thank you. And we see you as 

well. Welcome.

MS. COLEMAN: Perfect. Hi, how are you?

MS. JEFFRIES: Good, good. Alphi, you will have three 

minutes to address the committee this afternoon, and that 

three minutes starts whenever you want to begin.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 87

MS. COLEMAN: Okay, I am ready to begin.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Go right ahead.

MS. COLEMAN: Good afternoon. My name is Alphi Black, 

and I am an Army veteran who used my GI Bill to attend the 

University of Phoenix. I graduated in 2018, but this did not 

provide me the fulfillment and access the university promised. 

I wanted to share my story because not enough people are 

comfortable with speaking out. I am lucky to be self-employed, 

not because of my University of Phoenix degree, but despite my 

degree. Not a single employer has valued my University of 

Phoenix education. I even had an interviewer laugh in my face 

when I brought up the fact that I went to that school. In 

fact, I took University of Phoenix off my resume because I 

showed that I got more responses. When I first started school, 

I was working with the Department of Defense while also 

serving as a reservist. The DOD kept telling me that I needed 

to get my degree to move up. University of Phoenix seemed to 

be reputable, but they were also authorized to recruit at my 

DOD facility, and they had recruiters there on a regular 

basis. They even carried around military coins in order to 

give the impression that they were supported by the DOD. I 

later heard that the school got in a lot of trouble for that, 

but at the time I didn’t know that it was not authorized. I 

felt pressured to enroll from University of Phoenix, 

recruiters who told me that I needed to enroll quickly or I’d 

miss out. So, I signed up right away. But when I arrived, I 

found out the classes started every week. I was- they also 

claimed that their alumni went on to be executives for 

companies like Microsoft and that they had partnerships with 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 88

government agencies and AT&T. I never saw those or any other 

job placement services. I went I went in thinking that I would 

do well and flourish because of what the recruiter said to me. 

But once they got me in, the school constantly changed the 

rules. My tuition was not locked in as it was promised. They 

kept adjusting my program requirements, and I had to travel to 

multiple campuses in order to meet those new requirements. 

They also claimed that I would finish in two years and that my 

GI Bill would cover every cost that I had. That also turned 

out to be a lie. Phoenix was constantly canceling required 

courses, which forced me to then take involuntary breaks when 

classes that I needed weren't available. During one break-. 

MR. WAGNER: Excuse me, Alphi, you have 30 seconds 

remaining. 

MS. COLEMAN: Okay. During one break, I tried to 

transfer it to another college, and they told me that my 

credits were subpar and would not transfer. These breaks 

prolonged the time and it took me more than two years to 

finish my degree, and I exhausted my GI bill and I am nearly 

$90,000 in debt. Phoenix does not treat its students right. I 

was aggressively recruited, lied to about the length and the 

cost of my program, promised career services that were 

nonexistent. I hope the Department of Education will make sure 

that schools like this, like University of Phoenix, cannot 

continue to lie to their students and other veterans. Thank 

you for your time.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you very much, Alphi. You have a 

great day.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 89

MS. COLEMAN: You, too.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, so that we have now gone 

through, we heard from everyone that logged into the meeting, 

including wait list people. So, I'd like to take this couple 

of minutes and circle back to you, Amanda, with your request 

and your concern. I do want to remind everyone that people 

will have another opportunity to comment on the NPRM when, 

that will have a public comment period once the NPRM is 

published, so that is an additional opportunity for public 

comment. So, this is not the only forum for that public 

comment. Also, just I'd like to share with you that we are 

already providing more public comment time than previously has 

been done. In prior negotiated rulemaking, up to the 2021/22 

session that took place just before this, they typically only 

had three days of public comment in a week. Now we're doing 

the full five days and for a full half hour, so we do need to 

balance the public comment with time for the committee to 

discuss the proposals. And we'd like to let you know the 

members know of the public that you can also contact the 

negotiators themselves to provide input. So, I wanted to share 

those things with you that we have been able to provide more 

time for public comment than has been allowed in the past. The 

virtual environment has enabled that. And as I stated, we went 

through everyone who registered that logged into the meeting, 

as well as the waitlist people who logged into the meeting. 

So, I don't know if that helps address your concerns, Amanda.

MS. MARTINEZ: Yes and no. I think that yes, while 

given we have an opportunity in an online environment to open 

and expand public comment, and it's kind of opened up this 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 90

process for the public in great [inaudible], potentially this 

could be actually the standard. This should have been the 

standard previously, and due to the chain of opportunity the 

pandemic has now created, such a great standard. We should try 

to expand that process and expand open public comment. I guess 

my question here is, while the examples you've provided are 

additional examples of where the public can input their story 

and input their opinions, I think it's important as we are 

deliberating in real-time that we hear stories. And yes, while 

you know each of us can bring up stories, there's nothing like 

hearing specifically from people who are impacted by the 

decisions we are making. So, and the decision is in real-time 

versus when the NPRM comes out, the decisions and 

deliberations have already been made. So how is that really 

being able to truly input in the process coming after the 

fact? So, my question really is to the Education Department, 

is there you know, and maybe the best way to ask this question 

to and maybe we can have a discussion tomorrow morning. I 

don't think it's harmful to the discussion to potentially ask 

if there is a waiting list, maybe one or two people, if we're 

willing to be on here for three minutes more, 4:03, like 4:03 

as we are now, or 4:10 just to hear those additional people. 

Maybe there are two people on the wait list. I don't think 

that's harmful for our deliberations, and I would like to hear 

whether the Education Department would allow the committee to 

make that decision. And maybe we can have a discussion about 

it tomorrow morning if you would support something of that 

nature. But if the ideal is that we stick to this very strict 

standard and you already think that there's enough public 

comment and there's already the rules in place, I can 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 91

understand that. I'm just asking an appeal for those on the 

wait list.

MS. JEFFRIES: I will speak to that, Amanda. As I 

stated today, and I think that we've been consistent in 

stating this, we have been getting to the people on the wait 

list that have logged in. Okay? We will consult with the 

Department. FMCS sets the agenda. We but we have to abide by 

what is published in the public in the Federal Registry, as 

well as what is published on the website as far as when these 

things take place. But nevertheless, I will consult with them, 

and I will give you a response tomorrow morning. We 

unfortunately, the schedule is not going to allow for another 

discussion on this in the morning. But we will take it under 

advisement this evening with the Department and give you a 

response in the morning. Okay? So, with that, like I said, we 

can wrap up quickly in the morning on the administrative 

capabilities. You all are doing a great job moving through 

these issue papers. And then we will jump immediately into 

what will be most likely a robust discussion on gainful 

employment. And that is the only issue paper that is scheduled 

at this point for all day tomorrow. So, rest up. Enjoy your 

evening and we will see you in the morning.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 92

Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education

Zoom Chat Transcript

Institutional and Programmatic Eligibility Committee

Session 2, Day 1, Afternoon, February 14, 2022

From Johnson (P) Legal Aid to Everyone:

I agree with David on the usefulness of a caucus.

From Will Durden (A) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

+1 to the usefulness of an ATB caucus as well

From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to Everyone:

michael voted no, so I will let him come back to the 

committee

From Barmak Nassirian (A) Servicemembers & Vets to Everyone:

I echo David's concerns here

From Anne Kress (P) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

The two year colleges would ask to be part of this work 

group, @David and Dept.

From Mike Lanouette (A) Proprietary Institutions to Everyone:

Potential revision to the 1% language,

From Anne Kress (P) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

I’m coming back in for CCs and replacing Will Durden.

From Mike Lanouette (A) Proprietary Institutions to Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 93

“The State agrees that the total number of students that 

enroll during the initial period will total no more than 5 

percent of enrollment at each institution participating in the 

State process or 50 students, whichever is higher.”

From Debbie Cochrane (P), State agencies to Everyone: 

I will be coming back for state agencies.

From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to Everyone:

I am also coming back to the table

From Ashley Schofield (A) - MSIs to Everyone:

I am at the table for MSIs replacing Beverly Hogan.

From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aid to Everyone:

I’ll be at the table for legal aids

From Debbie Cochrane (P), State agencies to Everyone:

I would echo Jessica's comments about the importance of 

calling out the grant/loan distinction, in particular. The 

blurring of that critical line is a source of abuse.

From David Socolow (A) State agencies to Everyone:

+1 to Amanda's and Jessica's point that stds of admin 

capability should include "clear and accurate info" that makes 

a distinction between grants and loans and makes it clear to 

students that loans have to be repaid.

From Ernest Ezeugo (P), Students & Loan Borrowers to Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 94

+1 Amanda's point.

From Carolyn Fast (P) Consumer advocates/Civil Rights to

Everyone:

+1 to Amanda and Jessica's point

From Ashley Schofield (A) - MSIs to Everyone:

+1 to Amanda's point.

From Debbie Cochrane (P), State agencies to Everyone:

The proposed language Jessica referenced would have (1) 

read as follows: The source and amount of each type of aid 

offered, the nature of the aid and whether it must be earned 

or repaid, and instructions and deadlines for accepting, 

declining, or adjusting award amounts;

From Anne Kress (P) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

+1 to Sam

From David Socolow (A) State agencies to Everyone:

In response to Sam's point, many award letters and 

financial aid packages blur the distinction between grants and 

loans, and sometimes don't even use the word "loan" to refer 

to loans: https://www.uaspire.org/News-Events/uAspire-and-NewAmerica-Release-Decoding-the-Cost

From Anne Kress (P) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

Rather than adding on to disclosures—I’d strongly suggest 

user testing existing disclosure templates to ensure they are 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 95

designed for the intended audience vs. higher ed 

professionals.

From Jamienne Studley to Everyone:

+1 to Anne's suggestion

From Debbie Cochrane (P), State agencies to Everyone:

Consumer testing is great, but it isn't either/or if the 

disclosure templates aren't required.

From Adam Welle, P -- State AGs to Everyone:

Yael Shavit will be coming in for state AGs

From Jamienne Studley to Everyone:

True, Debbie, not either/or.

From Sam Veeder, (P) FA Administrators to Everyone:

+1 to Anne's suggestion

From Debbie Cochrane (P), State agencies to Everyone:

I do not see this as adding onto disclosures. Anyone 

using the College Financing Plan would not need to do anything 

more.

From Ernest Ezeugo (P), Students & Loan Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 Amanda's earlier point, +1 Yael's point here.

From Jamienne Studley to Everyone:

can we see the revised text?
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 96

From Amanda Martinez (P-Civil Rights) to Everyone:

Data request for the share of institutions that use the 

College Financing Plan

From Yael Shavit State AGs (A) to Everyone:

Ideally by sector

From Emmanual Guillory (A-PNPs) to Everyone:

In section 685.304, there is language regarding what is 

needed when conducting entrance counseling for borrowers. 

Perhaps a reference to a portion of this or the pulling of 

this language may be helpful to address concerns were 

expressed regarding the financial aid counseling.

From Anne Kress (P) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

+1 Barmak

From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to Everyone:

+1 Barmak

From Kelli Perry - (P) Private Non-Profit Institutions to

Everyone:

+1 Barmak

From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aid to Everyone:

Can we take down the redline now so we can see the 

speakers/group?

From Jamienne Studley to Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 97

+1 Barmak

From Emmanual Guillory (A-PNPs) to Everyone:

+1 Anne

From Jamienne Studley to Everyone:

respectfully suggest we separate (i) and (J) -- it's 

confusing to toggle between the two diff topics

From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to Everyone:

I previously submitted wording to the Department that I 

will drop in the chat. I think we should delete subparagraphs 

(1) through (4) and rewrite subsection (i) to state:

Provides adequate career services to eligible students 

who receive Title IV, HEA program assistance consistent with 

how the institution advertises or describes its career 

services.

From Laura Rasar King (A) Accrediting Agencies to Everyone:

Laura Rasar King will take the chair to make a comment on 

item (i)

From Laura Rasar King (A) Accrediting Agencies to Everyone:

For Accrediting Agencies

From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to Everyone:

+1 Jamienne

From Jamienne Studley to Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 98

Laura Rasor King will step in to contribute to this item

From Yael Shavit State AGs (A) to Everyone:

+1 Carolyn

From Ernest Ezeugo (P), Students & Loan Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 Carolyn

From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aid to Everyone:

+1 Carolyn

From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to Everyone:

Provides students with accessible clinical or externship 

opportunities under the circumstances related to and required 

for completion of the credential or licensure in a recognized 

occupation within 45 days of the completion of required 

coursework.

From Jamienne Studley to Everyone:

Brad's "under the circumstances" point could/should be 

handled under federal waiver provisions like the COVID 

emergency or a local FEMA emergency condition, not schooldetermined

From Marvin Smith (P) 4 Year Publics to Everyone:

Suggest j should include misrepresentation language, 

i.e., "as the school advertised"...

From Laura Rasar King (A) Accrediting Agencies to Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 99

+1 Jamie

From Kelli Perry - (P) Private Non-Profit Institutions to

Everyone:

668.16(k) - suggest changing language from "Disburses 

funds to students in a timely manner consistent with students' 

needs as required in 34 CFR 668.164" to "Disburses funds to 

students in a timely manner consistent with the requirements 

in 34 CFR 668.164" I am unsure how "consistent with students’ 

needs" relates to 668.164.

From Sam Veeder, (P) FA Administrators to Everyone:

+1 Kelli

From Anne Kress (P) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

+1 Kelli

From Emmanual Guillory (A-PNPs) to Everyone:

+1 Kelli

From Jamienne Studley to Everyone:

+1 to Kelli re dropping the needs reference.

From Marvin Smith (P) 4 Year Publics to Everyone:

Maybe it should say "instances" instead of "high rate" 

based on Greg’s response

From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to Everyone:

+1 to Kelli
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 100

From Marvin Smith (P) 4 Year Publics to Everyone:

+1 to Kelli

From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to Everyone:

+1 Jamienne

From Yael Shavit State AGs (A) to Everyone:

Adam is coming back for State AGs

From Kelli Perry - (P) Private Non-Profit Institutions to

Everyone:

668.16(k) - As a follow-up based on the conversation we 

had with regard to student needs being in addition, would 

suggest the following, "Disburses funds to students in a 

timely manner consistent with the requirements in 34 CFR 

668.164 and in consideration of students’ needs."

From Kelli Perry - (P) Private Non-Profit Institutions to

Everyone:

Emmanual will be coming to the table to ask a question.

From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to Everyone:

+1 Debbie on point that it is hard to review a rule that 

has not been defined.

From Barmak Nassirian (A) Servicemembers & Vets to Everyone:

I endorse Jamie's very thoughtful analysis of the 

rationale here: "if you can't manage to ensure that at least 
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 101

half of your institution's programs pass, you lack the 

requisite sophistication to run any programs"

From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aid to Everyone:

+1 to Jamie/Barmak

From Adam Welle, P -- State AGs to Everyone:

+1 to Jamie and Barmak's comments

From Ashley Schofield (A) - MSIs to Everyone:

+1 Jaime/Barmack's comments

From Anne Kress (P) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

+1 Jaime

From Anne Kress (P) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

Oops, Jamie

From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to Everyone:

Does not engage in substantial misrepresentations as 

defined in subpart F. delete reference to aggressive 

recruitment.

From Emmanual Guillory (A-PNPs) to Everyone:

To Brad's point, the Affordability and Student Loans neg 

reg committee did not reach consensus on the borrower defense 

language that included aggressive recruitment; however, the 

Department did say that they would agree to honor the language 

as if it did reach consensus.
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 102

From Adam Welle, P -- State AGs to Everyone:

+1 to Carolyn

From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aid to Everyone:

+1 to Carolyn

From Ernest Ezeugo (P), Students & Loan Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 Carolyn re: "including" language and the addition of 

'o'

From Jamienne Studley (P) Accrediting agencies to Everyone:

This would leave to the Secretary whether the action is 

significant in terms of what it means for the institution's 

admin capacity

From Jamienne Studley (P) Accrediting agencies to Everyone:

Greg: what is the process for an institution to rebut if 

the Sec determines it is not administratively capable?

From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to Everyone:

(3) A former director, officer, executive, or principal 

of an institution who exercised substantial control over the 

institution, was employed by the institution at the time the 

misconduct or closure occurred, whose misconduct or closure 

resulted in liabilities to the federal government in excess of 

5 percent of its title IV, HEA program funds and those 

liabilities remain outstanding.

From Emmanual Guillory (A-PNPs) to Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 103

Suggested language for 668.16(m): For an institution that 

offers gainful employment programs subject to the requirements 

in subpart Q of this part, receives at least half of its title 

IV revenue in its eligible programs from such programs that 

are "passing" under subpart Q, or has at least half of its 

regular enrolled students, who are enrolled in such eligible 

programs, enrolled in programs that are "passing" under 

subpart Q.

From Beverly Hogan Primary/MSI to Everyone:

I am returning to the table.

From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to Everyone:

under 1 romanette i - I would like to add in the words if 

the high school is open and then add in a new subsection A 

that states "(A) A copy of the diploma or other official 

record confirming that the high school conferred a diploma to 

the student" as a valid document a school can obtain.

From Beverly Hogan Primary/MSI to Everyone:

+1 to Barmak's comment about diploma

From Kelli Perry - (P) Private Non-Profit Institutions to

Everyone:

+1 to Barmak's comment about diplomas

From Anne Kress (P) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

+1 Barmak—the diploma is decorative, not demonstrative of 

college completion
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 104

From Beverly Hogan Primary/MSI to Everyone:

You are correct, Barmak!

From Beverly Hogan Primary/MSI to Everyone:

Clear the noise

From Jamienne Studley (P) Accrediting agencies to Everyone:

Was "completion," the term the Dept used in the first 

place, the better term v diploma?

From Anne Kress (P) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

+1 Jamie

From Emmanual Guillory (A-PNPs) to Everyone:

Is the Department responsible for determining whether or 

not a high school diploma is valid in all of 668.16(v)(2)?

From Anne Kress (P) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

Think “completion” is the accurate term here, and this is 

validated by the HS transcript, most frequently.

From Kelli Perry - (P) Private Non-Profit Institutions to

Everyone:

+1 Jamie and Anne on "completion" being the accurate term

From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to Everyone:

does business relationship mean financial relationship?

From Barmak Nassirian (A) Servicemembers & Vets to Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 02/14/22 105

Yes, B is needed for A

From Debbie Cochrane (P), State agencies to Everyone:

I will put my comment in the chat. It is not clear to me 

how one would confirm the validity of a diploma if the high 

school has closed.

From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to Everyone:

+1 to Debbie. I think we need to add if the high school 

is open to 1 romanette 1 

From Jamienne Studley (P) Accrediting agencies to Everyone:

In addition, I believe the Department took comment 

between the time it announced the neg reg and the time it 

developed its proposals that are before us.