Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and Institutional Quality – 3/5/24

1

 

 

 

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING PROGRAM INTEGRITY 

AND INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY

SESSION 3, DAY 2, MORNING

MARCH 5, 2024

On the 5th day of March, 2024, the following 

meeting was held virtually, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00

p.m.
2

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

P R O C E E D I N G S

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning, everyone, 

and welcome or welcome back to the Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality Committee of the Department

Negotiated Rulemaking. This is session three, day two. 

I'm Krystil Smith with FMCS, and I will be the 

facilitator for today. Our co-facilitator will be Cynthia 

Jeffries and along with us are also facilitators Brady 

Roberts and Kevin Wagner. We'd like to start off this 

morning with our roll call, and we will begin with our 

non-Federal negotiators beginning with the business 

officers. Joe Weglarz is our primary. Joe?

MR. WEGLARZ: I'm here. Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. And the 

alternate is Dom Chase.

MR. CHASE: Present. Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. For the 

civil rights organizations and consumer advocates. 

Carolyn Fast, the primary.

MS. FAST: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. And 

alternate is Magin Sanchez.

MR. SANCHEZ: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. Our 

financial aid administrators are JoEllen Price. Jo?
3

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

MS. PRICE: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. And the 

alternate is Zach Goodwin.

MR. GOODWIN: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. 

Representing the Historically Black colleges and 

universities, tribal colleges and universities and 

minority serving institutions, Dr. Charles Prince.

DR. PRINCE: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. And 

D'Angelo Sands is the alternate.

MR. SANDS: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. For the 

institutional accrediting agencies, we have primary, 

Jamie Studley.

MS. STUDLEY: Good morning, everyone.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. And 

Michale McComas is the alternate.

MR. MCCOMIS: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. 

Representing the legal assistance organizations, Robyn 

Smith is the primary.

MS. R. SMITH: Hi, everyone.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. And the 

alternate is Sophie Laing.
4

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

MS. LAING: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. For our 

private nonprofit institutions of higher education, the 

primary is Erika Linden.

MS. LINDEN: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. And the 

alternate is Scott Dolan.

MR. DOLAN: Good morning, everybody.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. For our 

programmatic accrediting agencies recognized by the 

Secretary, our primary is Laura Rasar King. Laura?

DR. KING: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. And the 

alternate is Amy Ackerson.

MS. ACKERSON: I'm here. Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. Our 

proprietary institutions of higher education, our primary 

is Jillian Klein.

MS. KLEIN: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning, Jillian. 

And the alternate is David Cohen.

MR. COHEN: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. For our 

public four-year institutions of higher education, our 

primary is Jason Lorgan.
5

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

MR. LORGAN: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. And the 

alternate is Alyssa Dobson.

MS. DOBSON: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. For our 

public two-year institutions of higher education, Jo 

Blondin.

MS. BLONDIN: Yes. Thank you.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning, Jo. And 

the alternate is Michael Cioce. Is Michael on yet? Okay. 

We don't have him on yet. For our state attorneys 

general, our primary is Diana Hooley.

MS. HOOLEY: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. And the 

alternate position is vacant. Our state officials, 

including state higher education executive officers, 

state authorizing agencies and state regulators of 

institutions of higher education, the primary is John 

Ware.

MR. WARE: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. And the 

alternate is Robert Anderson.

MR. ANDERSON: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. 

Representing our students or borrowers, including 
6

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

currently enrolled borrowers or groups representing them, 

our primary is Jesse Morales. Okay. I don't see Jesse on 

just yet. Our alternate is Emmett Blaney.

MR. BLANEY: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. And 

representing the U.S. military service members, veterans 

or groups representing them, our primary is Barmak 

Nassirian.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning, Barmak. 

And the alternate is Ashlyn Haycock-Lohmann.

MS. HAYCOCK-LOHMANN: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. Alright. 

As I mentioned, today is our second day of our last 

session. That means we have two days left. So not a lot 

of time. So here are a couple of reminders. We want to 

first encourage you all to continue to seek consensus. We 

are in the end game here. So let's continue to work 

together to find those areas that we can live with. 

Right? We may not be able to get everything we're looking 

for but we're looking for things that will be workable 

and looking for some consensus there. With that in mind, 

we do ask that you all continue to make good use of the 

chat box. So the plus ones, the concurrences, other 

questions that are directed to the Department. The 
7

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

Department is still looking at those. That is a good way 

to do that in the interest of time. And when you do 

speak, of course, continue to raise your virtual hands 

and make sure to bring forth new ideas and not 

reiterations of things that we've already spoke about. 

Today, we do have a number of things on our agenda. And

the first one. Yes, Cynthia.

MS. JEFFRIES: I just wanted to 

introduce the Federal negotiator and the Department 

staff. Could you do that, Krystil?

MS. K. SMITH: Yes, I was going to do 

that with TRIO. So I'll first introduce our Federal 

negotiator, Greg Martin.

MR. MARTIN: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: And Greg is being 

assisted by a number of people from the Department, 

including Herman Bounds. Is Herman on?

MR. BOUNDS: Good morning. Good 

morning everyone. Yep. I'm here.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning, Herman. 

Dave Musser.

MR. MUSSER: Good morning, all.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning, Dave. And 

Aaron Washington. I'll introduce Aaron, again very 

briefly.
8

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

MR. WASHINGTON: Hello.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you, Aaron. And 

assisting the Department as well, we have a number of 

those from the general counsel. Donna Mangold.

MS. MANGOLD: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: And is Denise on?

MS. MORELLI: Yes, I am. Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning, Denise 

Morelli. And Hannah Hodel.

MS. HODEL: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: We will be discussing 

the TRIO program. As we know there was a separate 

subcommittee set up specifically for TRIO. So I would 

like at this time to introduce Aaron. And Aaron, if you 

can also introduce anyone else from the Department that 

is assisting you. And we'll also have a report out from 

the TRIO subcommittee. Aaron?

MR. WASHINGTON: Sure. Thank you, 

Krystil. Yeah. We have- my name is Aaron. We also have, 

in addition to Hannah, who is our general counsel, Gaby 

Watts, who is our director of student support services. 

Gaby, are you here with us? Can you say hi?

MS. WATTS: Yes. Good morning, 

everyone.

MR. WASHINGTON: Gaby was there with 
9

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

us throughout the duration of the subcommittee. She's the 

expert on all things TRIO. Yeah. So basically, I just 

wanted to talk with you about before we turn it over to 

our subcommittee to report out, is just give you kind of 

a high level of what we did during the subcommittee and 

what the Department is proposing. Right? So the 

Department proposes to expand participant eligibility for 

those who do not meet the citizen or non-citizen 

requirements. And we think this will better align with 

the goals of the Higher Education Act. The Higher 

Education Act for those viewing, I know the subcommittee 

and the main committee already knows this, but the Higher 

Education Act is the law or the statute that authorizes 

the TRIO programs. The three programs in question today 

are Upward Bound, Talent Search, and Educational 

Opportunity Centers. I won't go into the specifics on the 

programs here. We do have a little bit of background if 

anybody, you know, if any main committee member wants 

more background, I can go into that during the question 

period. But those were authorized by the Higher Education 

Act that have served students from underrepresented 

backgrounds that include homeless and unhoused 

individuals, individuals with disabilities, individuals 

who are limited in English proficiency, and individuals 

who are in foster care or are aging out of foster care 
10

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

and low income individuals. So what we're proposing is 

that if a prospective student does not meet the existing 

requirements, then the individual would be able to 

qualify for some of the TRIO programs that I just 

mentioned, if they're enrolled or seek to enroll in a 

high school in the United States, they're freely 

associated states or U.S. territory. Let's see. So we 

think that this will simplify program administration. 

Simpler and broader eligibility criteria will especially 

help programs where TRIO grantees make providing a range 

of services to students with differing levels of 

intensity and involvement. So with that, I'll just turn 

it over to D'Angelo Sands and Michael Meotti to give a 

subcommittee report out. D'Angelo will lead the report 

out, and Michael will fill if he chooses to. And after 

the report out, we'll post the language and open up for 

questions. So I'll turn it over to D'Angelo.

MR. SANDS: Good morning. To the 

negotiated rulemaking committee and to the Department, we 

appreciate the opportunity to participate in this process 

and to offer insight on the proposed expansion of 

services to an additional demographic. TRIO program staff 

have consistently demonstrated their dedication to 

serving first generation, low income and students with 

disabilities for many years. Our goal is to serve as many 
11

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

of these students as possible. Therefore, we are 

committed to continuing this work in accordance with the 

proposed changes. Furthermore, we urge the Department to 

provide guidance to TRIO program directors and staff to 

navigate these changes. Training and additional resources 

are essential to equip TRIO program staff with the 

necessary skills and competencies to effectively serve 

students, while ensuring they are treated with dignity 

and respect. As we progress forward, we strongly 

encourage the Department to update TRIO regulations to 

address the current challenges facing our programs and 

students in the immediate future. Specifically, we 

recommend allowing Pell Grant recipients to qualify as 

low income individuals, which would alleviate 

administrative burdens on TRIO undergraduate programs. 

Additionally, we advocate for the elimination of 

standardized testing and dropout data requirements in 

Upward Bound programs. Given the disruption caused by the 

global pandemic, such data may not accurately reflect the 

needs of effectiveness of these programs, of these 

programs, excuse me. Instead, the Department should focus 

on the positive impact TRIO programs have on the overall 

academic culture of high schools. Moreover, it is crucial 

to update student stipends to align with current student 

needs. The stipends outlined in the 2008 reauthorization 
12

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

have not kept pace with the rising costs faced by 

students looking to recent legislation for guidance such 

as the Educational Opportunity and Success Act of 2023 

would be beneficial in adjusting stipends within TRIO 

programs. Lastly, we urge the Department to address 

regulatory limitations that hinder professional and 

student development across all TRIO programs. This 

includes broadening allowable costs to support the 

participation of students and events aimed at their 

intellectual, social and cultural development across all 

programs, for example, not just limited to Upward Bound. 

Thank you for your time and consideration.

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

for that report out. Michael, did you have anything to 

add?

MR. MEOTTI: Yes, yes. Thank you. 

Thank you, Krystil. My name is Michael Meotti. I'm the 

Executive Director of the Washington Student Achievement 

Council. We are the state's higher education agency in

the state of Washington. And we are- and I serve on the 

Governor's executive cabinet. We are extensively involved 

in college going pathways for middle school through high 

school completion, across every school district in the 

state of Washington and a variety of ways. And while 

we're very familiar with TRIO programs, we don't run any 
13

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

TRIO programs as a state agency. We do run a large number 

of comparable Federally funded programs in the Gear Up 

program in which we are doing secondary school college 

pathway supports across 50 plus high schools in the state 

of Washington. And those programs are inclusive of all 

students, as the Department's proposal would bring TRIOs 

secondary programs in alignment with the model that we 

use in Gear Up. And it has worked very well in the state 

of Washington. And we have found that, like almost any 

holistic approach that builds on financial aid, but goes 

much further to individual supports for students who face 

many challenges in looking at opportunities after high 

school, that if you put them- you give them a holistic 

package of services. One thing it clearly does is improve 

academic performance in high school and high school 

graduation. I think elders around the country have seen 

this. We've seen this repeatedly in Washington, not only 

in our Gear Up programs, but other programs as well. So 

we think it is very important to be inclusive in the TRIO 

programs. And we very much support the Department's 

proposal as it is before you today. Thank you.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay. Thank you. And we 

do want to take this time to thank all of those that 

worked on the TRIO subcommittee. D'Angelo, Michael and 

there were three others on the committee as well. So 
14

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

thank you. So for. Aaron?

MR. WASHINGTON: Go ahead. I didn't. 

Go ahead, Krystil.

MS. K. SMITH: So our next step as the 

committee, as we know, the subcommittee was convened 

solely to make a recommendation to this committee 

regarding the proposed changes. So at this time, the 

committee has the opportunity to ask any additional 

questions. And then we will take a look at the language, 

or we will then vote or look at consensus on the 

language. Aaron, did you have anything to say before I 

went to any of the other committee members?

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah. Maybe let's 

pull up the language so they can see it. And then just do 

a super high level. Vanessa or Joe? I'm sorry, it's Joe. 

And so you'll see here the language- like I won't go 

through every single section because the language pretty 

much mirrors the language under each of the TRIO 

programs. But you'll see the citizenship requirements 

there, the current citizenship requirements. You either 

have to be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident or here 

for other than a temporary purpose with the intention of 

becoming a U.S. citizen. Those could be individuals

granted refugee status or asylee status by the Department 

of Homeland Security. And so what we have here, if you 
15

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

don't meet one of those criteria, then you could either, 

it would be- you could be an individual who enrolls or 

seeks to enroll in high school in the United States, a 

territory or freely associated state. So that's the 

language and a super high-level overview. And I think 

Krystil we can go to questions now.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you very much, 

Krystil.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you. We'll start 

with Magin. And Magin is coming in on behalf of students. 

I'm sorry, Magin is in for the civil rights consumer 

advocates. My apology.

MR. SANCHEZ: Thank you. I have more 

of a comment. I want to thank the subcommittee for their 

unanimous recommendation of the Department's proposal. 

You know, it's abundantly clear that these proposed 

changes to TRIO eligibility will first strengthen the 

program's ability to serve students from disadvantaged 

backgrounds, regardless of their citizenship status. And 

at the crux of this proposal is to resolve the 

misalignment between the regulations and the statutory 

mission of TRIO to serve low-income, disadvantaged youth 

by facilitating access to higher education. And yet, for 

40 years, the regulations and solely the regulations have 
16

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

excluded population of students simply for something 

outside of their control. I can't tell you what life was 

like 40 years ago. I wasn't born yet. I can tell you 

that's a very long time for such a misalignment. 40 

senior classes have graduated but soon turned away from 

life-changing support that could help them to pursue 

postsecondary education. Not the fault of the TRIO of 

facilitators or the student simply because of these 

unfair rules. 40 cohorts of college freshmen, and we'll 

never know how many more students could have been a part 

of those classes. But we're not for this denial of 

access. These students would have been able to support 

themselves, their families, and their communities. Let me 

first say that I support with the subcommittee members 

have asked for. The Department should further support 

Accessibility TRIO by addressing the other concerns in 

the subregulatory and preamble avenues and for our 

friends on the hill listening through the appropriations 

and HEA statutory process. But we know that TRIO works, 

and we know that it works for undocumented students. You 

know, you can look at the programs in California and 

Oregon where these regulations have been temporarily 

waived. The early reports indicate students perform just 

as well as their peers, attain their grade point 

averages, and remain in good academic standing when 
17

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

they're given the chance. It's time that we do the same 

and choose to correct this arbitrary solution once and 

for all. Not let politics drive this decision at the 

expense of students. I look forward to hearing from my 

colleagues at the table on this matter, also whom I've 

already spoken with on this important issue. This is a 

pivotal moment for TRIO, for the students that stand to 

benefit from gaining access to this life-changing support 

and life-changing programs. And don't get me wrong, even 

after we finish up this week, there'll still be further 

opportunities to serve more students by expanding access 

to the collegiate TRIO programs. But today, the mandate 

from the unanimous subcommittee recommendations is clear 

and that's to move forward with the Department's proposal 

so that all our constituencies can solve this 

misalignment once and for all. But let's get the job 

done. And I urge all my fellow negotiators to vote in 

support of this proposal.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you, Magin. Jo?

MS. BLONDIN: Thank you. And I just 

want to say that as somebody who has always worked at 

open-access institutions that are as inclusive as 

absolutely possible, this is critical to signal to our 

future workforce and college-going credential-attaining 

population that everybody is at the table, everybody is 
18

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

included. And I echo Magin's comments. Thank you.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you, Jo. Jason?

MR. LORGAN: Hi. In addition to 

echoing the strong support for this change, I wanted to 

just share that UC Davis, the institution that I work 

for, is part of the current pilot that allows 

undocumented students as part of our TRIO programs. We 

could not be more thrilled. It has gone incredibly well. 

All of the University of California campuses have 

undocumented student centers on them and have had so for 

ten years. So I just wanted to share that the pilot has 

gone extremely well, and I'm very much in support of 

this.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you, Jason. 

Emmett?

MR. BLANEY: Yeah. Thank you. I don't 

want to reiterate too much and want to keep it brief, but 

just wanted to say that as a student who has not utilized 

any of the TRIO programs, I still would like to express, 

you know, my full support for the Department's

recommendation. I think that, you know, like many have 

said that we're all about data and it shows that these 

programs work and they work for diversifying and 

strengthening, you know, the marginalized populations who 

utilize these programs. And it doesn't take away from 
19

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

folks like myself who haven't utilized these programs. 

And so, again, strongly recommend the expansion of TRIO 

programs to serve undocumented students. Thanks.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you, Emmett. 

Jamie?

MS. STUDLEY: I support the proposal 

and appreciate the work of the subcommittee and everyone 

who's commented. Thank you, Magin. Just two quick 

questions. One, following up on Magin's comment about the 

collegiate TRIO programs. I was already planning to ask 

whether there were other programs at the edge or that are 

not included in this proposal that might have been and 

why it's not possible, or why the committee is not 

recommending that they be added at this point. And the 

other one is that there was a reference to broadening the 

allowable costs. And just wondered if the subcommittee 

could say a little bit more about the nature of that 

expansion.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay. Did the 

Department.

MR. WASHINGTON: If the subcommitteeI mean, you know, I don't want to get ahead of the 

subcommittee. If you all want me to answer, I can answer 

that. D'Angelo or Michael? Okay, I.

MR. MEOTTI: I think it's more 
20

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

D'Angelo that had made the recommendation.

MR. WASHINGTON: How about how about I 

take a stab at it and then D'Angelo, if you want to fill 

in? Okay. Alright, alright. So there are other TRIO 

programs. McNair and Student Support Services. Those are 

at the collegiate or postsecondary level. The 

Department's rationale for the expansion of eligibility 

in the pre-postsecondary programs is based on the 1982

Plyler vs Doe decision that made it possible for 

undocumented children to enroll in Texas public schools. 

In that decision, the Supreme Court held that states 

cannot deprive children from a basic education. And we 

interpret that decision in context of the TRIO grant 

programs to mean that an otherwise eligible applicant 

cannot be deprived from participation in prepostsecondary TRIO programs. So we believe that by 

denying children this form of basic education, you're 

denying students the ability to contribute to the 

progress of our nation. And because there's an 

overlapping purpose of the TRIO programs to support 

students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds and 

prepare them for a program of postsecondary education, we 

believe that expanding the TRIO grant programs to provide 

additional support for students to achieve this most 

basic level of education will further the statutory 
21

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

purpose of the programs. So while the primary focus of 

the TRIO remains postsecondary achievement, that is 

impossible to address without ensuring that all students, 

regardless of citizenship status can overcome a lifetime 

hardship that would be imposed by the lack of a high 

school degree. So, Jamie, you see I was very prepared for 

your question. I hope I was able to answer it 

sufficiently. Was I and then I can go on to the next 

part?

MS. STUDLEY: Yeah. No, that's very 

helpful. I was just trying to understand, you know, what 

the basis was for that line drawing. That was brilliant, 

Aaron. Thank you.

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, yeah. Thank you 

very much. And you see, I was prepared. So it wasn't off 

the top of my head.

MS. STUDLEY: You had me fooled for a 

while.

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh did I? Sometimes I 

try to read stuff like with a little personality so it 

doesn't sound like I'm like, I am going like, alright. 

And the second question. You know, we knew we anticipated 

and we actually talked during the subcommittee like that 

other topics outside of program participant eligibility 

would come up. We thought first we had limited time. You 
22

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

know, there's other topics that the main committee needs 

to discuss. And we really wanted- and we announced in the 

Federal Register that we would focus on program 

participant eligibility. We did say that, you know, we're 

there are areas that, you know, maybe the community needs 

more guidance or resources we could, you know, try and 

provide the TRIO grantees with just more information on 

the current requirements. But for things like, you know, 

expanding stipends, those are- that's statutory or 

changing the definition of low-income individual, that's 

statutory. And, you know, allowable cost. A lot of those 

are outlined in the statute as well. And we felt as 

though that was outside of the scope of kind of what we 

were talking about and what we announced to the public 

specifically on program participant eligibility. So I 

hope that answered that question.

MS. STUDLEY: Yes. Maybe I 

misunderstood the initial presentation. I thought that it 

was including a recommendation about broadening allowable 

costs. Maybe that was in the- maybe the presenter was 

saying that that was outside your scope. That's fine, I 

appreciate it, Aaron. Thank you.

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah. We talked about 

a lot of these things, Jamie, during the subcommittee and 

we really wanted to focus on program participant 
23

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

eligibility. I think, D'Angelo, correct me if I'm wrong, 

I think those- you were talking about things that you 

would like to see changed, but understanding that, you 

know, those were generally outside of the scope of what 

we were brought here to talk about.

MR. SANDS: Exactly. Correct.

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay.

MS. K. SMITH: Alright. So we do have 

a question in the chat. I'll get to Jillian and then 

we'll address the question in the chat. Jillian?

MS. KLEIN: Yeah, thanks. Good 

morning. I just have one sort of annoying wording 

question. Apologies. So I see in the existing language 

that you all haven't touched, there are some places where 

the phrase expresses a desire to enroll as included. But 

then I noticed in the proposed red line you use the 

phrase seeks to enroll. And I'm just curious if there's a 

reason why the language approach is different. I don't 

really know what that means. I'm assuming the 

practitioners here know how they would document, or what 

it means to seek to enroll versus express a desire to 

enroll, but I don't know if there would be an advantage 

to using consistent language throughout.

MR. WASHINGTON: Vanessa. Can you?

MS. KLEIN: Sorry.
24

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

MR. WASHINGTON: No. It's okay. Can 

you pull the language back up just so I can?

MS. KLEIN: It's on page three. So 

three right at the break towards the bottom. It saysthere's a section which. Oops, sorry. Scroll back up. 

Yeah. So three on here. The existing language talks about 

expressing a desire to enroll. But then I see in the 

proposed red lines from the subcommittee that sort of 

phrase consistently is, seeks to enroll. And I just don't 

know if there is an advantage in building consistency 

throughout this section.

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh okay. So that 

provision looks like it's about postsecondary education. 

I think we're talking about yeah. Oh so you're just 

saying that you want that language to change to.

MS. KLEIN: I'm not- I'm just asking 

the question about if there's a reason why that like, 

that approach wasn't used in the language that you all 

proposed. Or if there's something different suggested by 

the phrase seeks to enroll.

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright, alright. So 

by seeks to enroll, we mean that if you're enrolled in a 

form of public education that would naturally lead to a 

progression of high school, like grades 6, 7 or 8, or 

you've dropped out of high school and are reenrolling, 
25

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

the Department would assume that you are meeting the 

requirements of seeking to enroll in high school. I mean, 

I think you know what we can also do if you're okay with 

it, Gillian is, you know, try like just making a- stating 

on record that we will explain, like, what this means, 

what seeks to enroll for the purposes of secondary 

education means and also you know, that is a preexisting 

language that expresses a desire to enroll. I don't think 

that we took that into consideration that there was a 

difference at all. But we did have an idea or a path 

forward on what seeks to enrollment and that can be 

thoroughly explained in the preamble of the rule. So is 

that a deal breaker?

MS. KLEIN: No, it's not a deal 

breaker at all. I was just raising the question because I 

didn't know from a practitioner perspective if there were 

different expectations between those two phrases.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay, there is a 

question. Is America Samoa meant to be included? I think 

in the language it lists a number of.

MR. WASHINGTON: Give me a second. Can 

you pull the language back up, Vanessa? Okay, so can you 

pull that language back up, Vanessa? One more time. Joe. 

Sorry, Joe. So the first line says is a citizen or 

national of the United States. So you'll see there. So 
26

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

essentially individuals from American Samoa are nationals 

of the United States. So, you know, they would already 

have been eligible to participate in TRIO regardless of 

this change. Whoever asked that question, did I answer 

your question?

MR. ANDERSON: Yes. This is Rob 

Anderson. I was- my Western colleagues followed this 

closely, so I was asking on their behalf, and they just 

want to make sure that that is the intent there. And I 

think the observation about [inaudible], I think it might 

have been changed in one spot in the language, but not in 

another. So just making sure that it's shown as being a 

freely associated state.

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah. I, you know, we 

got some, you know,- I was notified that, you know, some 

of the language and like some of the preexisting 

language, you know, I think this language was written a 

long time ago. And like the freely associated states are 

ratifying the Compact of Free Association. So some of 

those things might have changed. We have contacts at the 

Department of Homeland Security. So those would be 

considered. I mean, so if there's anything that needs to 

change in the preexisting language, we will make sure to 

update that before publishing a final rule, just to make 

sure we get it right. But, you know, the main idea here 
27

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

is that we're- I mean, you can all talk about whatever 

you want, but the main idea is to focus on the idea that 

individuals that don't meet the citizenship or noncitizen requirements can still participate if they enroll 

or seek to enroll in a high school in the United States. 

So a lot of you will be familiar with the, you know, the 

TRIO program participant eligibility for citizenship 

requirements mirror that of Title IV aid requirements. So 

a lot of the schools you all be familiar with this. So 

you know, if you're a U.S. citizen, again, a national or 

you're from a freely associated state, or you are 

designated as an eligible non-citizen, we generally use 

the ID PRWORA. It's a law that defines who is a qualified 

alien. That is a statutory term to receive Federal public 

benefits. And that's outlined in statute. So we're not 

changing the citizen or non-citizen current requirements. 

It's just that we're expanding them out so you wouldn't 

have to worry about somebody from a freely associated 

state or like somebody from American Samoa or Guam or 

Puerto Rico or, you know, any territory not being 

eligible based on this language.

MR. ANDERSON: Thanks for all your 

work on this and everyone else who's involved. It's good.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay, so we have 

reviewed the proposed language from the Department and 
28

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

heard the report out from the TRIO subcommittee. Are 

there any comments? I believe what's our pleasure? Are we 

ready for a consensus? Okay.

MR. MARTIN: We are if there are no 

more comments.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay. Seeing no 

comments. And I'll just for the record Magin is at the 

table for the civil rights consumers for this, and Emmett 

Blaney is as well for the students and borrowers. If we 

can, we'll go according to my screen. Yes, Cindy?

MS. JEFFRIES: Krystil, I think you 

mentioned two alternates at the table.

MS. K. SMITH: Yes.

MS. JEFFRIES: Are there primaries 

present?

MS. K. SMITH: No.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. They're not in 

the meeting at all?

MS. K. SMITH: Well, Magin is at the 

table. Let me see, is your primary here Magin?

MR. SANCHEZ: Yes. Carolyn's here, but 

I'll be at the table for the vote.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, but per the 

protocols, it's only the primary that can cast the 

consensus indicator. So Carolyn would need to come to the 
29

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

table to cast that, as well as any other primary that is 

present.

MS. K. SMITH: Alright. The primary 

for student borrowers is not here.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, so in that case, 

the alternate can serve in their place.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay. Thank you. 

Alright. We are good now. And we'll go- I'll go screen by 

screen, starting with JoEllen for the consensus check. 

Alright, that's a thumbs up. Jamie. Thumbs up. Erika. 

Thumbs up. Laura. Thumbs up. Thank you. Robyn. Thumbs up. 

Carolyn. Thumbs up. Jason. Thumbs up. Joe Weglarz. Thumbs 

up. Thank you. Oh, and Jo Blondin as well. Thumbs up. 

Diana. Thumbs up. Thank you. DC. DC? Can we get your 

consensus vote here? Sideways. Thank you. Jillian. Thumbs 

up. John Ware. Thumbs up. Thank you. Barmak. Thumbs up.

Emmett. Thumbs up. Okay. And, Greg. Thumbs up. Okay. 

Thank you. And the TRIO. Thank you again. That language 

has passed. I do and if you don't mind, I will reference 

the other three people. If you all don't mind, I would 

like to read their names. There was lots of work done 

here. So in addition to Aaron as the lead of the 

subcommittee, there was D'Angelo Sands, Michael Meotti, 

Emalyn Lapus, Wade Williams, and Geof Garner. We want to 

thank all of them for their help on the TRIO 
30

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

subcommittee. At this time, if we're ready, Greg, we can 

move over to where we left off with state authorization. 

I know that we had a hand-up from Scott Dolan. I don't 

know. Do we want- can we go straight into that hand? Are 

there any comments you want to make before we move on to 

that?

MR. MARTIN: The Department like to 

take a 15-minute caucus with itself, please, before we 

start state authorization.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay, so 15 minutes 

with the Department. Thank you. Welcome back. So we are 

ready. Was there anything that the Department wanted to 

report out or anything or are we ready to go straight 

into state authorization?

MR. MARTIN: I think we're ready to go 

straight in. I do want to say before we start with state 

authorization, there was some suggestion yesterday about 

how we proceed or some comments about how we proceed 

through the papers. Yesterday we did look at state auth 

more in a holistic way before we entered into the 

discussion. I understand that there is a desire on the 

part of many to go through each- to go through the papers 

section by section. I do think that one of the reasons 

why we took that approach we did yesterday with state 

auth is it is more of a holistic- it does require a 
31

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

little more of a holistic view. What we're doing with 

state auth, I think certainly with cash management lends 

us up a lot more to a section-by-section discussion. But 

since that's what's been requested, I will go back and 

we'll start with looking at the reg section by section 

again. And I think at this time since we are in the final 

stages of negotiation and I just heard some comments. I 

think I would reiterate those that we should be looking 

at it at this point, what our like- where do people stand 

final, you know, what would it take to move anybody 

toward consensus, to try to get some context around that 

as we move through. So we will go through the document 

that way. As far as the votes on consensus go, we did 

have some requests to look at how we're taking consensus. 

Currently, we're doing it after each section. Yesterday 

we did agree to move distance education to Thursday 

because there were going to be some, we expect, some 

further submissions from the negotiators. Again, we did 

discuss whether or not we could move everything, the 

votes all to Thursday, and we could do that, but our 

concerns with that are that if we move all the votes 

until after we're through with the entire- with all the 

issue papers that would take us until after 

accreditation. We're concerned about the time frame and 

compressing all those votes into a short period of time. 
32

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

And there would not be an opportunity at that point for 

people to go back and revisit anything or have 

discussions. So we still believe that the best approach 

is to walk through the papers and take the consensus vote 

after each paper. So that is the way we'll proceed. And 

I'll have Joe pull up the text for state authorization.

MS. K. SMITH: Yes. And while he's 

doing that we do have Rob Anderson coming back to the 

table for state officials. And Scott Dolan is coming in 

for the private nonprofits. Scott also had a question 

from yesterday. We would like to have him ask his 

question at this point, at this time. Oh, you're on mute.

MR. DOLAN: Actually, I think there 

were two questions at the end of the day yesterday. One 

from Rob that probably wasn't addressed because of the 

short time. And I actually am one of the negotiators that 

would like to hear a response to that particular 

question. So I don't know if Rob could potentially 

restate that. And then, you know, the question I have is 

a bit more holistic. So, you know, I think it's 

worthwhile asking it, but I'm also very supportive of the 

direction of moving through section by section a little 

bit more intentionally. So is it okay if maybe Rob 

restates his question?

MR. MARTIN: I'm fine with that.
33

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

MR. ANDERSON: Thanks, everyone, I 

appreciate it. It was just that scenario around DEI state 

laws that I think we're going to start to get into with 

very specific instructions in varying directions based on 

the politics taking shape in states. So if you have that 

student from a particular state where they want to put 

limits on what a teacher can or cannot say and it's 

antithetical to the direction of the state that they're 

going into and it's one of these distant ed classes and 

we're in a situation where the state can enforce their 

own state laws. How does that play out, then, when they 

directly oppose each other in that manner?

MR. MARTIN: I can't address it if I'm 

on mute and that's a bit of an issue. So we did discuss 

that and I think inasmuch as the DEI laws or any state 

laws or state matters, the Department doesn't believe 

it's in a position to, you know, opine about those rules. 

I think there's always- we would concede that there's 

always the possibility that not just with DEI, but with 

any state laws, that there could be a conflict from state 

to state. With respect to DEI, from our research, it 

appears most of those rules are applicable to public 

institutions. So we don't perceive that it would be a big 

problem. Where state rules do come into conflict, it 

ultimately would be the decision of institutions whether 
34

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

to do business and whether they could operate in a state 

where there was a conflict, how they would resolve the 

conflict from one state to another. But I don't think I 

can say much more about DEI, you know, rules 

specifically. There obviously is the possibility that, as 

I said before, any state rule, including DEI, any rule 

might be different from state to state.

MS. K. SMITH: Alright. Thank you, 

Greg. And I just want to, Barmak, if you don't mind. I 

think Scott did you ask your question?

MR. DOLAN: No, I didn't.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay. So Barmak we'll 

take Scott and then you'll be up, Barmak. Scott?

MR. DOLAN: Yeah. And there was a 

really good conversation that wasn't part of the 

recording where we were talking about the intent of 

negotiations. And, you know, given that time is short, 

you know, the importance of being able to recommend 

proposed language that can get us closer to a middle 

ground and a compromise across constituents. And I think 

one of the challenges that, you know, I've had and I 

think others have had is that each session the language 

that we're presented gets farther away from where we

started. Right? And as part of the data request that we 

put in in February, we asked the Department to define 
35

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

education specific, you know, to provide data, evidence, 

research of how, you know, introducing new language would 

increase student protections. And, you know, since 

February to now we've gone from education specific to all 

applicable laws without a really good definition of how 

this change would potentially increase student 

protections, data, evidence, and specifics about why this 

is important. What we heard very clearly from our state 

representatives yesterday that this is fundamentally 

going to undermine the work that they've done 

legislatively to enter into these reciprocity agreements. 

So, you know, I think it's incumbent upon all of us to be 

clear about what it is we're trying to do and what 

problems we're trying to solve and to define those 

problems a bit more clearly so we can have a good faith 

negotiation. We can disagree. But I think we all agree 

that we're trying to come to protections for students. So 

what are those things that are not clearly codified 

within the current reciprocity agreements that all of us 

would like to see more clearly codified? I heard the 

Department say a bit about certifications around closure. 

Are those the elements that will help us get a little bit 

farther? Can we have a conversation about those rather 

than getting farther and farther away from where we 

started? And I just remind the Department, we started 
36

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

this conversation in January around complaints and 

governance. And now we are talking about applying all 

state laws to institutions. And again from most people at 

this table, if not all we see this as a fundamental 

negation of what states have done legislatively to try to 

protect students at better rates. So I think we need to 

hear more evidence of the concerns and how this proposal 

around all applicable laws will actually serve students 

better than the current reciprocity agreements.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you, Scott. 

Barmak?

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yeah. I want to 

address Rob's point. I think it's an important one. 

Candidly, I'm a little confused because, Rob, you're also 

the same person who constantly and rightly has reminded 

us of the state's prerogative not being trampled on by 

any kind of a Federal preemption. So it's, you know, you 

kind of can't, sadly for us, maybe we could all come to a 

consensus as to which state policies we should prevent. 

But it's kind of hard to do that. And we don't want to do 

that. But the response, the substantive response I want 

to give you is that DEI as an academic proposition, you 

know, the study of the causes of the Civil War, for 

example, should be the prerogative of accreditors, not 

that of the states. The states should not get into the 
37

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

business of articulating what is and is not substantively 

true about a particular discipline. And therefore I think 

you're concerned about, you know, the state coming in and 

essentially micromanaging the curriculum is handled by 

that. I don't think they have the right to do that. They 

certainly can use the power of the purse within the 

state, and as some have, to micromanage the practices of 

their public institutions. But I really don't know that 

there is any- that they have a leg to stand on with 

regard to the substance of the academic offerings of 

programs from out of state. So I see that as not that big 

a concern, candidly.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you, Barmak. 

Denise is going to weigh in on this.

MS. MORELLI: Alright. I just wanted 

to make a note. Scott, I think- we had put a- I think one 

of the negotiators had put the proposal forward, and I'm 

not sure who it was about education-specific laws. And so 

we put that out as a kind of a directed question as to 

get input on what would be appropriate as educationspecific laws. And we did not, I believe, get anything in

that area. So I think that's why we moved over to the 

broader applicable laws so that the state itself would be 

able to determine what laws they want to apply in the 

situations, and so that it would allow those states to 
38

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

apply them. So that's kind of how we moved from what you 

consider broader, was because we didn't get the input 

that we felt we needed on what education-specific laws we 

should be addressing in the regulations.

MR. DOLAN: Like, can I, I'm not 

technically, can I respond?

MS. MORELLI: I mean, go ahead. I just 

wanted to let you know why. Because why it went from 

applicable. I think you made that comment between 

education-specific to applicable which made it appear 

broader. And I think that was trying to encompass more 

because we didn't get any of the specifics that we asked 

for in terms of education-specific law, and I'm not sure 

who proposed it. So whoever the proposal came from, they 

might want to be able to address that now. But we didn't 

get anything from our directed questions.

MR. DOLAN: I guess for those states 

that have concerns about how the reciprocity is working 

right now. What prevents them from making the voluntary 

decision to remove themselves from reciprocity? You know, 

if we take Massachusetts as an example, I think 

reciprocity works really well for some of the large 

online providers in Massachusetts at the institutional 

level. Yet maybe the state wants a different approach 

around students who are being served by institutions 
39

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

outside of that state. So I guess which states, right? 

And if those states have concerns, they can make a 

decision legislatively voluntarily to remove themselves 

and to handle issues within their boundaries differently. 

And again, the shift from education-specific to the more 

broad language does not have a clear justification in 

terms of evidence, research, and how this will protect 

students better across the board. So that's the concern 

that I think we're raising that I don't think has been 

responded to in terms of the data requests from the last 

session.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you. Diana?

MS. HOOLEY: Thank you. I want to lend 

our support for the Department's approach here to include 

this language about the applicable laws. One of the 

things- one of the reasons in support of this that I had 

mentioned, I believe, in the last session was, to try to 

enumerate these consumer protection laws. One, it's 

arguably a bit of a burden shift, right? Because the 

initial intent of the reciprocation reciprocity 

agreements is merely to, you know, was to waive the 

initial approval, the initial authorization. And so 

that's sort of what I think we should just be focused on 

is saying like, well, that's what those are supposed to 

do. They're supposed to waive that. And the other point 
40

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

is that with the trying to enumerate all the consumer 

protection is, you know, this is an evolving landscape. 

And so if we start trying to enumerate each one of those 

right now, we're just going to constantly be trying to 

play catch up. So I wanted to make that point. And to say 

that as well, numerous states have raised issues with the 

consumer protection standards or the lack thereof with 

the reciprocity agreements. There was bipartisan support 

of letters that have been sent to again, NC-SARA, just 

because it is the only one right now looking for 

increased consumer protections. And they haven't beenthose needs haven't been met. And so if it's going to 

continue to be not met, then the states need to be able 

to enforce their own applicable laws. You know, again, in 

Massachusetts, we have these- we have specific regulation 

disclosures that again pertain to for-profit schools. 

That's just one example. But I just wanted to make that 

point, so thank you.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you, Diana. 

Carolyn?

MS. FAST: So just wanted to add 

support for the Department's current proposal related to 

letting states enforce all applicable laws. One of the 

reasons that that works even better than education 

specific here. I, you know, I agree with Diana that it 
41

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

makes it, you know, it appropriately puts a burden on an 

institution that's operating to figure out what laws 

apply. That's a normal, reasonable expectation for any 

school that wants to take advantage of enrolling students 

in a particular space, they make a decision to, you know, 

get the tuition dollars of those students and those 

students invest their money and Federal money in the 

program. It seems a pretty reasonable requirement that 

they follow state laws. And those laws if you say 

education specific that's helpful because that means, you 

know, whatever laws the state has, the regulation that 

the state feels are appropriate to protect students, but 

all applicable is, in my view, better because there could 

be laws, for example, related to debt collection or you 

know, whatever that might fall in some other section of 

law, for example, that could apply, for example. So when 

you say all applicable, that puts the control in the 

state legislature who writes the laws and decides where 

they apply. So they might state might decide that they 

are writing a law about closure requirements that apply 

to all online schools that operate in their board, in 

their jurisdictions, or they might say it doesn't apply 

to all and that is possible under this language to do. 

It's increasing the choices from the situation now where 

a state that wants to be part of reciprocity is told you 
42

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

can't; you just cannot apply these laws unless it happens 

to fall in the part of your laws that apply across the 

board to any business that operates in your state. So 

that's the distinction. And I think that it makes, in my 

view, makes a lot of sense. And it's a reasonable 

expectation for a school that wants to take advantage of 

enrolling students in various states, that they look at 

what the rules are in those states and that they follow 

them. It's that's what happens in every other industry. 

And it makes sense as a minimal requirement that a school 

look into what laws apply.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you. And Erika 

Linden will be coming back to the table for the private 

nonprofits. Rob?

MR. ANDERSON: Thanks. And I'll make 

this very quick. But, you know, it feels a bit like 

Groundhog Day, and it is that Dave Mason song that we do 

disagree because nothing stops states from applying their 

laws. There in a reciprocity agreement and these are 

terms that have been agreed to leave the agreement, apply 

them any way that you want to moving forward. That is 

always on the table. And when you talk about in terms of 

states choosing which ones they might apply and which 

ones they won't, I mean, you get whipsawed with all the 

different education-specific regulations that could be 
43

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

applied out there in any given state, even to very 

specific outcomes that are expected, and having 

regulators who already have burdensome loads to have to 

pick up this and to try to deal with this on a national 

front with limited resources. There's been some limited 

talk about, yeah, let's get more money into their hands 

so that states can really monitor this, but there's no 

real proposal on the table about how to do that and what 

that looks like. It's going to leave states underfunded, 

under-resourced, overwhelmed with what's in front of 

them. Students aren't going to be served well through 

this. I know that people argue on the counter and feel 

that they will. That's not how it's going to play out. 

You're going to have so many small players in the game 

who are going to bail out on this because they can't 

afford it. Distance education opportunities won't exist 

for their students, and this is a part of the fabric of 

our education process moving forward and we need to be 

willing to work to recognize that and to work within it 

and to strengthen it the best we can. But this is going 

to blow up the whole process. We're going to be back to 

ground zero. And when you think of those 21 states that 

don't have any regulations on these fronts, good luck to 

those students and good luck to those environments. 

That's all I'm saying. I'll have comments about specific 
44

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

language, but man, this is one of those be careful what 

you ask for.

MS. K. SMITH: Alright. We'll take 

Jamie and then Carolyn, and then I think we'll have to go 

on to our next topic. Jamie?

MS. STUDLEY: Since we're still on the 

broad issues, one of the things that's at play here and 

that I know I'm trying to balance is we're talking a lot 

about respecting state authority to make state decisions. 

And yet there are other places in which acknowledging 

that the Federal Government has a role to define what 

meets state authorization for Federal purposes. We're not 

going to have perfect consistency. But I would ask us to 

think about where we should be allowing the states to 

make their own decisions. So just, you know, take, you 

know, Carolyn's strong point about states should be able 

to decide what laws should apply. They should also be 

able to decide what qualifies as state authorization for 

them and on what basis they want to decide what should be 

authorized by a state. And also whether there is a scale 

issue, whether they want a reciprocity arrangement that 

covers a large number of the institutions who might beam 

to their state, or whether for them it should be only for 

a certain scale or type of institution. But once, having 

made that principle that states should be able to make a 
45

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

decision about what's useful to them, as long as it fits 

the Federal state authorization definition. I think we're 

pulling and tugging and we're trying to figure out where 

those apply. I think we, you know, I, for one, find the 

question about applying applicable state laws difficult 

because I realized it's not just whether it's a high bar 

or a low bar. It's and we'll come back to this when we 

decide it specifically, it's different laws. It's the 

confusion of different answers to the same practical 

requirement. But to conclude, I simply want to ask if 

we're going to honor state decisions, shouldn't we do 

that in more of the decisions that they have made in how 

to set up a reciprocity arrangement that works for the 

states, and then let each state decide whether it wants 

to play in that arrangement or not, create others, or 

stay out and handle it all themselves.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you, Jamie. 

Carolyn, your hand is no longer up. Okay. Thank you. 

Jillian?

MS. KLEIN: Yeah, I guess I don't know 

the function of the chat. I put my question in the chat. 

Nobody answered, and I put it again. I'm just wondering 

to the back-and-forth between the Department and Scott 

about education specific, which, with all due respect, I 

think you got a lot of feedback from negotiators about 
46

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

that. But what I think I heard you say is there was no 

language proposed. So if negotiators come back this week 

and provide you with the definition on education specific 

would the Department consider that?

MR. MARTIN: If you propose language 

on that we will consider it and bring it to the table.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you. And I do 

just want to say the chat is being utilized very well, 

though, there's, you know concurrences and questions. So 

I will encourage you all to continue to do that when 

possible. We know that we have a tight schedule and we do 

want to make sure we get through everything that we have 

on our agenda. So with that being said, I think we can 

move on to our next topic, Greg. And if you can remind us 

where we left off yesterday.

MR. MARTIN: Yeah. Okay. Well, I had 

intended to walk through each section individually. So I 

think the discussion we just had, I believe was largely 

in- and I'll have Joe bring up (a)(1), please. 600.9 

(a)(1). And just scroll down there a little Joe, till we 

get to that. Right, where we talked about requires the 

institution to comply with any applicable state 

authorization or licensure requirements in all applicable 

state laws and regulations. I believe we just are 

discussing just focused on that. I do want to point out 
47

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

that yesterday we did have a request for the Department 

to disseminate the talking points that I went over 

yesterday when we introduced the session. So we have 

Department staff working on producing a document that 

will provide those talking points and our rationale for 

proposing the rule as it is. So we hope to have that done 

in reasonably short order. Next, I'd like to move on to 

(a)(3). And this says the institution may be exempted 

from requirements for initial or renewed application. And 

this has to do with the exceptions and the off-ramps. So 

before we get into a discussion here. The Department had 

received a proposal from Carolyn and Barmak on some 

modifications to this language. So if I could impose upon 

either one of those individuals or both to give us a 

brief summary of what they proposed, I would like to do 

that.

MS. FAST: Barmak, do you want to do

that or do you want me to do that?

MR. NASSIRIAN: Go ahead.

MS. FAST: Okay. Barmak, please 

correct me if I'm wrong. We had heard from other 

negotiators that there were some concerns about the 

Department's proposal to essentially prohibit, for 

purposes of state authorization, exemptions based on 

state actions through charters or through legislation or 
48

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

through the status of the school's accreditation or being 

in operation more than 20 years and that this might cause 

some concerns. And so we had suggested as a compromise, 

some potential language that would kind of fall in the 

middle of where things used to be and the Department's 

new proposal in terms of state authorization. And our 

proposed language would restore the ability of state 

action through a charter to exempt a school through a 

law, statute, or charter, or constitutional provision, 

and that establishes an institution by name. That would 

be not something that would expire in July 2030. It would 

continue as an option for states. And then we also 

suggested that the state could exempt an institution 

through state action based on the institution being in 

operation on or before the enactment of the Higher 

Education Act in 1965. This would be, instead of an 

exemption that was based on a school operating for more 

than 20 years. That would continue to be something that 

would the 20-year operation or the accreditation would 

expire in 2030. And we put this forward as a compromise 

to address some of the concerns of negotiators about 

getting rid of the exemption entirely. But we'd be happy 

to hear feedback on that.

MR. MARTIN: We would be interested in 

hearing any comments on that proposal.
49

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

MS. K. SMITH: Jamie?

MS. STUDLEY: I'll start with a 

specific one. It's been pointed out that the year 1965 

precedes the creation of the movement of community 

colleges in the United States. And to the extent that 

this is a more efficient pathway and allows states to 

make their decisions about what review they need. The 

community colleges I've spoken to are wondering why a 

date that closes them out of this provision would work 

and whether that's a consideration here. But more 

broadly, yeah, there's a broader question that I spoke to 

earlier about letting the states make the decision about 

what they need to know about an institution to determine 

that they can authorize it.

MS. FAST: Would it be okay for me to 

respond?

MS. STUDLEY: That's up to the 

facilitator.

MR. MARTIN: Yes. Absolutely.

MS. FAST: Okay. So, Jamie, I 

appreciate that feedback and that's helpful feedback, but 

I'm wondering whether community colleges would generally 

be established by a charter or statute or constitutional 

provision in that so they would be in fact exempted under 

a state action permitted under this compromise language?
50

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

MS. STUDLEY: I don't know. I don't 

know whether charters are an older provision. It was 

raised to me as a concern by community colleges who felt 

that that might foreclose them. And I have not sorted out 

whether there's a public exemption such that that doesn't 

matter. Some junior and community and associate granting 

institutions are private. Many are public. So you would 

know better where and here that the public.

MS. FAST: Well, that seems to be a 

reasonable concern. In my view, it seems that community 

colleges would be something that should be it seems, fall 

into the category of state being able to exempt if 

through state action. So maybe that would require.

MS. STUDLEY: Right. I just don't know 

whether every community college is established by 

statute, or whether an entity is given the authority to 

expand or contract its offerings for institutions.

MS. FAST: That might require a tweak 

to the language to take into account that situation then.

MS. K. SMITH: And just for- it looks 

like in the chat, Jo, who represents community colleges, 

it sounds like it's not all of them are established by 

charter. Is that correct, Jo? Is that what you're saying 

in the chat?

MS. BLONDIN: Correct. I mean, in Ohio 
51

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

alone, there are three types of public community 

colleges. Not all of them have charters.

MS. FAST: But I assume that for those 

who don't have charters, there may have been some other 

type of legislative action to create them ordinarily. And 

correct me if I'm wrong, I might not know the answer to 

this, but the idea would be that if there was some kind 

of legislative action that would also be sufficient under 

this to create an exemption.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay. Thank you, all. 

Erika.

MS. LINDEN: Are there some schoolscommunity colleges that are created by districts by local 

communities as opposed to states? I'm not as familiar 

with that, but it seemed like, Jo, we had a conversation 

that that was also the case. So we need to make sure that 

this language and we appreciate some mitigating language 

here. But if we can refine the language to make sure that 

we're not creating a problem for some of those that are 

established differently.

MS. BLONDIN: Erika, I'm sorry to jump 

in here very quickly, but there's also there's a twotiered system as well where maybe globally they were 

created by state, founded by district. There could be a 

Byzantine unraveling of some of these laws. I appreciate 
52

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

everybody wanting to understand them very much. And I 

have a request in to AACC to fully answer your question. 

Hopefully, I'll have something by after lunch. Thank you.

MS. K. SMITH: Alright. Thank you. And 

thank you for all those that are coming up with some 

answers and comments in the chat. Erika, did that 

complete your question?

MS. LINDEN: Well, I did have another 

request to consider between in this revised language, 

which we appreciate, the putting an “and” between the 

charter and the exemption piece. So it would be between 

romanette (i) and (ii). I think I'm saying that right. 

There, instead of an or. Again, it's a drafting thing. We 

appreciate the idea and just want to make sure the 

language accomplishes the idea of providing for those 

exemptions.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay. Thank you, Erika. 

Barmak?

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yeah. One comment and 

then a response to Erika's particular point. Folks, this 

was not an attempt at further limiting authorization. 

This was an attempt to address the concerns that have 

legitimate concerns that have been raised, particularly 

by the private nonprofit sector, about the elimination of 

existing rules. So we think this is a fairly reasonable 
53

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

approach. I think the concern about community college 

status is a legitimate one, and we can address it, I'm 

confident. Particularly if Jo gets some guidance from 

AACC or we do our own, or the Department itself can 

figure it out. I think in general, the control of the 

institution being public strongly implies authorization. 

It's very unlikely that a Governmental entity would fund 

an entity and then not authorize it to operate. So we can 

address that. The question of and or I, you know, my 

worry there is that if you put an and between romanette 

(i) and (ii), you're now requiring two.

MS. K. SMITH: I think she corrected 

it to or, correct?

MS. BLONDIN: I'm sorry, I meant or. 

So sorry.

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yeah, that's fine. You 

know, the or is sort of implied, you know, at the end of 

romanette (iii), you know, you're like enumerating (i), 

(ii), (iii) or (iv). But if you think you want to have 

ors between each provision, that's okay. That's fine. 

Just to clarify that it's not a conjunction. It's just, 

if you satisfy any one of these things, you should be 

okay.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you. Jamie?

MS. STUDLEY: I'm going to tackle 
54

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

romanette, I guess it's (iii) at this point. The 

principle is when the state should be able to decide when 

it has the information it needs to know whether it's 

prepared to authorize the institution within the state. 

And it seems to me that we should respect their decisions 

as much as possible in that balance. But I do think there 

are two different pieces of that with different salience. 

If we're going to tell states what to do, it would be- I 

would see more basis for saying an institution being in 

operation for at least 20 years is looking at an act that 

happened 20 years ago and not at the current situation of 

the institution. So I can see that that basis may be one 

that would be on a spectrum more reasonable to have 

expire and let the state make sure that it has a more 

current basis for its authorization. But accreditation is 

a current analysis. And while we will debate 

accreditation issues later, given the system that we have 

within the triad, it seems reasonable for a state to be 

able to make its determination whether it's not requiring 

a state to exempt, it's allowing the state to make an 

exemption for accredited institutions. And the state 

should be able to judge whether it meets their criteria, 

whether it's only partial and they want other things in 

addition, or they want to go a whole other direction to 

determine whether they should authorize. But taking apart 
55

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

the legs of the stool for this purpose is an unreasonable 

intrusion on the state's ability to make that decision. 

Yeah, I'll stop there.

MS. K. SMITH: Alright. Thank you. 

Barmak, did you have anything new to add?

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yeah, I actually havesome concern has been expressed about romanette (ii). But 

I want to quickly address Jamie's point. We are not 

attempting to circumscribe the state's right to decide 

for itself what institutions it wants to authorize for 

its purposes. Federal law, however, relies on a triad 

that should not become a dyad or a monad. The three legs 

of the triad are in Federal statute, and for a state to 

choose to essentially collapse its function onto

accreditors, really sort of undoes the design of the 

Title IV program, which is why we would like to keep this 

prohibition with a timeout, with a sunset period, to 

allow for an orderly transition. That's just, you know, 

we may disagree philosophically on which one of us is 

knocking a leg from under the triad, but I think 

collapsing state authorization onto accreditation is, in 

fact, knocking a leg out from under the triad. I wanted 

to add another comment on romanette (ii). Again, this is 

a concern expressed to me by some nonprofit private 

nonprofits. And that is that the state action- the use of 
56

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

the word based on. In other words, we don't think it's 

necessary for the state to literally say, because you 

were founded prior to date X, you're exempt. The state 

may have enacted something in 1972 that said, any state, 

any institution, any private institution that has been in 

existence for ten years is deemed authorized. That puts 

the date of founding to 1962. 1962 is before 1965, ergo, 

that should suffice. So it's the use of that word based 

has concerned some private institutions that somehow the 

state has to specifically cite the enactment of the 

Higher Ed Act. That's not the intent. The intent is if 

some state action exempts the institution and the 

institution has been in existence since 1965, that that 

should suffice. So you know that causality, that implied 

causality, need not be explicit in the state action as 

long as the institution was founded prior to 1965, we 

think that that's a path for that institution if the 

state chooses to give it to them. Thank you.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you, Barmak. 

Jamie, did you have a response or something else new as 

well?

MS. STUDLEY: Quickly. I think the 

answer to the balance there, just quote back, Barmak's 

right. It's the state's right to decide what it wants to 

use for authorization. My new item relates to romanette 
57

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

(iv), and when there's a change in ownership this 

provision would have I think this is the Department's 

provision not a new one, but looking at this, it speaks 

about initial approval for state authorization and must 

initially receive approval from the state in which it's 

physically located or legally authorized to provide. What 

I wonder is, does this mean that after the initial 

approval, such an institution, having gone through that 

change, could participate through a reciprocity 

arrangement? Or is this foreclosing them from ever doing 

that? I just want to understand what the mechanics of 

this are in the Department's view.

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, but on this section 

here, dealing with the exceptions, is not about 

reciprocity. It's simply about state authorization. I'm 

not sureMS. STUDLEY: Yeah, and that's what 

I'm trying to clarify. If once having done it and gotten 

the state authorization, is there anything- is that the 

end and now they can do what any, you know, operating in.

MR. MARTIN: Yes, they'd be able to. 

Yes. I'm sorry. Yes.

MS. STUDLEY: Okay. Got it.

MR. MARTIN: Oh, I just got that 

confirmed. Yes. So. Yes. I'm sorry. I wasn't quite 
58

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

understanding what you said, but I see where you're going 

now. Yes, correct.

MS. STUDLEY: We're on the same page. 

Thanks.

MS. K. SMITH: Alright, Greg, I think 

no hands at the moment. We can move forward.

MR. MARTIN: Okay, before we do that. 

I'd like to just put up- let's just Joe, put up that 

proposal that we received. And let's put back up the 

original language what we proposed in this paper, just so 

we have a starting point to go from when we look at that 

again so they can compare what was proposed. You can see 

here that we had the off-ramps here for [inaudible] I 

won't call it an off-ramp, but the expiration, the road 

to expiration here for- in romanette 1 and also in 

romanette (ii). So the Department is amenable to the 

proposal that was made we also amenable to something that 

would take into consideration the issue of community 

colleges. So we'll take that back and look at that and 

make appropriate changes here. It seems as if there was 

general support for these changes. I would ask if anybody 

would like to make any final comments about that before 

we take that back.

MS. K. SMITH: It looks like there's a 

question in the chat about 1965. Why 1965 and not when 
59

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

reauthorized in 2008? I think that's been in the chat a 

few times.

MR. MARTIN: Well, Barmak and Carolyn 

proposed it. I think I would refer back to them as to why 

they chose 1965. I think that's a date that establishes, 

you know, a record of a number being in existence a 

number of years keyed to that, you know, keyed to the 

passage of the Higher Education Act. But I'll defer to 

either Carolyn or Barmak as to why they chose that date.

MS. K. SMITH: Scott, did you need to 

briefly clarify your question?

MR. DOLAN: No, I think we're trying 

to get around boundaries here. We don't know full answers 

around community colleges and all the stipulations there. 

The Higher Education Act has been reauthorized on a 

number of occasions, most recently in 2008. 

Unfortunately, not since then. But, you know, I think, 

you know, what's so magical about 1965 when we've 

reauthorized the act since 2008, and that's nearly three 

decades of operation. So maybe that addresses some of the 

challenges and concerns that have been raised by some. I 

don't necessarily share all of that sentiment, but maybe 

this is a middle ground here around more recent time that 

addresses most of the issues for the community colleges 

as well.
60

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

MS. K. SMITH: And I just want to say, 

for the record, Scott is in as alternate for the private 

nonprofits. Barmak?

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yeah. Look, it was not 

on the 11th tablet that broke on the way down the 

mountain. You had 20 years in law. Is that an arbitrary 

number? Sure, it's an arbitrary number. You know, what's 

sacred about 20 years? We have had multiple cycles of 

waves of fraud in the 20 years prior to the drafting of 

that regulatory provision. It seems to me that if an 

institution- and again, this is a step in the direction 

of institutions, folks, this is expanding on the waiver 

that the Department had already put on the table. And the 

idea is that if an institution was founded in antiquity, 

that it predates the enactment of the Higher Education 

Act and the opening of the spigot of Federal funding, 

that somehow it is probably safe to assume that the 

state's decision to exempt it is not an attempt at 

evasion of any kind of responsibility of oversight. That 

it has been around long enough prior to the enactment of 

this law for us to trust the state's decision to exempt 

it. That's just about the only, you know, the only 

objective date we could dig up that made any sense to us. 

Otherwise, we can pick, you know, some other number and 

then the question is, why that number or why that date?
61

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you. Jamie?

MS. STUDLEY: But if you can stand up 

for those provisions, then why have the exemption expire 

in 2030? If you can make the case for why they are 

appropriate bases for the state to allow authorization. 

It's not requiring the state to base its authorization on 

either 20 years of age or accreditation. It is permitting 

the states to take that into consideration.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you. And Erika 

Linden is back in for the private nonprofits. Okay. Greg?

MR. MARTIN: Okay. Why don't we move 

on to the next area where there are changes, which is 

(d)(3). Okay. I'm sorry. Let's just go to the top of (d). 

I'm sorry. Let's just move to the top. There we go. Okay. 

So this is if an institution is authorized to offer 

distance education to another state under state 

authorization reciprocity agreement as defined in 600.2. 

It may be exempted from initial state authorization or 

licensure requirements in that state. And you can see the 

next change we made there was allow any member state of 

the agreement to enforce its own applicable state laws 

and regulations outside of the initial approval for state 

authorization of distance education, except for 

authorization or application fees and processes. Down to 

the next change that we made was in (3). Yeah (d)(3). And 
62

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

this is if administered by an organization the Governing 

body of such organization must consist solely of 

representatives from state regulatory, we added, and 

licensing bodies, enforcement agencies and attorneys 

general offices, which was moved over from 600.2. And 

finally the addition of (4) as a condition of 

participation, the institution must obtain within one 

year, direct authorization from any participating state 

where it enrolls more than 500 students. So I'll open the 

floor for discussion on (d).

MS. K. SMITH: Rob?

MR. ANDERSON: Thank you so much. 

Regarding the language that was changed as far as the 

board goes and its composition. In the spirit of kind of 

trying to meet in the middle and compromise, we had 

suggested some language that made it known that we, as 

board members, see ourselves as stewards of this process. 

And we think the diverse points of view around that table 

really influence considered direction and strategy moving 

forward. But we do not want to veto anything that is 

agreed upon by the compact. So we submitted language that 

in essence said as much. It was accepted by the 

Department and appeared in November, but it has been 

removed for this set of language and I was wondering why 

it was removed.
63

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

MR. MARTIN: Well, I want to make sure 

I give you a full answer. Could I defer that for a 

moment, please?

MR. ANDERSON: Sure, sure.

MR. MARTIN: I want to make sure we 

get the full answer on that. Thank you.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay. Think no further.

MR. ANDERSON: Well, no. I've got 

another question, as well, if I can ask that? Regarding 

the number that was put in 500. We discussed that 

somewhat yesterday. You know, personally, I still think 

it's somewhat arbitrary. I see how it aligns with cash 

management and what was done there. In the Department's 

estimation, you know, there's been discussion of even 

going lower than that. You know, I would say if we're 

going to discuss numbers and meeting in the middle, maybe 

we should discuss a thousand, which I know has been 

mentioned by some around this table before. But would the 

Department consider going below that 500, and if so, what 

would be the basis for that decision when we talk about 

the 21 states where there are no protections in this 

regard to distance education? Why would you potentially 

do that since that has been put out there as a 

suggestion? And I'd say go in the other direction.

MR. MARTIN: Oh, I mean, the 500 is 
64

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

obviously what we settled on. I think that and there's no 

getting around the fact that any time there's any number 

ascribed to anything there is some- probably shouldn't 

use the word arbitrary, but there is some- it's decided 

upon number. I mean, I always use a lot of numbers. Now, 

you know, why is 18 the age of majority? Is 21 the 

drinking age? I mean, not, you know, not 20 in 6 months? 

I think that we had to arrive at a number that we thought 

was a reasonable number. We do try where we don't have 

something in the statute because Congress can be verythey can just choose anything, it's the law. They can do 

what they want. So if we have a statutory number, that's 

one thing, but we don't here. The 500, you know, we 

believe represents a substantial enrollment in the state. 

With institutions that have a substantial presence. We 

believe that they were in greater oversight, and we think 

this balances the need for burden reduction for 

institutions with the need for oversight. And those with 

larger enrollment in the state will obviously have more 

resources to do this. I can't point to, you know, why is 

it 500, not 450 when 550 obviously you believe it should 

be higher. We've had some suggestions at the table that 

it be lower. Currently, the Department is staying with 

the language of 500 at this point.

MR. ANDERSON: Okay. And I would just 
65

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

add on that in closing on this same topic, though, that 

in looking at July 1st, 2025, that would be awfully quick 

to make this type of change and all the processes 

programmatically that go into place in states and when 

the reviews take place, things of that nature. So if the 

Department does persist in moving in this direction, I 

would recommend their 2030 language that they used in 

other places and utilize that if you move forward in this 

manner.

MR. MARTIN: We are- take your point. 

We are considering the fact that yes, that is coming 

quickly and that this would require some changes. So we 

are- we will look into an off-ramp language that would 

provide for that. So. Yeah. And before I let you go, Rob, 

could you again clarify for me exactly what piece you 

said we had removed? Could you place that in the chat, 

please, if you get the opportunity to type that in? I'd 

appreciate that.

MR. ANDERSON: I would have to go back 

to last month's language, but you had accepted some 

language regarding what our board could and couldn't do. 

So what we were taking out of our hands was the ability 

to veto policy once it had been approved by the compact 

and had gone through the policy process showing that, you 

know, we wanted to meet you on that spot to where we 
66

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

didn't want to be accused of anything that was nefarious 

or in our self-interest. But we were serving our 

nonprofit board. And that section, that language appeared 

last month in the language, but it's not there this 

month. And I was just wondering why it was removed. And 

you kind of went back to the regulation.

MR. MARTIN: So the difference over 

the language from the session two to session three. Okay. 

Thank you.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay. Thank you. 

Carolyn?

MS. FAST: Yes. I have a couple of 

quick points. One is that for if this is at all useful, 

we had some serious concerns about the language that I 

think was just being referred to by Rob about a state-led

process and this was let's see six- I'm having a little 

trouble figuring out exactly what is. But it's it used to 

appear as (d)(2) romanette (i) on page five of the issue 

paper. And Rob was just asking, why did that come out? 

And I'm not sure why the Department took it out, but we 

had some concerns about that language and we were 

suggesting that that language come out. However, we think 

that just the reason we wanted to take it out is because 

we didn't think it addressed the issue sufficiently of 

delegating decision-making and oversight authority to 
67

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

non-state actors, in fact, including some who have 

potentially conflicts of interest because they're 

regulated institutions. That was our concern with that 

language that it did not address that. And we thought 

that that language should come out. But we further think 

that the language now in the proposal doesn't go quite 

far enough to address the problem that we were pointing 

to, which is the delegation of oversight duties to nonstate and potentially conflicted actors. And that is why 

we suggested the addition of another sentence that would 

essentially say that in reciprocity agreements they 

cannot delegate oversight authority and decision-making 

standards, setting authority to entities composed of nonstate regulators. And just wanted to point to that 

language that we have submitted and circulated.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you, Carolyn. 

Barmak?

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yes. Thank you. I 

wanted to first express my agreement with Rob. Rob, don't 

fall out of your chair. On his concern about 

implementation timelines. Whatever the number may be, I 

think it's really critical that institutions and the 

states be given adequate time to actually migrate to the 

new regulatory regime. States may have to enact laws. 

Institutions may have to wait with their applications in 
68

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

hand before they can be reviewed. So it's important that 

the Department create a reasonable timeline for putting 

these regulations into effect. On the question of minimum 

number, I just want to for those of you who didn't get a 

chance to necessarily look at our paper, only 17% of all 

institutions enroll more than 500 students nationally. 

Nationally, more than 500. So 83% of institutions would 

fall below the 500 threshold in terms of national 

enrollments. So if you think about averages don't help, I 

understand California is vastly more populous than 

Wyoming. But that's, you know, on average, you're looking 

at 50 students at-, you know, institutions basically 

getting ten students per state. We think a lower number 

is appropriate. We think a lower per-state number gets 

you closer to that 500 nationally number. 500 at the 

state level will basically create a situation where 

arguably 99% of institutions would get a pass. And I want 

to remind institutions that, you know, everybody kind of 

salivate at the thought of all the out-of-state students 

they're going to get through distance Ed delivery, and 

they don't think about the unfair competition they would 

face from out-of-state providers coming into their state 

on differential terms. Now, we've attempted to make sure 

that some consumer protection requirements are the same. 

If that lasts the ensuing juggernaut of lobbying that 
69

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

will inevitably happen after we leave the table. But the 

fact is that there will be a significant cost difference 

to native institutions that do not have the luxury of 

picking up and leaving, that do not have the luxury of 

infrastructure to go nationwide, and that those 

institutions, we want to make sure that the playing field 

is level for in-state versus out-of-state to the maximum 

extent practicable. And that's the reason the lower 

number at the state level makes sense. It need not be 

numerology. We defer to the Department doing some 

research and figuring out what the right number is, but 

it's probably going to be significantly below 500. Thank 

you.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you. And in the 

interest of time, Jamie will be our last comment for this 

morning session. Jamie?

MS. STUDLEY: Let me start with 

Governing bodies. The people speaking to reciprocity have 

made many changes to the existing reciprocal arrangement 

to limit the scope of the decisions it can make to assure 

that the states have the decision-making authority over 

the contours and requirements and policy issues. Given 

what is left to the authority of the governing body of a 

reciprocity organization, it seems to me that they should 

be able to determine, like any other nonprofit, what 
70

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

structure and response, how to carry out their 

responsibilities and who they need to do that. We have 

public members required in other situations. And in that 

same spirit, I can imagine that a reciprocity 

organization would want to have public representation so 

that it can surround its views and get a full picture of 

the considerations that it wants. I can anticipate that 

Barmak will say they can consult with whoever they want, 

proving that we are listening to each other and trying to 

all incorporate each other's considerations. I think it 

goes too far to tell them who they can and cannot have. 

The Federal Government can say what counts as a 

reciprocity arrangement that it will accept. But I think 

this is delving too deep into the operation when they've 

already made important protections that the states are in 

charge on the policy issues.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you, Jamie. Greg, 

did you have anything brief to say before we break?

MR. MARTIN: No, not at this time.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay. Thank you. 

Alright, so first, I did just want to congratulate you 

all. The table has reached its first item of consensus, 

so congratulations. And thanks, I know you all are 

working very hard, and we appreciate that. Just a 

reminder to those that are viewing on the public link. 
71

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

The afternoon link is different from the morning link, so 

be sure that you're grabbing the afternoon link. We look 

forward to seeing all of you in about an hour at 1:00 

p.m. Eastern. Thank you.

 
72

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

Zoom Chat Transcript

Program Integrity and Institutional Quality- Session 3, Day 2, Morning, March 5, 2024

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

From P - Carolyn Fast, Civil Rights/Consumer Organizations to Everyone:

Magin Sanchez will be joining for the TRIO discussion for Civil Rights/Consumer Advocates.

From P - Barmak Nassirian, Veterans & Military Students to Everyone:

+1 on Magin's comments

From A- Alyssa Dobson: 4 Yr. Public Institutions to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 on Magin's commen..." with ���

From P - Erika Linden - Private Nonprofit Institutions to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 on Magin's commen..." with ���

From P - JoEllen Price, Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

I agree with Jo!

From P-Robyn Smith, Legal Aid Orgs. to Everyone:

+2 on Magin’s comments.

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone:

Replying to "I agree with Jo!"

We accept every student--100% of any graduating class!

From A - Zack Goodwin (he/him), Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

Reacted to "We accept every stud..." with ���

From P - JoEllen Price, Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

Reacted to "We accept every stud..." with ���

From A. Ashlynne Haycock-Lohmann (vets) to Everyone:
73

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

Reacted to "+1 on Magin's commen..." with ���

From A - Zack Goodwin (he/him), Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

+3 on Magin's comments!

From P - Carolyn Fast, Civil Rights/Consumer Organizations to Everyone:

+4 on Magin's comments!

From P - Erika Linden - Private Nonprofit Institutions to Everyone:

+ on Magin's and other commetns

From A, Rob Anderson, State Officials to Everyone:

Just noting that the Republic of Palau is a freely associated state.

From A, Rob Anderson, State Officials to Everyone:

Is American Samoa meant to be included?

From A-David Cohen, Proprietary Institutions to Everyone:

+ on Magin's comment's. At our institution we not only welcome Dreamers, but we fill the 

financial gap left by their lack of eligibility for Title IV and Federal funding by using institutional 

funds. Supporting Dreamers and similarly situated students is not just the right thing to do, it is 

good for our nation.

From Michael Meotti | WSAC (he, him) to Everyone:

for unknown reasons, my camera has decided to take a break....

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Reacted to "+ on Magin's comment..." with ����

From P - Erika Linden - Private Nonprofit Institutions to Everyone:

Reacted to "+ on Magin's comment..." with ����

From A, Rob Anderson, State Officials to Everyone:

This is just for the record, but American Samoans are not citizens. They are nationals. This 

will need to be addressed in language, and I'm sure it will be. Thx.

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:
74

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

very much appreciated the department's willingness to continue our negotiations on 

distance ed. Think that was very good progress!

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone:

Reacted to "very much apprecia..." with ���

From P - JoEllen Price, Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

Reacted to "very much appreciate..." with ���

From P-Jamie Studley, INstitutional Accreditors to Everyone:

it is helpful when ED (and others) is able to explain why it didn't take recommendations so 

we know if we may be able to find common ground

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Institutions to Everyone:

Reacted to "it is helpful when E..." with ���

From P, Jason Lorgan, Public 4-year to Everyone:

Reacted to "it is helpful when E..." with ���

From A, Rob Anderson, State Officials to Everyone:

Reacted to "it is helpful when E..." with ���

From P- John Ware, State Regulator to Everyone:

Rob Anderson is coming back to the table for States

From P - Erika Linden - Private Nonprofit Institutions to Everyone:

Scott Dolan will be at the table for Private Nonprofits

From A, Rob Anderson, State Officials to Everyone:

Our reciprocity agreement does this.

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Reacted to "Our reciprocity agre..." with ���

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone:

Reacted to "Our reciprocity ag..." with ���
75

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Institutions to Everyone:

Denise, all due respect I think you got a lot of feedback from many negotiators that 

"education specific laws" was not a direction that folks were comfortable with, especially since it 

was a concept ED had not explored in the first session.

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Institutions to Everyone:

If negotiators come up with a definition of "education specific" this week will the 

Department consider it?

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Reacted to "If negotiators come ..." with ���

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

in what areas specifically?

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Erika will come back to the table

From P-Robyn Smith, Legal Aid Orgs. to Everyone:

+1 to Carolyn’s comments, strongly support the Department’s approach

From A, Emmett Blaney, Students/Borrowers to Everyone:

+2 to Carolyn

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Institutions to Everyone:

I'm just looking for an answer to my question above about "education specific" definition. If 

ED can answer in the chat I can put my hand down.

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

plus 1 for Jamie's comment here

From A - Zack Goodwin (he/him), Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

Reacted to "plus 1 for Jamie's c..." with �����

From P - JoEllen Price, Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

Reacted to "plus 1 for Jamie's c..." with �����
76

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

possible to keep the language up

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

HEA has been reauthorized numerous times since 1965. Why not a later date?

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone:

Yes--I brought this up yesterday, Jamie.

From P-Robyn Smith, Legal Aid Orgs. to Everyone:

If community colleges are established by charter, constitution, etc., they would be covered 

under the proposal. The 1965 date is an alternative, it does not limit this proposal. As I 

understand.

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone:

Not all of them.

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

For example, last reauthorization as 2008

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone:

It depends on state law and their districts.

From A, Michael Cioce, 2 Year Colleges to Everyone:

Nothing universal

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone:

Reacted to "Nothing universal" with ���

From A, Michael Cioce, 2 Year Colleges to Everyone:

Varies state to state

From P-Robyn Smith, Legal Aid Orgs. to Everyone:

They can also be established by statute, constitutional provision or other action issued by 

an appropriate State agency or State entity. This is in the current law and the proposal would 

maintain this language.
77

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

From Joe Weglarz (((P) NACUBO to Everyone:

Not in New York State

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone:

Some community colleges are state agencies, technically,

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone:

considered

From P - Erika Linden - Private Nonprofit Institutions to Everyone:

I'm sorry - I meant an "or"

From A-Michale McComis, Inst. Accrediting Agencies to Everyone:

If we don't know, then in it the spirit of "do no harm" we should not guess or assume. Why 

not just stick with what the Department proposed.

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Reacted to "If we don't know, th..." with ���

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Institutions to Everyone:

Sorry, just want to understand the purpose of this conversation. Does ED support the 

Barmak/Carolyn language or not? I am a bit confused about this conversation vs the Department's 

proposed redlines.

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Reacted to "Sorry, just want to ..." with ���

From A-Michale McComis, Inst. Accrediting Agencies to Everyone:

Reacted to "Sorry, just want to ..." with ���

From P, Laura Rasar King, Specialized Accreditors to Everyone:

Reacted to "Sorry, just want to ..." with ���

From P - JoEllen Price, Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

Reacted to "Sorry, just want to ..." with ���

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:
78

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

can i get back to the table? or maybe you just ask the question about 1965 versus 2008?

From P - Erika Linden - Private Nonprofit Institutions to Everyone:

Concur with Barmak's comment re: (ii)

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

why 1965?

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

not when reauthorized in 2008?

From P - Erika Linden - Private Nonprofit Institutions to Everyone:

Scott to return to table

From P-Jamie Studley, INstitutional Accreditors to Everyone:

not in support with denying states the ability to determine that accreditation meets their 

needs in regard to authorization

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone:

Replying to "not when reauthori..."

And Erie Community College (PA) was founded in 2020.

From A-Michale McComis, Inst. Accrediting Agencies to Everyone:

Reacted to "not in support with ..." with ���

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Erika will return back for private nonprofits

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone:

Reacted to "not in support wit..." with ���

From A - Zack Goodwin (he/him), Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

Reacted to "not in support with ..." with ���

From P - JoEllen Price, Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:
79

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 3/5/24

Reacted to "not in support with ..." with ���

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone:

FYI: 921 public community colleges, 36 tribal community colleges, and 69 independent 

community colleges. Will do more research on charters. Thank you.

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone:

As of 2024

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

agree with Barmak here. in the best interests of students who are being served too. Many 

of whom are active military and veterans

From P - JoEllen Price, Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

Zack Goodwin will come to the table for FA Administrators after lunch. I will return to the 

table around 2pm EST.

From P - Erika Linden - Private Nonprofit Institutions to Everyone:

+ 1 on Jamie

From P, Laura Rasar King, Specialized Accreditors to Everyone:

+1 Jamie

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Reacted to "+ 1 on Jamie" with ���