Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee - 1/12/24 

1

 

 

 

 

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

 NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING TRIO SUBCOMMITTEE 

 SESSION 1, DAY 1, AFTERNOON

JANUARY 12, 2024

On the 12th day of January, 2024, the

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

to 3:00 p.m. 
2

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

P R O C E E D I N G S

MS. SMITH: Alright. Welcome back. 

I hope everyone had a great meal. It is 1:02 EST time, 

so we will get started. I first want to point out that 

our final member of the subcommittee has arrived, Mr. 

Michael Meotti. He was recently appointed to the 

subcommittee, and he is representing the state officials, 

including state higher education, executive officers, 

state authorizing agencies, and state regulators of 

institutions of higher education. Welcome, Michael. 

Michael, we did have an opportunity to bring Michael up 

to speed on exactly where we are right now. So, the one 

task that we have for him is to briefly introduce himself 

and provide his fun fact.

MR. MEOTTI: Thank you. I'm Mike 

Meotti, and I'm the executive director of the Washington 

Student Achievement Council, or WSAC, as we say in the 

state of Washington. We do have the most unusually named 

state higher education agency in the country. Usually,

you're going to be familiar with groups like the Texas 

Higher Education Coordinating Board or the Tennessee 

Higher Education Commission, the Kentucky Council on 

Postsecondary Education. About a dozen years ago, 

Washington changed its higher education coordinating 

board to the Washington Student Achievement Council. We 
3

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

are a state agency. I serve on the governor's cabinet. 

We work on all sorts of higher education issues, 

including being a state-regulating authority and state 

authority. My fun fact, I'm actually in the other 

Washington today. I'm in Washington, D.C., not the state 

of Washington. It's a city that I have a long attachment 

and connection to. And it started many, many years ago 

as a college student. And while I was a college student 

here, I'm actually at Georgetown now, I was selected to 

be an extra in the filming of the movie The Exorcist, 

which is getting a lot of buzz. I can't remember whether 

it's 10 years ago or 20, but there's a much longer number 

than that you can Google if you don't know it. But I was 

selected to be an extra and then when I was scheduled for 

the scene I was shooting in, it turned out to conflict 

head on with a mid-term exam in a course I was taking 

with a rather intimidating professor. Back then, I was 

still young enough and I decided I would not even ask to 

see if I could do a makeup in order to be in the scene. 

I just passed on being an extra so, my Hollywood career 

ended before it even started.

MS. SMITH: Oh, I was really looking 

forward to going back to the movie and trying to spot 

you.

MR. EOTTI: Don't look anything like 
4

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

this so.

MS. SMITH: Well, welcome Michael, 

to the subcommittee. We're very grateful that you were 

able to participate. With that being said, we know when 

we broke for lunch, we were able to get through at least 

the Department's overviews. And we were able to go over 

all of the suggested red line text. So now I will 

return it over to the subcommittee to see if they had 

anything prepared. If they had any updates or wanted to 

make any additional comments on what we went over this 

morning or any additional proposals. Alright, Geof.

MR. GARNER: Thank you. I wanted to 

just share a comment that, you know, as- in my current 

role, I serve as the past president of the NAEOP region 

in TRIO, that's Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Idaho. 

We are fortunately one of two states in the country that 

received Department, a waiver to serve undocumented 

students in our state. I'm really proud of that fact. 

In my role, as well as serving on the COE board of 

directors, I just wanted to offer up that what I'm 

hearing across the country as I talk to TRIO 

practitioners is that the expanding eligibility right now 

to undocumented students is a dangerous advancement, 

given our current political climate and so much so that, 

I would recommend that we don't approve these eligibility 
5

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

expansions at this time and affirm that TRIO eligibility 

as it stands in the future, in a less polarized landscape 

TRIO folks would all appreciate being able to serve more 

students who need our support. And I can put that 

statement in the chat. And I'll do that now. 

MS. SMITH: Just as a process 

reminder, for those that have support for anything that 

someone else says, do feel free to put that in the chat 

to acknowledge your support. Aaron?

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Thank 

you for your comments, Geof. I know you're going to be 

pulling up a lot of different things. I guess that was 

another kind of proposal. So, I’m kind of going along 

with the proposal that we posted for Wade. Would you 

mind pulling that up like the issue paper and capturing 

Geof's comment? Now, Geof, do you have any more 

parameters around that? Like I know you said hold off 

now. 

MR. GARNER: Great question, Aaron. 

When is the best time? I just think right now, you 

know, having a target on our backs with the political 

climate. I know a lot of states in my region, might have 

problems if TRIO were to be able to serve undocumented 

population. Those schools and TRIO programs would 

definitely be faced with funding shortfalls or the 
6

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

potential to lose funding for TRIO programs, whereas now 

we enjoy bipartisan support in Congress for 

reauthorizing. So, I think when the time is better 

politically, I would love to see an expansion. For now, 

I'm excited that Oregon and California, possibly 

Washington in the near future, are able to serve a larger 

population in TRIO programs.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you.

MS. SMITH: Thank you. Was that 

enough Vanessa and Aaron? You got what youMR. WASHINGTON: I think Vanessa 

captured it. Vanessa, do you feel comfortable?

MS. SMITH: We can't quite see the 

last part of that, but as long as she understands.

MS. GOMEZ: Yeah, I got it. Thank 

you.

MS. SMITH: Thank you. Alright. Any 

other comments? Okay, Wade?

MR. WILLIAMS: I was just going to 

say, I agree with Geof. And while this does create this 

proposal, I think it increases eligibility. I don't know 

that it increases equity with everything that is proposed 

with students. And so, I struggle with it as well. I 

just wonder what else could be done or if anything else 

could be done that would expand participation across all 
7

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

programs if we're going to address that, so.

MS. SMITH: Aaron?

MR. WASHINGTON: I think we're going 

to soon get into Emalyn's presentation. I did want to 

ask Gaby if she could talk a little bit about applicants 

or TRIO participant eligibility as it currently stands. 

And, like, what groups are eligible for participation?

MS. WATTS: Thank you, Aaron, and I 

still don't know what groups are currently eligible. We 

might need for you all to say expand the population. 

What's your actual ideas for that? Because right now 

TRIO would be able to address almost all disadvantaged 

youth. You know, we currently serve the low-income, the 

first-generation. We serve individuals with 

disabilities, we serve homeless youth, we serve limited 

English-speaking youth. So, when you say how to expand 

it to all, what are you exactly meaning? Because right 

now we feel that it is capturing just about everyone. 

And if we expand the definition, it would definitely be 

everyone. So, you all could perhaps expand upon that.

MS. SMITH: Any thoughts in response, 

Wade or anyone else?

MR. WILLIAMS: If I could say, so, I 

guess what I was trying to say is how can we expand? I 

said, I understand what you're trying to do with Upward 
8

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

Bound, with Talent Search and kind of with EOC. I'm 

wondering across the board on all of them, is there 

anything else that I don't know. And I don't know the 

answer to that, but what else could be done to expand it? 

To expand participation, because some of that isn't 

regulatory. That's more law, you know. And I know 

that's not you all and your purpose and stuff. But I 

think until some of the legislative changes happen, it's 

going to make it difficult for the regulatory changes to 

happen. So, I don't know if that helps or makes sense.

MS. SMITH: Thank you. Aaron?

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Wade. 

Yeah, thank you, Gaby. We can definitely take your ideas 

back, Wade, and talk more about them between sessions,

and come up with a response for you.

MS. SMITH: And just a reminder, you 

know, we'll probably say it a couple times. At any 

point, if there’s anything you hear experts say here at 

the table can propose to help them, I think Aaron 

definitely has made it clear that they're willing to 

accept and consider it. Okay, so, Emalyn, I think the 

Department has received your paper. Did you want to 

address it? Highlight anything in it specifically? Oh, 

you're on mute. Yeah.

MS. LAPUS: Well, it was as a 
9

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

committee, we all did discuss and worked on this and

agreed. So, I mean, yeah, we could go ahead and present 

it. I think it would be helpful. Well, since we have 

the time and then it does show some of the language that 

either we'd like to include or strike out. So that would 

be helpful. Now that we have the opportunity, we should 

just proceed with it then and hare that screen. 

MS. SMITH: I'm sorry. Thank you.

MS. LAPUS: Yeah, that's the right 

one. I'm actually going to defer either to Geof, and 

maybe you want to take the lead to explain, because 

again, him being a former NAEOP president, you know, he 

could speak on all of our behalf, if that's okay with 

you.

MR. GARNER: And I'm just looking at 

the definitions and what we're recommending is 

highlighted here. I don't want to rehash what you can 

see, but I would ask Aaron or Gaby, do you all have any 

questions about what we're looking at here in the Talent 

Search proposals?

MS. SMITH: Aaron?

MR. WASHINGTON: You know, I can't 

speak for Gaby, but for me, I know where the definition 

is coming from, and I'm sorry, Gaby does too. I think 

it'll be helpful. Go ahead, Gaby.
10

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

MS. WATTS: No, so, Geof, you are 

referencing here, you want students who are eligible for 

free and reduced lunch? Is that what this one is 

addressing?

MR. GARNER: Just some clarity ondetermining that all students are eligible who are on 

free and reduced lunch.

MS. WATTS: Free and reduced, not 

just free lunch? Free and reduced. Okay.

MR. GARNER: Correct. Thank you.

MS. WATTS: Okay.

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah. I mean, Geof, 

we can obviously see on the screen and everything, but 

just for the sake of the public, just for the sake of the 

record, the transcript, everything, I think it would be 

helpful just to provide a high-level couple of sentences. 

It doesn't have to be extensive, but just high-level 

overview for the public watching, for the Department 

staff listening on what the proposal is and maybe 

rationale. If you don't have both of those things, 

that's totally fine. But I think that would be helpful 

for everybody.

MR. GARNER: Sure. I think just with 

each individual school's definitions of what is free, 

what is reduced, that can be muddled. And we just wanted 
11

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

to make it clear, blanket free and reduced. And that 

makes it easier for us as we're collecting data points to 

select our target schools in TRIO. I hope that helps 

out. Okay. Great. Thank you.

MS. SMITH: Did you want to go to 

another point?

MR. GARNER: If you want to scroll, I 

can make some general comments about this.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, a Talent Search 

program can serve a whole school, you know, if a 

predominant number of the school is free and reduced 

lunch.

MR. GARNER: Yeah. Exactly right. 

Thanks, Wade.

MS. WATTS: Excuse me. Wade, so you 

mean, you mean the whole school? If it's a free and 

reduced lunches, anybody in the school can receive 

service if that school is classified as free and reduced 

lunch? Is that what you're saying, Wade?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah. I mean, that's 

my personal opinion, I think. 

MS. SMITH: And yeah, I think it's 

good to get it out there for the Department to consider. 

Alright. Do want to continue on, Geof? 

MR. GARNER: Sure. Yeah. Are 
12

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

allowable cost, admission fees, transportation, t-shirts 

and other costs necessary? You know, there's always been 

the discrepancy with Talent Search and Upward Bound. 

Upward bound has always been able to buy t-shirts to 

identify your students in the program. This would be 

helpful here as an allowable cost where it's specific 

that t-shirts are listed. There's always confusion with 

TRIO directors and programs about understanding that. 

Just some clarity about that and attending educational 

activities, museums, and cultural visits. I think that 

adding that in would help our programs percentage of 

enrolled students who are identified students. The 

Richard B. Russell would be for identifying students 

that meet the threshold. That's pretty clear. If you go 

a little bit further, 644.30, admission fees, 

transportation, and other costs necessary to participate 

in field trips, ed activities, etc. That helps us with 

getting students into these different programs which can 

lead to internships, other aspects of our intentional 

field trips and events that enhance programs for 

students. 

MS. SMITH: Go ahead. Did you want 

to finish that up?

MR. GARNER: Keep scrolling. Thank 

you. 
13

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

MS. SMITH: Okay. Well, Geof, I 

think, Hannah has something. I want us to go past if she 

had some comment to say. Hannah?

MS. HODEL: Yeah, no, I did just want 

to note as we're going through this, that the TRIO 

statute does provide a definition of low-income 

individual. And so, we might want to take a look at that 

the definition as well since that is- a statutory 

framework.

MS. SMITH: Alright. Thank you, 

Hannah. Alright, Geof and I think, you know, we'll pause 

after each section just to make sure the Department 

doesn't have anything. Aaron, did you have something?

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, I think I just 

wanted to point out that Vanessa projected the definition 

of a low-income individual on the screen. Vanessa, do 

you want to bring that back up so folks can take a look 

at it?

MS. SMITH: Yeah, and it looks like 

they were- they had proposed reg text for that. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, so that's just 

pointing back to what you know, Hannah. I don't know if 

the proposals were based on the regulatory language 

because I think they were? It sounds like, Geof, correct 

me if I'm wrong, it sounds like you all were doing the 
14

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

red lines off of the reg language as opposed to sayingoh yeah, okay. Yeah, so, thank you.

MS. SMITH: Oh, you went back on 

mute, Geof.

MR. GARNER: Thank you. Sorry about 

that. Back to Hannah's point about the- qualifying as 

low-income individuals, if we were able to use the Pell 

Grant recipients, and use that expanded definition to 

include the Pell Grant, that would provide administrative 

relief for our TRIO undergrad programs. I just wanted to 

put that out there as well. Thank you. Okay. I think 

we discussed this one, 644.30, other requirements, 

documentation. That's pretty clear. If we can keep 

scrolling. Okay, here we are in Upward Bound. Emalyn, 

did you want to take over on the UB? I have a brand new 

Upward Bound program. 

MS. LAPUS: Okay. Yeah. So again, 

as a committee, you know, I initially introduced this, 

but we did discuss it. It's just given over the years, 

for trying to collect data for dropout rates to 

demonstrate need for our program has been challenging. 

One, you know, obviously, schools are not as transparent 

with their dropout rates because, of course, if they show 

a high dropout rate, it doesn't look good. I mean, to be

direct, it does affect the funding for the school. And 
15

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

then, you know, point number two. I believe that over 

the years, our many Upward Bound programs being at 

certain schools have helped students to graduate given 

that's one of our objectives. So they graduate from high 

school, middle school. For the Talent Search graduate, 

middle school, Upward Bound graduate from high school and 

go on to college. So, you know, we have contributed to 

lowering the dropout rates. Again, this has been 

challenging to collect data and demonstrate it in a way 

that would help us show need. So, it was a 

recommendation to basically eliminate this one section in 

demonstrating this one data point in demonstrating need. 

So, I don't know if there was another section in Upward 

Bound. Oh, and then again, just take out dropout. And 

if you could scroll again, I think that might be it. Oh, 

okay. Then the second point, for objectives we wanted to 

propose recommendations to take out this objective to the

academic performance especially since after the pandemic, 

a number of states or districts have removed the 

standardized testing. And so, again, trying to address 

and meet this objective has been very challenging. Not 

only does it not help with demonstrating need, but also 

in terms of being able to demonstrate program 

effectiveness, it's not necessarily beneficial at this 

time in helping the programs. And then as you can see, 
16

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

the recommendation was if we take out the academic 

performance objective, which is one point, then that one 

point could be added on to GPA. So, the objective for 

the GPA would now be worth two points instead of one. 

With the stipends, I'm not sure who we want to propose 

increasing the amount. The current amounts are not up to 

pace with current living standards nationally. So for us 

here in California, many of our students have chosen to 

prioritized working or participating in paid internships. 

So, if we were able to increase our monthly stipend 

amount that would be a great incentive for our students 

to participate. Again, here in San Francisco, we 

wouldn't have to compete with other similar college 

access programs that do provide stipend or some kind of 

payment that is much higher than the current $40 per 

school year, the $60 during the summer, and then

definitely for work study. Increasing that amount, 

tripling it to 900 would definitely be more as an 

incentive. With our students, a lot of them work or do 

what they need to do to get paid because it not only to 

help themselves, but also they help out their families. 

So, those dollar amounts are what we are proposing. 

Thank you.

MS. SMITH: Alright, any comments? 

Okay, Hannah?
17

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

MS. HODEL: Thank you. I just wanted 

to note one quick statutory thing, which is the contents 

of outcome criteria for the Upward Bound program are 

specified under 20 USC 1078-11 F3B, and I did want to 

just note that consideration of a student's academic 

performance, as measured by standardized tests, is 

something that is included within the statutory 

framework.

MS. SMITH: Thank you, Hannah. 

Alright. Wade?

MR. WILLIAMS: Sorry. We were 

talking about the stipends earlier when I talked about 

the proposal that you guys had said about increasing 

eligibility. This increases eligibility but doesn't 

quite increase equity for students. And that's kind of 

what I was thinking of in regard to the stipend. 

Whenever the proposal can be in the program, but they're 

not- they’re not going to be able to receive the stipend 

like the other students. I'm not trying to mean anything 

bad., it’s just almost like a degrading thing to a 

student. You can be in the program, but you can't get 

the full benefits of all the other students that are in 

the program, if that makes sense.

MS. SMITH: Okay. Aaron?

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for that, 
18

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

Wade. We hear what you're saying. I think I failed to 

mention when we started that after the presentation is 

done, the Department is going to call for a brief caucus 

with Department staff to just talk through your 

presentation. I don't think it should be more than 

hopefully 10, 15 minutes. And then hopefully I'll be

able to come back and respond to a lot of the things that 

you've said. Of course, I won't say, no, you can't do 

this or yes, you can present this to the issue. You can 

present it to the main committee. Again, that's your 

recommendation. But I think I'll hopefully be able to 

give you some overarching feedback on the proposals once 

we get through them. So, I just anticipate a brief 

caucus just with the Department staff after the 

presentation is done.

MS. SMITH: Thank you, Aaron, for 

that update. And you all, the subcommittee, can also go 

into a breakout room if you need to as well. Okay. Did 

we want to continue or were there any other thoughts? I 

think student support services were next.

MR. SANDS: So, I'll take this one.

MS. SMITH: Alright, D'Angelo.

MR. SANDS: I'll go ahead and take 

that one. As I previously mentioned, regarding theMS. SMITH: D'Angelo can [inaudible] 
19

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

yeah, if you can, you have to get close to your mic

because we lose you a little bit and we want to make sure 

we hear every word. Thank you.

MR. SANDS: Okay. Alright. Thank 

you for that. Here under Student Support Services, one 

of the things that we want to bring up again, I think I 

referenced it earlier, regarding Pell Grant eligibility 

for our student support services. In addition, it would 

help with recruitment with some of our programs when it 

comes to the administrative pieces, that there also have 

been some challenges where students who are at the 

institution but their parents live in different cities. 

And if a student puts down information like gross income 

versus the taxable income and the parent is in a whole 

other city, that has shown to be some difficulty and 

obtaining proper documentation or signatures for that. 

So that would alleviate some challenges there. If you 

could scroll down a little bit more to 646.30 in section 

(e), transportation. When it comes to allowable costs, 

we're proposing that we strike the language with prior 

approval of the Secretary, and then change where it says 

meals and lodging for participants and staff during 

approved educational and cultural activities. 

Additionally, down in section (g), we're looking to 

strike the language, except that these costs may not 
20

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

exceed four percent of total project salaries. The 

Secretary may adjust these percentages if the applicant 

demonstrates to the Secretary satisfaction that a higher 

percentage is necessary and reasonable. And so, these 

are some areas- if you drop down a little bit more, I 

don't know if that's everything. And then the addition 

to (n) and (k) are the cost that's necessary to 

participate in educational activities, visit museums, and 

attend other events that have as their purpose their 

intellectual, social, and cultural development of 

participant. This will make it a little bit more across 

the board for two-year programs, including some of our 

programs in SSS. And I think- the same here, is no 

different than the one above regarding Pell eligibility. 

McNair, was advocating for the same for the McNair 

programs. We are asking for a stipend at least up to 

4000 per year. We'd love to get feedback on that from 

others. And if we scroll down a little lower, section 

(e) other costs, we would like to add, there's other 

costs necessary to participate in educational and 

scholarly activities and attend other events that have as 

their purpose the intellectual, social, and cultural 

development. So, we're looking to add those particular 

languages specific for [inaudible] and McNair. So, we 

have some of the similar opportunities for students, 
21

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

that's both pre-college and collegiate. And the last is 

Pell eligibility as well.

MS. SMITH: Okay. Did anyone else 

want to add any additional comments to this? I know that 

we're going to be taking a caucus. Okay. Hearing 

nothing, Aaron, how many minutes do you think you'll 

need? Did you want to do the 15? That'll put us either 

at 45 or 50. 45 is 10 andMR. WASHINGTON: Let's do 50 and that 

way we have more than enough time then, if we need more 

time, which I don't believe we will, then we can let 

folks know.

MS. SMITH: Okay. So, did you all 

need to also go to a breakout room or you're good? We’re

just going off camera and coming back on at 1:50 EST

time. Alright. Looks like everybody's good so at this 

point, we will break, take a quick caucus and we will 

reconvene at 1:50. Yes, Cindy?

MS. JEFFRIES: Krystil, just a 

question for the Department. Let us know if you want us 

in with you or if you want to send us a message, or if 

you need us?

MR. WASHINGTON: Well, I'll send you 

a message.

MS. SMITH: Okay. So, 1:50 EST time. 
22

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

It's approximately 14, 15 minutes from now. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yes, perfect.

MS. SMITH: Alright. Welcome back. 

Thank you for coming back. We were a little behind. 

Aaron, do you have anything to add or anything to update?

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright. Okay, so 

Hannah's going to go first and walk through some of the 

statutory implications for the proposal.

MS. SMITH: Okay, Hannah?

MS. HODEL: Great. Thank you. So,

we appreciate you flagging some of these proposed changes 

for our attention. We did want to flag, though, that the 

definition of low income is provided within the statute. 

And so that is a definition that Congress has provided 

and cannot be changed through the regulatory process. 

Similarly, the stipend amounts are also set out within 

the statute and are set at an amount that was set the 

last time that the Higher Education Act was reauthorized. 

So, we do not have the ability to alter those amounts 

without congressional action. The last thing that I 

wanted to note that also has a statutory framework that 

we need to work within is related to the objectives that 

I flagged, which is the Upward Bound program does have as 

one of its objectives that's set out in statute, 

consideration of academic performance through 
23

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

standardized test scores. And I could drop that site 

within the chat if anyone would like. But that is 

something that I do not think that we could strike, since 

it's set out specifically within the program statute.

MS. SMITH: Okay. Thank you, Hannah. 

Emalyn?

MS. LAPUS: So, yeah, Hannah, thank 

you for providing that extra information. If you look 

back to the document that we shared earlier, I don't 

think we're saying to strike out the definition. I think 

we wanted to add that definition in red so it would 

broaden the definition of low income. And then regarding 

the objective for Upward Bound academic performance, then 

perhaps if it is defined as you said in law, but could 

there be that a broader definition of what other testing 

performances or tests, tools, or whatever could be used 

that would help us to address that objective?

MS. HODEL: Just speaking to the 

definition of low income, I do not think that we are able 

to expand beyond the specific definition that Congress 

provided. I would need to take another look at the 

objective language that you flagged or maybe we could 

discuss alternate ways that standardized test achievement 

might be measured.

MS. LAPUS: Thank you. That would 
24

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

help.

MS. SMITH: Aaron, did you-? 

MR. WASHINGTON: You know, I guess I 

can speak to the other pieces of the proposal. In my 

opening statement, I did mention that we are aware that 

the committee was likely going to want to bring issues 

beyond the scope of participants' eligibility. Some of 

these things are criterion for application, for 

application approval, points on applications, things 

like, Secretary approval for things that might be 

permissible to spend funds on and the student support 

service program. And I just want to go back to that 

caution. Again, this is your recommendation, but you 

also want to think about the main committee, the people, 

the folks who have to vote. And I mentioned that, you 

know, we make the recommendation here, but no one on the 

subcommittee has the power to weigh in on consensus. And 

we want to think about what the expertise on the main 

committee is to dive this deep down into the weeds of the 

TRIO program right now. The time that we have to 

formulate a proposal and also support that proposal with 

rationale. I had mentioned also that a lot of times when 

we change regulations, there has to be some sort of

rationale for why we're doing that. So, a lot of times 

with the Department, we are required under the 
25

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

Administrative Procedures Act to put rationale into what 

we call the preamble of the regulation. So, for example, 

under the Student Support Services, transportation and 

with the prior approval of Secretary, so you had proposed 

to strike that. So, there was a reason that was put into 

the regulation. So, I would encourage the subcommittee 

to definitely read the preamble to that regulatory 

language to see the rationale for why it was there. And, 

you know, it has to be able to be supported beyond the 

rationale for why we chose to include it in the first 

place. And the financial aid, well, the main committee 

is going to be very familiar with citizen and non-citizen 

requirements. Keep in mind that a lot the TRIO program 

participant requirements in regard to non-citizen 

eligibility mirror the Title IV eligibility requirements. 

So you're going to have schools in the financial aid 

administrator and you're going to have multiple 

constituencies on the main committee that are extremely 

familiar with what the Department has proposed on 

participant eligibility. You may not have people that 

are that familiar on the main committee with, you know, 

stipends which Hannah already spoke to or, you know, 

allowable costs for, or, you know, points in the 

application- or actual points in the application for, you 

know, a TRIO application. So that could be something 
26

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

that, you know, the main committee could choose not to 

take on because of the lack of familiarity in that area. 

And I like I said, I know that there's desires to go 

beyond the scope of what the Department has proposed, but 

I would caution the committee going beyond that scope and 

trying to really focus on specific eligible-participant 

eligibility in the actual TRIO programs. I wondered, 

does anybody have any comments on what I’m saying? I 

know we seem like we have a lot of time. We still have 

one more session in February, but thinking of the other 

topics on the main committee that they have to get 

through and get through amended regulatory language for 

the other topics as well. There could be a lot of 

discussion about these things that is unresolved. And 

then, you know, ultimately doesn't reach consensus, 

unfortunately.

MS. SMITH: Yes, Mike?

MR. MEOTTI: Yeah. And I'm a 

newcomer to the process. I'm curious as to having missed 

the morning. I'm happy to share some perspectives. Now, 

I don't know if this is the point in the process to do 

that but maybe the facilitators can let me know if that 

is appropriate now.

MS. SMITH: Did anyone have anything 

to say in response to what Aaron just said before we go 
27

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

to Mike on any subject? Okay. Hearing nothing, Mike, 

you have the floor.

MR. MEOTTI: Okay. Thank you very 

much. Yeah, so I think there are a number of issues that 

are important to the perspective I would bring to this 

conversation. And one of which I would say is that I 

think this was mentioned or referred to at some point 

earlier, even earlier when I was here, so not this 

morning, but it might have been from Gaby if I'm getting 

pronunciation of her first name right I have long 

noticed and can speak in a moment to some research or 

evaluation work done on this. When we work with 

secondary students, we find that one of the quickest 

results, positive results that achieved and one that 

seems to be pervasive in any kind of work with secondary 

students that's looking forward to what they do after 

graduation, whatever that might be, is that it increases 

high school graduation rates and increases success within 

the K12 experience. So of course, the students that the 

administration is seeking to include with this proposed 

change is they have a right to be where they are in local 

public schools and that many of the services provided by 

these programs in our agency. We run a number of SHEEO 

agencies around the country. We run the state Gear Up 

Program and have done so for, I think, decades now. And 
28

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

we have a very inclusive model of service in that 

program. But on a on the broader sense of these services 

helping achieve success within an educational pathway 

which these students have a right to be in. If you look 

at the evaluation done of programs such as the Pittsburgh 

Promise, the Kalamazoo Promise, there's also a promise in 

some rural counties in Arkansas that have been rigorously 

evaluated. There's more. There's a growing body of 

work. The Promise Program is probably ballpark 20 years 

or so old. It's been evolving over time and every 

Promise Program I'm aware of, including some of the early 

ones, starting with the legendary Eugene Levy's proposal 

to his middle school, to his MS or PS 109 in Brooklyn or 

wherever it was which happened 30 plus years ago, they 

start off with the offer of financial aid, and they 

realized that is not really the game changer they think

it is. And they realize they need to support students 

more broadly across an array of needs, which is, of 

course, where, Gear Up and TRIO and all sorts of other 

programs come into play and every one of those programs. 

It's not just necessarily the financial aid and the lure 

to maybe go on to formal postsecondary education, it's 

all the other programmatic supports and interventions 

help increase student success, increase adolescent 

development and growth. We've seen it anecdotally in 
29

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

Washington. We are working, in addition to the Gear Up 

programs, we work with about 12 regional collaboratives 

or partnerships around the state, and every type of 

community. And by the way, we do span even though, you 

know, states have these reputations on certain political

spectrums, we span the full political spectrum on the 

ground in the communities of Washington. And we have 

regional partnerships in rural parts of the state that 

are working on issues. Sometimes when I talk to my 

colleagues in other states, I understand the different 

political contexts. I've been an appointed public 

official in two States, an elected public official in one 

state. I understand the context that people have to deal 

with. But, you know, we have been able to successfully 

deal with a commitment to equity, closing the gap and 

including populations normally excluded from these 

success pathways in parts of the state that were in some 

other state Their own voting patterns are not what the 

national media would have consistent with the state of 

Washington overall, or Seattle, where I happen to live 

or, you know, whatever. But these communities are 

committed to this work. They support the work. And, you 

know, it is very tied into local and community needs. It 

is a recognition that the young people that are serving 

are part of their community, are part of their future 
30

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

labor market, which we desperately need, you know, so 

there are just so many reasons across, K-12 success, 

community success, economic needs and whatever for this 

country to be more inclusive in serving the people who 

are here, who are our fellow community members and 

helping them achieve success. So I would be supportive 

of the administration's proposal, you know, and happy to 

engage in deeper conversation about how to, you know, 

make that a reality while recognizing the context that 

different states have to deal with and not have it impose 

any arbitrary evaluation standards or others- or other 

types of things on programs around the country.

MS. SMITH: Thank you, Mike. Any 

additional comments? Okay, so just as a process check, 

we've gone through the entire issue paper. We'veeveryone has had an opportunity to weigh in and give some 

thoughts. We've looked at a proposal. We do know that 

the Department is open to additional proposals, 

additional language, that you can either put in the chat 

box now or you can email to both Cindy Jeffries and I, 

and we will get that to the Department, the rest of the 

subcommittee members as well as the committee members. 

It is 2:00, a little after 2:00 right now. Emalyn? Oh, 

you're on mute.

MS. LAPUS: I wanted to bring up what 
31

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

my colleague Wade mentioned, and I was thinking there's 

been references that some of our proposed recommended 

languages cannot be changed due to the law. So, as Wade 

said, will there come a time when there is a negotiated 

rulemaking for the Higher Ed Act? since Or has- I mean, 

he said the last time was in 2008. I'm wondering if the 

Department or if Hannah would know that, because that 

would be great. 

MS. SMITH: Aaron? Hannah?

MR. WASHINGTON: If Hannah wants to 

go first. 

MS. HODEL: I mean, I can't say when 

Congress is going to reauthorize the Higher Education 

Act. It is overdue for reauthorization. But laws often 

go several years overdue without reauthorization before 

Congress is ready or able to take them up again. There's 

really no way to predict when Congress will reauthorize 

the Higher Education Act - it's very difficult to 

predict.

MS. LAPUS: What would it take, a 

senator or congressman to bring it up? And there has to 

be a vote? I don't know if you can do a brief summary of 

what that takes because just like other things, it's tied 

to the law, so we can't change it.

MS. HODEL: It's Congress's 
32

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

responsibility and authority to take up again when it 

chooses to. We are just tasked with implementing the law 

as it stands. So, I don't have more insight than that.

MS. LAPUS: Okay. Thank you.

MS. SMITH: Aaron?

MR. WASHINGTON: No, let Michael go 

first. It's okay. 

MS. SMITH: Alright, Michael?

MR. MEOTTI: I was just going to 

offer one person's perspective I worked for the US House 

of Representatives for several years. I've been through 

far too many cycles of reauthorization, not only of HERA, 

but the higher education also- I assume this is this has 

got to be in HERA, right? Right. Let me offer some 

comments that probably would not be an appropriate role 

of staff of a federal agency. There was a cycle that 

these core authorizing legislations of many Federal 

government activities was done more or less on a regular 

time cycle and there might be a delay here or there. 

We're in a very different world now in the United States, 

in which there is such a divide, and it is increasingly 

difficult, for common ground to be found. This has been 

my experience in dealing with legislators in Washington 

and dealing with this issue. You know, not to be a 

political prognosticator, but it is probably going to 
33

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

take some major changes in the political climate of the 

United States or unified control across all of the three 

decision makers, the White House, the Senate, and the 

House. The Senate you have the issue with the cloture, 

that the likelihood of things like this coming up for 

reauthorization is just very dicey. The law is what it 

is and could stay that way for some time. And that's 

just my opinion. 

MS. SMITH: Okay. Thank you, 

Michael. Okay. So, if we don't have anything else to 

add about the language, we did get through the issue 

papers, we can adjourn this session. I meanMR. WASHINGTON: Krystil, I'm sorry. 

Krystil, give me just two seconds.

MS. SMITH: Well, yeah, we would 

definitely need more [interposing]

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright. Can we 

just do one more break? I'm sorry, I know, I just wanted 

to do one more break. Hopefully the subcommittee can 

hold on a little bit longer, and then we'll caucus with 

the Department and come back. So, can we do 10 minutes? 

MS. SMITH: Oh, sure, absolutely.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you so much, 

Krystil. And soMS. SMITH: Okay. Thank you for your 
34

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

patience. We're back from the break. And we'll turn it 

over to the Department.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Krystil. 

And thank you all for waiting a little bit longer than we 

anticipated. We want to apologize for that delay. I 

just wanted to start with reengaging with Michael's 

comments. I think a lot of the comments that he made 

were the basis for the rationale for why the Department 

decided to put this proposal forward. And I had stated

throughout my opening comments that we think it is a good 

thing to expand eligibility in this way, as we have 

proposed, and it will help realize the goals of the TRIO 

programs to engage with and offer services to 

disconnected participants. We heard extensively leading 

up to the negotiated rulemaking that we put out an intent 

to negotiate, and we get public comments in there, and 

then we do public hearings, and we get public comments 

there. So, people can either write in or actually come 

to the mic, well, virtual microphone to present to us. 

And we heard extensively from the community that the 

Department's proposal to expand eligibility in the ways 

that we have proposed were something that community 

wanted, expand eligibility to participants, that our 

role- are seeking to [inaudible] in high school if they 

don't meet the non-citizen requirements. It's something 
35

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

that the community really wanted. And we have that 

documentation that we heard from many members of the 

public that this is something that would be welcomed by 

the TRIO community. I know we have 30 minutes left. I 

wanted to open the space and Krysti manage that space. 

But I wanted to open up the space for members of the 

subcommittee to respond to Michael's comments on how he 

saw what he saw were the benefits of the Department's 

proposal and what we have expressed with the rationale 

for expanding eligibility in this way. I know we've 

already heard that there are some concerns and fears, but 

I just wanted to get comments from the other subcommittee 

members on what Michael said.

MS. SMITH: Thank you, Aaron. With 

that being said, are there any additional comments in 

response to Michael's comments about the proposals as 

written? Well, looks like Geof.

MR. GARNER: Thank you so much. And 

thank you, Michael, well-articulated points. I just

posted in the comment section it is a great policy. 

Wholeheartedly agree with it, hearts are in it. The 

fighter in me thinks that this is a tough time to go to 

battle and have an unforced error or a target on our 

backs and TRIO with just given the contentious nature of 

immigration policy right now. Our responsibilities to 
36

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

protect all of our TRIO students that we're currently 

serving, with this being an extra possibility for a 

decreased funding for our TRIO students. We just think 

right now is not the best time for this proposal, as much 

as it breaks my heart to say that out loud and in public.

MS. SMITH: Thank you for your 

comments. Aaron, did you want to respond?

MR. WASHINGTON: You know, I need to 

wait. Would anybody from the subcommittee like to offer? 

Essentially thank you for that, Geof. And I hear your 

concerns and we had heard those throughout the meeting. 

Are there any other concerns other than what you had just 

expressed or that's essentially the main certain of the 

subcommittee?

MS. SMITH: Alright. Looks like I've 

got some- okay, Wade?

MR. WILLIAMS: I think that is the 

biggest concern. I 100% agree with what Geof has said. 

I think it would increase eligibility, but it's still 

that equity piece. And here's the thing, my biggest fear 

has been doing what we can as the person that's 

representing current and former participants is doing 

what we can to protect them, and the resources that they 

have available for them. I think potentially, we keep 

going back to the whole political climate. I think it 
37

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

puts a target depending on how things turn out in the 

next election coming up and so what's going to happen? 

We don't know. So, I would worry about what kind of 

target that puts on TRIO programs and what we're able to 

do. You know, I think we have worked so well with TRIO 

programs and with the Department, to build what we are 

today and some of the changes we've been able to make. 

And those have not been easy to get through with 

Congress. I still feel that this, what Geof said, it's 

not the time, I don't think right now, so.

MS. SMITH: Thank you, Wade. Does 

anyone else desire to provide additional comments?

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Oh, sorry, 

Krystil. 

MS. SMITH: I think we have no hands.

MR. WASHINGTON: So, Wade, quick 

follow up. I know you talked a bit about eligibility 

versus equity. In the current proposal to expand access 

beyond those that meet the citizen/non-citizen 

requirements. How can we expand equity just within the 

framework of the proposal that the Department has put 

forward?

MR. WILLIAMS: So, you're saying 

within the framework of what you have proposed?

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, just the 
38

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

framework of what we proposed because as you said, it's 

not getting to the equity piece for you. I hope I'm not 

misMR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, the biggest 

thing that sticks out with equity is that stipend piece 

and I realize that's law. But if I were and I'm not in 

TRIO anymore as a director, but if I were a director, I 

would have had the hardest time not giving students a 

stipend and a resource that would be so beneficial that 

I'm giving to the majority of all the other students. I 

struggle with that. That's the piece where I'm talking 

about the equity, that's the one that I keep going back 

to.

MR. WASHINGTON: This is not a 

pushback on your comments or to diminish your comments at 

all. Do you see a benefit in the idea that students 

would not have been able to participate in the actual 

program without the proposed regs? Without proposed 

regs, the student wouldn't be able to proceed at all. 

So, would you say without the stipend, I couldn't support 

it because it would be disparate treatment.

MR. WILLIAMS: I totally understand 

what you're saying. I'm sorry, I'm trying to process and 

think of the best way to say this. But I keep going back 

to second-class citizen. I just struggle with it. I 
39

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

can't do something across the board for everybody. And I 

don't know how to fix that without changing the law, 

because I realize it's in the law, but I don't know how 

to fix that without changing the law.

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, well, we're 

reaching the end of the day. What I wanted to do prior 

to us wrapping up is I wanted to do something we call a 

temperature check, right? So, it's just to see your 

proposal, of course. You know, like, we have all of what 

you've all put together, what Emalyn has put together, 

and you all presented on. But just for the Department's 

proposal, just adding to the Talent Search at EOC 

opportunity and Education Opportunity Centers and Upward 

Bound. Just adding a sixth clause for enrolling your 

[inaudible] enrollment. So, we do this thing at 

rulemaking. It's a do a thumbs up on your screen. Well, 

Krystil, do you want to explain it? This is your 

temperature check. Can you run that? 

MS. SMITH: Yes, I can show how we 

can do a temperatureMR. WASHINGTON: Sorry, I was 

[inaudible] temperature check onMS. SMITH: Right, make sure that 

they're clear, we can only make a recommendation, right? 

So, this is not- 
40

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

MR. WASHINGTON: So, let's see. Do 

you all want Vanessa to put the language back up and so 

you can see it again? I know we're probably familiar 

with the language at this point, but I'd like to take a 

temperature check. Geof, you got the language? So, 

alright, cool. So, I'd like to take a temperature check, 

Krystil separately: Talent Search, Upward Bound, and 

Educational Opportunity Centers. Then you'll explain the 

thumbs, right?

MS. SMITH: I can explain what they 

mean. So, thumbs up means you're in favor You agree 

with it. Sideways means, you know, you may have some 

issues with it, but you can live with it, right? You can 

live with it as it is and thumbs down means that you 

disagree. And you would not have any recommendation at 

al. So, we can do that one by one. It will be very 

clear, and we'll just see. Again, this is just to see 

where you all are. Because of course this is a nonvoting subcommittee. But this will give the Department 

an idea so they can take the temperature of what you all 

feel. So, we can put that up. Thank you, Vanessa. 

Okay, so for our first one, it's on section 643.3, 

expanding the Talent Search project to include 

individuals enrolled in or seeks to enroll in a high 

school in the US, territories, or freely associated 
41

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

states. How do you feel about this provision? By 

thumbs, a show of thumbs. Oh, and I can't see. Okay. 

Actually, y'all are going to have to tell, Wade what 

you're doing. I can't see your thumb at all, D'Angelo. 

Okay. Okay. So, they're all down, but one. Okay for 

the next one. And it is the same red line language. 

Okay, so this one is the same language. I think that it 

covers Education Center. Okay. Same language, but for 

EOC. How do we feel? What's the temperature here? 

Okay. Same result. And for the last one.

MR. WASHINGTON: And for Krystil, for 

this one, it's just that ineligibility for the stipend, 

if they- if they're- the individual is not a- the law 

says qualify [inaudible]. 

MS. SMITH: Okay. Does everyone 

understand this provision? Alright. Looks like there 

are head nods here. Alright, let's look at the 

temperature check on the Upward Bound programs. And it's 

the same as [inaudible] with the language as written. Is 

that enough information for the Department?

MR. WASHINGTON: Yes, that is enough 

information. What we'll have to is probably adjourn 

here, unless a member of the subcommittee has anything 

further to add, and I will or FMCS will be in contact 

with the subcommittee on the next steps. Will there be 
42

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

a report out to the main committee and through what 

format that would be? So I will be in contact. This is 

how we've always done it, so it's not like we have a 

whole list of things that you have to prepare to do. So 

FMCS will be in contact with the subcommittee about the 

next steps. And I think it's time for a thank-you for 

everybody, right? Krystil, unless you had something 

before that.

MS. SMITH: Just to be clear, you all 

will be informing us and we'll quickly get that same 

information out to the members of the subcommittee so 

that they know the next steps in terms of a report and 

when that report might be. I do just want to reiterate 

to everyone that even during this time, is there a 

deadline if they wanted to send proposals before the next 

session?

MR. WASHINGTON: I honestly cannot 

remember when the next session is. I know it's in 

February.

MS. SMITH: February 4th, I believe, 

is when it starts, February 5th. So, the next session, 

is on the 9th, February 9th.

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, no. The main 

committee.

MS. SMITH: The main. So, they start 
43

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

on the 5th.

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Alright. The 

5th or the 8th? Okay. Yeah. I think you can submit it 

well before then. But for the main committee, we asked 

that new proposals to be submitted by January 18th or 

close of business next Thursday. Hopefully you'll all be 

able to do that. If you need more time, like just let 

FMCS and Krystil know. And we might be able to work with 

you on that, but otherwise if you could try and get 

proposals in by January 18th, that would be helpful to 

get- to circulate them throughout the committee, because 

I think we have to publish all of them to our web page 

and do a whole host of things. Yeah, and we will 

endeavor to get back to you with the next steps ASAP as 

well.

MS. SMITH: Okay. Alright. So just 

so we're clear what our next steps will be. And the 

manner is still you all can work on any proposal or anyanything else that you'd want to send over to the 

Department and the rest of this committee, as well as the 

main committee. And with that, I think if you had more 

statements, I think we can have anything else to add, 

Aaron?

MR. WASHINGTON: No, thank you all. 

I really appreciate you all for coming and taking your 
44

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

days out. And I know everybody has a very busy agenda. 

These are very important topics, and we really appreciate 

your time and expertise. It's been a pleasure working 

with you all today. We will be in contact with you very 

soon. If you have any questions, you know you can reach 

out to Krystil. I mean, if you have like a question 

about just the rulemaking process in general, you canwell, [inaudible] I don't want to say email me because 

they're the facilitators. So, yeah, but we'll endeavor 

to get back to you as soon as possible. But again, thank 

you so much. There is so much work that went into this, 

so much work behind the scenes that went into this. And, 

yeah, I hope you have a great rest of your day and we 

will talk soon.

MS. SMITH: Yes. Alright. So, with 

that said, I do send my thanks as well, and we will 

adjourn this session at 2:48 EST time. Thank you all.

MS. LAPUS: Thank you. Bye, 

everyone.

MR. SANDS: Thank you.

 
45

Negotiated Rulemaking TRIO Subcommittee – 1/12/24

Zoom Chat Transcript

TRIO Subcommittee- Session 1, Day 5, Afternoon, January 12, 2024 

*Chat was copied as presented, as a result minor typos or grammatical 

errors may be present.

From Geof Garner, Secondary Schools to Everyone:

Expanding eligibility to undocumented students at this time is a 

dangerous advancement, given our current political climate. That 

climate has to be factored into consideration when making this 

decision.

I recommend that we do not approve these eligibility expansions 

at this time and affirm TRIO eligibility as it stands.

In the future, in a less polarized political landscape, TRIO 

practitioners would all appreciate being able to serve more students 

who need our support.

From Wade Williams, TRIO Alum Rep. to Everyone:

Regarding the stipend discussion earlier, we understand that much 

of this is outlined in the law, but the law hasn't been reauthorized 

since 2008. We encourage the Department to explore how it may use its 

authority to provide updated changes that maintain the spirit of the 

law.

From Geof Garner, Secondary Schools to Everyone:

The political high winds that our colleague from Washington State 

spoke of earlier are precisely why we believe the Department should 

not move forward with its TRIO proposal now. It has the potential to 

jeopardize all of TRIO, given the contentious nature of immigration 

policy at this time. Our responsibility is to protect the students we 

are currently serving.

From Wade Williams, TRIO Alum Rep. to Everyone:

I agree

From Wade Williams, TRIO Alum Rep. to Everyone:

9th