Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 1 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

INSTITUTIONAL AND PROGRAMMATIC

ELIGIBILITY COMMITTEE

SESSION 3, DAY 3, MORNING

March 16, 2022

On the 16th day of March, 2022, the following 

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

before Jamie Young, Shorthand Reporter in the state of 

New Jersey. 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 2 

1 PROCEEDINGS

2 MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. I'm Commissioner Cindy 

3 Jeffries from FMCS and I will be facilitating this morning's 

4 discussions and process. I'd like to welcome everyone back. 

5 Our esteemed negotiators, the Department, the advocate or the, 

6 now I'm losing my train of thought ,the advisers. And with 

7 that, I'd like to jump right into roll call this morning and 

8 then we'll review the agenda, and we'll get moving. So, I'm 

9 just going to go down the list here. For accrediting agencies 

10 as primary, we have Jamie Studley.

11 MS. STUDLEY: Yes. It's dawn and it's good to be with 

12 you.

13 MS. JEFFRIES: Wonderful. And alternate Dr. Laura 

14 Rasar King.

15 DR. KING: Good morning.

16 MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. For civil rights 

17 organizations and consumer advocacy organizations, we have 

18 Carolyn Fast as primary.

19 MS. FAST: Good morning.

20 MS. JEFFRIES: Morning. And Jaylon Herbin as 

21 alternate.

22 MR. HERBIN: Good morning.

23 MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. Financial aid 

24 administrators at postsecondary institutions, we have Samantha 

25 Veeder as primary.
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 3 

1 MS. VEEDER: Good morning, everybody.

2 MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. And David Peterson as 

3 the alternate.

4 MR. PETERSON: Good morning, everyone.

5 MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. Four-your public 

6 institutions of higher education, Marvin Smith as primary.

7 MR. SMITH: Good morning. 

8 MS. JEFFRIES: Morning. And Deborah Stanley as 

9 alternate.

10 MS. STANLEY: Morning.

11 MS. JEFFRIES: Morning. Legal assistance 

12 organizations that represent students and/or borrowers, 

13 primary is Johnson Tyler.

14 MR. TYLER: Morning.

15 MS. JEFFRIES: And alternate is Jessica Ranucci.

16 MS. RANUCCI: Hi, everybody.

17 MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning to both of you. Minority 

18 serving institutions, primary Dr. Beverly Hogan, who is not 

19 with us today. She will not be with us all day. And Ms. Ashley 

20 Schofield is the alternate who will be with us part of the 

21 day. Correct Ashley? Okay. Welcome. Private nonprofit 

22 institutions of higher education, Kelli Perry as primary.

23 MS. PERRY: Morning.
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 4 

1 MS. JEFFRIES: Morning. And Emmanual Guillory as 

2 alternate.

3 MR. GUILLORY: Morning, everyone.

4 MS. JEFFRIES: Morning. Proprietary institutions of 

5 higher education, primary Bradley Adams.

6 MR. ADAMS: Good morning.

7 MS. JEFFRIES: Morning. And alternate, Michael 

8 Lanouette.

9 DR. LANOUETTE: Good morning.

10 MS. JEFFRIES: Morning. State attorneys general, Adam 

11 Welle primary.

12 MR. WELLE: Good morning.

13 MS. JEFFRIES: Morning. And Yael Shavit alternate.

14 MS. SHAVIT: Good morning.

15 MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. State higher education 

16 executive officers state authorizing agencies and/or state 

17 regulators of institutions of higher education and/or loan 

18 servicers, primary Debbie Cochrane.

19 MS. COCHRANE: Good morning.

20 MS. JEFFRIES: Morning. Alternate, David Socolow.

21 MR. SOCOLOW: Good morning.
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 5 

1 MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. Students and student 

2 loan borrowers, primary Ernest Ezeugo.

3 MR. EZEUGO: Morning, everyone.

4 MS. JEFFRIES: Morning. Alternate, Carney King. 

5 Doesn't appear as Carney has joined us yet. Two-year public 

6 institutions of higher education, primary Dr. Anne Kress.

7 DR. KRESS: Good morning.

8 MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. And alternate, William 

9 Durden.

10 MR. DURDEN: Good morning.

11 MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. U.S. military service 

12 members, veterans or groups representing them, primary Travis 

13 Horr.

14 MR. HORR: Morning.

15 MS. JEFFRIES: Morning. Alternate, Barmak Nassirian.

16 MR. NASSIRIAN: Morning.

17 MS. JEFFRIES: Morning. Civil rights, primary is 

18 Amanda Martinez.

19 MS. AMANDA MARTINEZ: Morning.

20 MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. We have the two esteemed 

21 advisors, as we've had throughout the entire process, 

22 compliance auditor with experience auditing institutions that 

23 participate in the Title IV HEA programs, Mr. David 

24 McClintock.
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 6 

1 MR. MCCLINTOCK: Good morning. And it might be the 

2 last time you do it, so I appreciate you always working in the 

3 word esteemed.

4 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you. And the second 

5 advisor is labor economist or an individual with experience in 

6 policy research, accountability and/or analysis of education 

7 data, Dr. Adam Looney. Doesn't look like Adam's with this 

8 today. And, last but not least, for the Department of 

9 Education, Gregory Martin is the lead negotiator.

10 MR. MARTIN: Good morning.

11 MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. And Steve Finley is at 

12 the table for office of general counsel.

13 MR. FINLEY: Good morning.

14 MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. Did I miss anyone? Okay. 

15 Barmak Nassirian will be at the table for service members and 

16 veterans today. Are there any other substitutions that we need 

17 to announce?

18 MS. VEEDER: Yes. Dave Peterson will continue through 

19 the Gainful Employment discussion for financial aid.

20 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Samantha. Alright. 

21 So, with that, if we can just have the people who will be at 

22 the negotiating table on camera and for the rest of you, we 

23 invite you to turn your cameras off. Emmanual will be 

24 continuing for the Gainful Employment discussions as well. So, 

25 with that, our agenda today is to complete the process, 

26 including consensus on Gainful Employment and then move 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 7 

1 directly into financial responsibilities, issue paper number 

2 four, I believe it is. So, with that, I'm going to turn it 

3 over to Greg from the Department to kick us off.

4 MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Cindy, and welcome, 

5 everybody. And I want to say to all our friends in California 

6 and on the West Coast that today your weather has nothing on 

7 us here. We finally have a beautiful 70-degree day and it's 

8 perfect out. So, no better time to spend than doing negotiated 

9 rulemaking, right? So, I do have a window outside which I can 

10 look out and see, see what's going on out there. So usually, 

11 the wintertime finds me pining to be in some places like 

12 California. But when spring comes then I'm okay. So, lift the 

13 spirits. But you know, the way it is, probably in a week or 

14 two it'll be 40 degrees and there'll be snow flurries. So, I 

15 shouldn't get too used to it. So, before we before I go any 

16 further today, I wanted to finish up on a final discussion on 

17 668.13 certification procedures. And I don't believe I gave 

18 any opportunity for final comments on that particular section. 

19 So, I want to go revisit that and I'll ask Renee. I think it's 

20 Renee today. I'm not certain. To pull up the, yeah it is 

21 Renee. Thanks, Renee. To pull up 668.13. And we'll just take a 

22 look at this again. We have had discussions about it off and 

23 on throughout the paper. We were referring to it. So, this is 

24 the supplementary performance measures. And just as a review, 

25 here we have it, the negotiator suggestion is to move the 

26 supplemental performance measures to a new subsection which

27 you see here. We have left them in the GE paper for 

28 convenience and consideration since it does affect the GE 

29 rule. And so just to look through these, these are the 

30 Secretary assessments so analyze the following information, 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 8 

1 among other information prior to issuing an institution, a new 

2 program participation agreement, and may consider the 

3 information in determining whether to certify or condition the 

4 participation of an institution under 668.13 and which is this 

5 section 668.14, which is program participation agreement. So, 

6 we've already walked through most of these. But I'll just to 

7 an overview here, the withdrawal rate, the debt-to-earnings 

8 rate or earnings threshold measure, the small program rate, 

9 educational spending, job placement rate and licensure pass 

10 rate. These are just all things the Department can consider in 

11 either certifying or recertifying an institution. So, I think 

12 we have already had a lot of discussion about this. I'll ask 

13 people not to be too redundant of what we've talked about 

14 before, but what I do want to make certain that we've provided 

15 an opportunity for discussion about each section. So, sticking 

16 with that, I'll open it up now.

17 MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Greg. Emmanual.

18 MR. GUILLORY: So, I want to clarify that this 

19 section is applying to all institutions of higher education, 

20 not just this since it is not GE specific. That it's all 

21 institutions of higher education. And with that clarification, 

22 with the debt-to-earnings rates, the earnings threshold 

23 measures, if in the nonprofit sector, the 18 institutions or 

24 the 18 programs from the data that we received yesterday that 

25 failed at those, and I don't know if I have to go back and see 

26 how many institutions that actually was, but at those 

27 institutions, would that then mean that those institutions as 

28 a whole can have their PPAs not be recertified or be put on 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 9 

1 provisional status because of failing programs on their 

2 campuses? Is that accurate?

3 MR. MARTIN: Partially. Your statement about this 

4 applies to all institutions, not just GE programs. That is 

5 correct. This is again, not in subpart Q this is from 668.13. 

6 It's just included here because there are some references to 

7 what's in subpart Q. Specifically with the debt-to-earnings 

8 rate, the actual debt-to-earnings rate, that is what’s 

9 applicable. That will be generated for GE programs. So, if a 

10 program is not a GE, it doesn't have a, so the debt-to11 earnings rates generated for GE programs and when we talk 

12 about the small earnings rates, those where those programs 

13 don't meet the numbers thresholds to have to have debt-to14 earnings rate generated. The small earnings rates don't have, 

15 I want to reiterate, they don't have a pass-fail threshold 

16 associated with them because they don't affect the program 

17 eligibility. So, it isn't as if the small earnings rate would 

18 be a certain percentage that would necessitate the Department 

19 not certifying or provisionally certifying an institution. It 

20 simply says that the Department can, in making a determination 

21 about recertification or whether to put an institution on 

22 provisional certification, can include that rate as is or can 

23 consider that rate rather among many other things as in its 

24 decision regarding an institution's certification or 

25 recertification. And remember, this is not an area not talking 

26 about program eligibility here. We're talking about the 

27 certification or recertification of the institution. And it's 

28 just one of many things the Department can consider. So, 

29 there's no way we're not going to apply any threshold cutoff 

30 for this, even where even where debt-to-earnings rates are 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 10

1 applicable for a GE program. Certainly, those rates could have 

2 an effect on program eligibility under the GE rule. But here 

3 there's no threshold that's applied as far as whether or not 

4 it would result in any conditional certification or a 

5 provisional certification. I hope that clarifies it for you.

6 MR. GUILLORY: So, I hear what you're saying, but 

7 what this language is literally saying and what it would do is 

8 that the Department would be able to look at debt-to-earnings 

9 rates, earnings threshold measures and small program rates 

10 when determining an overall institution's ability to 

11 participate in Title IV eligibility overall. So, it's actually 

12 scaling up from just looking at the program and saying, this 

13 program is bad, this program is going to lose Title IV 

14 eligibility because this program is a GE program. This is now 

15 being scaled up to look at the entire institution and say 

16 based on GE rates, earning threshold measures and small 

17 program rates, we may use that information to determine 

18 whether or not to approve your PPA, recertify your PPA or put 

19 your PPA provisional status, which includes additional metrics 

20 that we will later talk about later today or this week. And 

21 so, with that, scaling up is very, very concerning. And if we 

22 look at the data that we saw yesterday and even looking at the 

23 18 programs that supposedly fail at private nonprofits, the 12 

24 programs that fail at publics, and then there were 210 

25 programs that failed at private for-profits. But even looking 

26 at private nonprofit data only in our sector, then those 

27 campuses with those failing programs to potentially not have 

28 their PPA be recertify because the Department can look at it 

29 and say, well, you didn't have passing programs and we're 

30 going to use that data. So that's just very concerning to us. 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 11

1 And I want to highlight that and point out what this is 

2 saying. So maybe the Department's intent is to look at it a 

3 little bit differently, which I think is good with the intent, 

4 but with the words on paper, this could be troublesome to 

5 future administrations that may come along and use this 

6 language and do something differently with it. So, I just want 

7 to highlight that it's a concern of ours, but I appreciate 

8 your response, Greg.

9 MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

10 MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Emmanual. Brad?

11 MR. ADAMS: Yes. I just want to clarify if what's 

12 currently listed as romanette four, educational spending. If 

13 the categories listed here are the same categories, we are 

14 using for what we’ve already submitted in IPEDS and if not, 

15 should we align the two? Just from an administration point of 

16 view, I'd rather have one educational spending definition if 

17 possible versus it looks to be comparable. I just don't know 

18 if it is. You just wanted to clarify that with the Department.

19 MR. MARTIN: Brad, like you, I think it does look 

20 comfortable to me, but I'm not enough of an expert in IPEDS to 

21 recall exactly if it mirrors language in there. Remember, I 

22 would say this is not a definition, this is a consideration. 

23 So, we can consider the amount of spend on instructional 

24 activities, academic support, recruiting, those types of 

25 things. So, we're not necessarily defining that here, but I'll 

26 check for you as to how if what you're asking is how closely 

27 does the language here mirror what's reported in IPEDS? Off 

28 the top of my head, it looks awfully similar to me, but I 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 12

1 don't know if it mirrors it. So, I'll have to get someone to 

2 confirm.

3 MR. ADAMS: In this disclosure. That's the very last 

4 sentence there. Is that a new disclosure? I don't recall that 

5 in there in the past. Is that going to be something that our 

6 auditors will need to update our audit guides or is that 

7 existing?

8 MR. MARTIN: Which one are you talking about?

9 MR. ADAMS: The same thing. Educational spending. 

10 Very last sentence.

11 MR. MARTIN: Okay, as, oh, as provided through a 

12 disclosure in the audited for some recovery activities, 

13 advertising and pre-enrollment expenditures as provided the 

14 disclosure and the audited financial statement required in 

15 under 668.23 D. So, you're asking is that current or new? Let 

16 me check that one for you too Brad, I want to make sure. 

17 Steve, do you know the answer to that?

18 MR. FINLEY: Yeah. I'm looking at the financial 

19 responsibility stuff. I don't see this added as a new 

20 provision.

21 MR. MARTIN: I thought it was existing, but I'll have 

22 someone check on that for you, Brad.

23 MR. FINLEY: Yeah, I don't know the answer.

24 MR. MARTIN: They'll probably send me a message 

25 pretty soon.
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 13

1 MS. JEFFRIES: Alright, thank you. Marvin, you're 

2 next.

3 MR. SMITH: Yeah, I'm just still asking about small 

4 program rates and I wanted to see if the Department has run 

5 some data on small program rates. I guess that's the first 

6 question. If you have done that, can it be shared with the 

7 committee?

8 MR. MARTIN: Data on what we have done on small 

9 program rates. I'll ask if we have data to share that. I don't 

10 know the extent to which we have anything that we can share, 

11 but I'll definitely see if it's something we can put out.

12 MR. SMITH: Thank you.

13 MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Johnson, you’re next.

14 MR. TYLER: Yeah. I just want to support this 

15 supplementary, let me see if I can say it correctly, the 

16 supplemental performance measures. Not to digress too much 

17 here, but I'm going to for a second, when I interviewed for a 

18 job at Legal Services back in 1989, student loans and for19 profit institutions were a problem. And the waiting room, 

20 there was actually a brochure on the whole issue. I remember 

21 reading it. And so, we're all here today because we're trying 

22 to change the game here. We're trying to improve outcomes, and 

23 I think we can't lose sight of that. All of these metrics that 

24 are here in this provision are things that I look at when I'm 

25 trying to get a loan discharged based on borrower defense. The 

26 Secretary recognizes these things as issues related to being 

27 misled. And so, I think it's really important that we not lose 

28 sight that we're here not just to help the students, but we're 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 14

1 here trying to change our society, making education the 

2 promise that in 1965, President Johnson tried to create. And 

3 so, people taking advantage of this easy money is often the 

4 case. And I have nothing but good things to say for the 

5 community colleges. They are of great value, but I don't think 

6 they should lose sight to the value of the purpose behind 

7 this. So, that's it.

8 MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks. Johnson. Barmak.

9 MR. NASSIRIAN: I want to echo Johnson's comments 

10 here. I think it is understandable, certainly, that 

11 institutions may have some anxiety about the disclosure of 

12 these criteria. And obviously, I understand the concern that 

13 some future Department of Education could arbitrarily act on 

14 one of these just because they're cited. But frankly, it's 

15 outrageous that these are not things that are currently 

16 factored in. I mean, who wouldn't want to know the performance 

17 of programs that are receiving as much federal money as higher 

18 education programs are. Whether it be a public for-profit 

19 nonprofit, you don't want to put the Department in a 

20 straitjacket and blind it to the actual criteria on the basis 

21 of which any reasonable person would want to make some kind of 

22 judgment. That does not necessarily, and certainly the 

23 Department's behavior to date does not indicate a particular 

24 willfulness of purpose when it comes to taking action against 

25 the institution. So, I wouldn't worry too much about it. The 

26 reason I raised my hand was to reiterate again in romanette 

27 two since you're citing 668.404, the importance of truthfully, 

28 this issue of teacher grants again. If you don't change the 

29 language in 404, you're actually providing misinformation to 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 15

1 students in terms of how many of the people who were packaged 

2 with TEACH Grants are actually repaying on sub loans. So, this 

3 is another way in which the artificial exclusion of what are 

4 actual loans, not imputed, these are actual loans, results in 

5 misinformation going out. So, I hope this this is additional 

6 reason to go back and fix that. Thank you.

7 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you. Jamie.

8 MS. STUDLEY: I think Johnson's and Barmak's comments 

9 are very well taken, and the Secretary should have reasonable 

10 ability to consider factors like these in granting the 

11 privilege of a PPA. That said, the government always has a 

12 responsibility to be as efficient and apply as little burden 

13 as possible to get through the information it needs to make an 

14 important decision like this. So, I see in the notes that our 

15 esteemed advisor, Mr. McClintock, has said the educational 

16 spending outlined would require a new audit disclosure. The 

17 disclosure is probably not the hard part, it's the calculation 

18 and having a definition that makes sense for institutions. So, 

19 my thoughts here are just to try to understand whether this 

20 language is doing it in a way that allows for a reasonable and 

21 efficient calculation by institutions that would give the 

22 Secretary the information the Department needs. And if there 

23 is burden in the collection, whether it's possible to consider 

24 a sort of safe harbor so that institutions that are very, very 

25 secure in the sense that their spending is not instructional 

26 in student services in a very clear way that their auditor can 

27 identify, don't have to do a micro accounting, don't have to 

28 do a lot of extra work to make that evident to the Secretary 

29 on this issue. I realize that includes some technical 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 16

1 questions you might not be able to answer now, but I think 

2 it's important to think about effort being appropriate to the 

3 need.

4 MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

5 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thanks, Jamie. I'm not seeing 

6 any additional hands at this point. Greg, is there anything 

7 that you need to say, or do you want to just move to consensus 

8 check on this?

9 MR. MARTIN: I do have a couple of comments I just 

10 want to make overall before we, you know, before we move on to 

11 that vote. So, I want to thank everybody for the good and 

12 robust discussion we've had on GE. I realize that there are 

13 varying opinions, people come at it from various perspectives 

14 and that we have various opinions on it. And I appreciate the 

15 professional and useful discussion we've had. I want to close 

16 out here before we end with a few responses to some of the 

17 questions that we had lingering from yesterday before we move 

18 on to a vote. And before I do that, I want to say, [inaudible] 

19 confirm, we don't have any smaller program data to share. That 

20 was just confirmed for me. I want to reiterate the 

21 Department's reason for the proposed rule. Overall, we are 

22 concerned about programs that may not be meeting their 

23 statutory obligation to prepare students for Gainful 

24 Employment in a recognized occupation. And this includes 

25 programs that leave graduates with unaffordable debt, but also 

26 includes programs that are leaving graduates worse off than 

27 they if they'd never gone to college in the first place and 

28 don't seem to benefit students beyond what they would have, 

29 the benefit they would have received from just having a high 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 17

1 school diploma. The Title IV programs are meant to provide for 

2 socioeconomic mobility and drive generational change through 

3 higher education programs, leaving most graduates with wages 

4 below with someone who never went to college receive, are not 

5 meeting that promise and aren't operating consistent with 

6 their legal obligation to prepare students for Gainful 

7 Employment in a recognized occupation. We also heard from a 

8 number of negotiators about the possible impact of these 

9 rules, their possible inclusion of pandemic affected years, 

10 and also the newness of the earnings threshold metric. We hear 

11 that and we understand it while we think it is premature to 

12 propose language that would include some sort of a transition 

13 period to account for that, we are looking closely at this 

14 matter and are committed to looking at whether we can include 

15 something like that in the final rule, provided we don't reach 

16 consensus today. We will, relatedly, consider whether certain 

17 types of conditions like broader economic impacts are 

18 appropriate for consideration of the rules. And next, I know 

19 that some negotiators are concerned about small program rates. 

20 So, we just had a discussion about that. We appreciate those 

21 concerns. And while the small program rate would never be a 

22 sole basis for revoking the participation of an institution 

23 for those programs, we do believe that the information is 

24 important to have and will help to feed disclosure 

25 requirements and will generally add to the amount of 

26 information available and we think it is a good thing to have 

27 those rates generated. Additionally, we had a few suggestions 

28 yesterday. One was to provide a longer time frame to measure 

29 the earnings of certain types of programs that have 

30 prelicensure requirements. At this time, we're not considering 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 18

1 making that change. We are concerned that not all programs 

2 with prelicensure requirements had the same significant 

3 difference in earnings as medical and dental residency 

4 programs. Another was to provide a safe harbor for programs 

5 based on borrowers’ repayment rates. We did not have adequate 

6 justification for repayment metric at this time. And finally, 

7 we are aware that at least one negotiator was concerned about 

8 an alternative earnings appeal. We reiterate our position that 

9 as the federal government, our concern is with ensuring that 

10 we use the best data available and consistent with other 

11 programs under the Higher Education Act, including the FAFSA 

12 and Income Driven Repayment, and consistent with a host of 

13 other government programs outside of the Department of 

14 Education. We believe this is an appropriate way to measure 

15 the earnings of institution's GE programs. So, with that, I 

16 will turn it back over to the facilitators to take a vote on 

17 consensus.

18 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Greg. So, with that, 

19 we are going to move to the consensus check, and we will be 

20 doing a verbal accounting of that for the record. So please 

21 hold your thumbs high and keep them up until I have called 

22 your name and your position on this. So, let's see thumbs. I 

23 see. Carolyn Fast is thumbs up. Brad Adams is thumbs down. 

24 Anne Kress is thumbs down. Emmanual Guillory thumbs down. 

25 Jamie Studley sideways thumb. Johnson Tyler thumbs up. Debbie 

26 Cochrane sideways thumb. Adam Welle sideways thumb. David 

27 Peterson thumbs down. Barmak Nassirian thumbs up. Amanda 

28 Martinez thumbs up. Ernest Ezeugo thumbs up. Marvin Smith 

29 thumbs down. Ashley Schofield thumbs down. And Greg Martin 

30 thumbs up. Did I miss anyone? Okay. Just give me a minute 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 19

1 here. What we want to do next is as soon as I get a counting 

2 from my team for the thumbs down, so I don't miss anyone that 

3 was a thumbs down. What we're going to do, as we have 

4 consistently done, is call on each person who was in dissent. 

5 We are going to ask you to please only articulate a list of 

6 the changes that you need, you would need to have to get to, 

7 you know, either sideways or thumbs up. The Department would 

8 be, it's very helpful to the Department for you to be succinct 

9 and just list what those items are. For example, if it's 

10 traditional rate concepts from the 2014 rule, so state. If

11 it's allowing a slightly longer cohort period for extended 

12 prelicensure requirements, state it. So, with that, let's 

13 start moving through this. I know Carolyn was, Carolyn, were 

14 you thumbs down? No, you weren't. Okay. So, I think Brad, you 

15 would on my screen anyway. Be the first thumbs down.

16 MR. ADAMS: Can I just have another 30 seconds to get 

17 my thoughts written out? Sorry.

18 MS. JEFFRIES: Sure. Emmanual or Anne you were thumbs 

19 down, right?

20 DR. KRESS: Sure. So, the first thing I would say is 

21 that the community colleges are very much in favor of Gainful 

22 Employment. We started this negotiation requesting that the 

23 Department restore the 2014 requirements that was not heard. 

24 So that's one place that I would start. I would also support 

25 the notion that was brought up of a transition period. If 

26 there are going to be new standards that are imposed. And then 

27 I will just go back to something that I've mentioned several 

28 times, which is that we really need to make like comparisons. 

29 So, to have a median income for individuals through Gainful 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 20

1 Employment programs, that includes everyone, but then to 

2 compare them to high school graduates that does not include 

3 everyone in that population does not seem appropriate. But 

4 given a lot of the uncertainties around the new earnings 

5 threshold and how it's been calculated, I'd strongly recommend 

6 a transition period. But that's really where we are right now. 

7 But we are in support of Gainful Employment, and I'm very 

8 disappointed that we were put in a position that we had to 

9 vote this way today.

10 MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, thank you, Anne. Brad, are 

11 you ready or do you want more time?

12 MR. ADAMS: I can go now, and I want to start by 

13 thanking Greg for the summary, that's helpful. And I thought 

14 it was well said. And although we may disagree, I do think 

15 that was very beneficial to get the Department's perspective 

16 on that. I want to go before the record, since I've quoted 

17 wrong in previous articles that my no vote has nothing to do 

18 with protecting proprietary schools or programs. I just want 

19 that clear as clear can be. My no vote was really for four 

20 things. One of which most important is that the Department has 

21 stated yesterday does have the ability, if they chose to do 

22 so, to provide a disclosure for all programs that are subject 

23 to the Gainful Employment definition of a Gainful Employment 

24 program. So that would be a debt-to-earning disclosure and an 

25 alternative or an earnings metric disclosure. The second would 

26 be I agree with Anne and others, transitional rates. I think 

27 especially due to the COVID pandemic that's going to be 

28 impacting salaries in 2020 and beyond is very would be very 

29 important. Third would be the slightly longer prelicensure 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 21

1 program period, and fourth would be the alternative earnings 

2 appeal for programs like the cosmetology industry. Thank you.

3 MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Brad. Appreciate that. 

4 Emmanual?

5 MR. GUILLORY: Yeah. I wanted to say that we're also 

6 in support of Gainful Employment and what the Department is 

7 trying to do. And when Greg had indicated, here's the 

8 Department's intent, we support that intent, we want to make 

9 sure we're getting after the bad actors. We want to do that. 

10 And we actually wanted to reach consensus here. I didn't want 

11 to vote down on this overall because I know what the 

12 Department is trying to do, and I respect what the Department 

13 is trying to do. The big concerns that remain for us, though, 

14 is it's hard for me to support a process when there is no 

15 ability to ensure the data. Well, when the appeals process is 

16 what we see it now, I guess at the end when an institution is 

17 already eligible, and it just seems like how does that really 

18 work in reality. So that remains a concern. The other big 

19 concern is the undetermined small program rate data. I know 

20 I've heard from Greg say that I mean, we don't really know 

21 what is good or bad or but either way, someone's been 

22 determined if something's good or bad and just not having any 

23 clear information on that, not being able to see any data on 

24 that, which I do appreciate the data that the Department has 

25 shared, at least thus far. It just makes it very, very 

26 troublesome. And then also what I said most recently in 

27 section 668.13, just how those additional metrics would be 

28 applied, scaled up to the institutional level and completely 

29 eliminate institution’s ability to participate in Title IV. I 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 22

1 really fear for our smaller institutions in our sector, they 

2 may have one or two GE programs that happen to not do well for 

3 whatever reason, and then all of a sudden, the whole 

4 institution can't participate in Title IV. And you're 

5 displacing those students. So, that's it for us.

6 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Emmanual. David.

7 MR. PETERSON: Like everyone else who spoke, 

8 financial aid administrators were coming into this really 

9 excited to discuss Gainful Employment. And we really are not 

10 happy with the outcome of today. But some of the same things 

11 that everyone else has mentioned, uncertainties with the small 

12 program rate transitional. The idea of incorporating in a 

13 transitional rate would be something we would be interested in 

14 discussing the appeals process. And then minor, Barmak brought 

15 it up, the TEACH Grant, really that loan should be included. 

16 Again, that's not a reason to vote no, but that seems like a 

17 small change that would have made a lot of sense and it 

18 doesn't seem like we are willing to discuss or willing to do 

19 that when it was brought up. So, thank you.

20 MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, David. Marvin?

21 MR. SMITH: Yeah. I also think we're supportive of 

22 the efforts here. It's the details and really the rushed 

23 process here. And my concern is that four-year publics and 

24 community colleges will look at this and we'll say this is not 

25 worth the risk of offering short-term certificate programs to 

26 low-income students. And so, there's this balancing act here 

27 that I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about small program 

28 rates and folks not sharing that data. To me, that seems 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 23

1 honestly like a half-baked idea, but maybe you have more 

2 information. If small program rates are that important to the 

3 Department, I wonder if a compromise is to put it into this 

4 disclosure website because again, I don't know how that data 

5 is going to help students or schools. So that's, I think, my 

6 main concern for four-year publics.

7 MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Marvin. Ashley?

8 MS. SCHOFIELD: I echo the same sentiment as my 

9 colleagues as a representation of minority serving 

10 institutions. I would also like to add that the outcomes of 

11 the debt-to-earnings ratio is a concern for us, particularly 

12 in the HBCU and minority service community, because of the 

13 type of students that we serve. And being that most of our 

14 students come from lower socioeconomic status and experience 

15 an overwhelming higher debt burden than most students that are 

16 not in this low-income category. And so, I applaud the 

17 Department for its intent as relates to Gainful Employment, 

18 because I think it is beneficial. I just think that, as Marvin 

19 stated, rushing through this particular piece of legislation 

20 is just not in the best interest of the institutions that we 

21 serve and the students that we serve.

22 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Ashley. Appreciate 

23 it. Greg, does the Department have what they need, they 

24 captured those and?

25 MR. MARTIN: Yes, I want to thank everybody for 

26 again, for the discussion and for their willingness after the 

27 vote to share with us their reasons for not feeling that they 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 24

1 can vote consensus at this time. So, again, my sincere 

2 appreciation to everybody.

3 MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Greg. And I want to thank the 

4 committee. This was a highly important area for each and every 

5 one of you. I know that. We know that. You've worked hard and 

6 we do appreciate it. And I do want to thank you, especially to 

7 the dissent, for clearly articulating a list of what your 

8 concerns are for the Department to consider as they go through 

9 the towards the NPRM period. So, with that, we are going to 

10 move to issue paper number four, I believe, financial 

11 responsibilities. Oh, geez. I don't even have to ask Renee, 

12 you're right on top of it.

13 MR. MARTIN: It's right there. So, we're moving into 

14 financial responsibility. And just want to point out that the 

15 first part of this is the 668.15, which is the reserved 

16 section which we've removed. So, there'll be no discussion on 

17 that. But just want to reiterate again that we have taken that 

18 out and moved the relevant parts over to subpart L which we 

19 will be discussing today. So, where we're going to begin is in 

20 668.23, which is a compliance audits and financial statements. 

21 So, I'll give everybody a second to get there and that begins 

22 on, if you have the paper copy of your issue paper, it would 

23 be on the page at the bottom of page eight and then moving on 

24 to page nine. So, I will direct your attention to 668.23 D 

25 under audited financial statements. And starting a (d)(1) and 

26 we point out here that we've added acceptable to further 

27 clarify the meaning of this item. So, you'll see they're under 

28 audited financial statements to enable the Secretary to make a 

29 determination of financial responsibility and institutions 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 25

1 must, to the extent requested by the Secretary, submit to the 

2 Secretary a set of acceptable financial statements for its 

3 latest fiscal year. And then turning over to (d)(2) and in 

4 (d)(2) romanette two, we have deleted individuals since the 

5 other documentation items in this category all relate to a 

6 foreign entity. So that is changed to for a domestic or 

7 foreign institution that is owned directly or indirectly by 

8 any foreign entity holding at least a 50 percent voting or 

9 equity interest in the institution. The institution must 

10 provide documentation of the entity status under the law of 

11 jurisdiction under which the entity is organized to include, 

12 at a minimum, the date of organization, a current certificate 

13 of good standing, and a copy of the authorizing statute for 

14 such entity status. And that is everything for 23. It isn't 

15 much, but since we're going by going by section, I will open 

16 it up for discussion because after this we're going to move on 

17 to subpart L.

18 MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Greg. Any comments on this? 

19 Questions? Steve, you have your hand up.

20 MR. FINLEY: Yes. I just want to note there is a 

21 carryover here because we are welcoming suggestions on the 

22 disclosures that were mentioned for the educational 

23 expenditures from the GE discussion and that would result in 

24 something being added to 23 here. So, there's a carryover and 

25 a request for suggestions on what that language should look 

26 like.

27 MR. MARTIN: Thanks, Steve.
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 26

1 MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Steve. I don't see any hands, 

2 Greg, but I do want to announce that Kelli Perry is back at 

3 the table for financial responsibility discussion. I'm Sorry.

4 MR. MARTIN: Okay.

5 MS. JEFFRIES: I got a couple more. Sam Veeder is 

6 back in, and Jessica Ranucci is back. So, with that, I think 

7 you can go ahead and move on.

8 MR. MARTIN: So just to build on what Steve was 

9 saying, I know this came kind of quickly. So, you know, if 

10 after mulling it over, people have thoughts about this as it 

11 relates to what we discussed in under 668.13, be more than 

12 happy to go back and entertain those at a later point.

13 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, great.

14 MR. MARTIN: So, I just want to I know it doesn't 

15 give people a lot of time just to throw that out there. And, 

16 you know, you have a few seconds before we move on. So, I just 

17 want to offer that opportunity. I'll go back and bring it up 

18 again and provide an opportunity for comments on what Steve 

19 just mentioned. So, with that, we're going to move into 

20 financial responsibility into subpart L. And so, we are at 

21 668.171. The first thing is just a technical point in (d)(3) 

22 romanette one, we've updated the cross reference to (h)(2), 

23 regarding a requirement to pay credit balances under 668.164. 

24 And then moving on to romanette six, we've updated six of 

25 romanette six here to further clarify the language without 

26 making any substantive change. So, all we have here is subject 

27 to an action or event described in paragraph C of this 

28 section, mandatory triggering events or an action that the 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 27

1 Secretary has determined to have material adverse effect on 

2 the financial condition of the institution under paragraph D 

3 of this section. And that being the discretionary triggering 

4 events. And so, with that, we're going to move on to paragraph 

5 C, which are a mandatory triggering events . So, we'll go 

6 through the mandatory triggering events. And then at that 

7 point, when we're done with mandatory, we'll open the floor 

8 for discussion. So, changes that we have here for mandatory 

9 triggering events and looking at (c)(1), which are mandatory 

10 trigger events, an institution is not able to meet its 

11 financial administrative obligations under paragraph (b)(3) 

12 romanette five of this section if one or more of the following 

13 occurs. And so, we are in romanette one. And following some 

14 confusion from the negotiators, we have taken another look at 

15 this language and sought to further clarify the substance that 

16 the trigger remains the same. So, for an institution with a 

17 composite score of less than 1.5 or an institution affected by 

18 the litigation or liabilities described in B and C, the 

19 institution must undergo a recalculated composite score for 

20 any other debts or liabilities from a settlement arbitration, 

21 judgment or administrative proceeding. So just looking at the 

22 change here, these are if one of the more following occurs, 

23 debts, liabilities and losses in romanette one for an 

24 institution for institutions, composite score of less than 

25 1.5, the institution or entity after the end of the fiscal 

26 year for the Secretary has most recently calculated the 

27 institution or the entities composing score is required to pay 

28 any debt or incurs a liability from settlement arbitration 

29 proceeding proceedings, final judgment, determination arising 

30 from administrative action recalculated for the administration 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 28

1 or entity or the composite score is less than 1.0, as 

2 determined by the Secretary in paragraph E of this section. So 

3 just some clarifying language there. But the intent remains 

4 basically the same. If we move down to B, this is in romanette 

5 one B. Again, here we have proposed language changes to 

6 simplify the language and address any confusion. Of our prior 

7 language. This trigger still relates to any institution or 

8 entity whose financial statements were submitted under 668.23 

9 for a change in ownership under 600.2 G or H that has sued for 

10 relief by a state or federal authority or through a Qui Tam 

11 lawsuit where the federal government has intervened. So, we'll 

12 look at, B, the institution or any entity whose financial 

13 statements were submitted in the prior fiscal year to meet the 

14 requirements of 600.20 G or H 668.23 or subpart L of this 

15 section is sued for financial relief, an action brought on or 

16 after July 1, 2023, by a federal or state.

17 MS. JEFFRIES: Greg, can you hang on one second here? 

18 I think someone is attempting to mute. Something they 

19 inadvertently muted, including you.

20 MR. MARTIN: Yes. I thought the background the 

21 background was coming from me, but I assure you it wasn't.

22 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thanks.

23 MR. MARTIN: No problem. So, we'll go through B 

24 again. So, this is again, we're looking at B we're looking at 

25 one romanette one B. So, the institution or any entity whose 

26 financial statements were submitted in the prior fiscal year 

27 to meet the requirements of 600.20 G or H 668.23 or subpart L 

28 of this part is sued for financial relief in an action brought 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 29

1 on or after July 1, 2023, by a federal or state authority or 

2 through a Qui Tam lawsuit, and which the federal government 

3 has intervened and the suit has been pending for 120 days. The 

4 next area we'll look at is in romanette three, Gainful 

5 Employment. Here we have clarified the language to reflect 

6 that the trigger will be at least 10 percent of the Title IV 

7 revenue if that revenue, rather, is in a failing GE program. 

8 We understand there were confusion on the part of some. There 

9 was confusion, rather, on the part of some negotiators during 

10 the last meeting. We believe this language will clarify those 

11 concerns. So, in romanette three, under Gainful Employment, as

12 determined annually by the Secretary, the institution received 

13 at least 10 percent of its Title IV HEA program funds in its 

14 most recently completed fiscal year from Gainful Employment 

15 programs that are failing under subpart Q of this part. So, I 

16 hope that language clarifies that revenue requirement. And if 

17 we move down to romanette six. At negotiator's suggestions we 

18 have added an additional trigger to address SEC actions other 

19 than the suspension or revocation of an entity's registration 

20 or trading. We believe this additional set of events will 

21 capture very serious actions and provide the Department with 

22 earlier protection from institutions facing serious action. 

23 So, we'll take a look at what is the changes here to romanette 

24 six. This is under public entities. If an institution is 

25 directly or indirectly owned by at least 50 percent of an 

26 entity whose securities are listed on a domestic or foreign 

27 exchange, the entity is subject to one or more of the 

28 following actions or events, and this would be the SEC 

29 actions. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or SCC, 

30 SEC rather issues an order suspending or revoking the 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 30

1 registration of any of the securities pursuant to Section 

2 12(j) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 or suspends 

3 trading of the entity's securities pursuant to 12(k) or the 

4 Exchange Act. Or in B, other SEC actions. The SEC files an 

5 action against the entity in district court or issues an order 

6 instituting a cease-in-desist or administrative proceeding 

7 against the entity. And the next change here is in romanette 

8 nine. So, in romanette nine is contributions and 

9 distributions. We have in, let me make sure I've got this, no, 

10 I'm sorry, that's romanette ten, that is romanette ten, not 

11 romanette nine. I got confused on my cross outs here. So 

12 romanette ten is contributions and distributions and we have 

13 rephrased the sentence to clarify our intent here in romanette 

14 ten B. So that has changed to the offset of such distribution 

15 against the contribution results in a recalculated composite 

16 score of less than 1.0 as determined by the Secretary under 

17 paragraph E of this section. And then in 11. We have clarified 

18 the language throughout this section in terms of an entity 

19 whose financial statements are submitted for an institution. 

20 We also modified B to reflect that we are referring to 

21 termination or suspension of a loan agreement or financing 

22 arrangement or when a creditor calls due a balance on a line 

23 of credit. So, we'll look at 11 and the changes there. As a 

24 result of an action taken by the Department, the institution 

25 or entity included in the financial statements submitted in 

26 the current or prior fiscal year under 600.20 G or H 600.23 or 

27 subpart L of this part is subject to default or other adverse 

28 condition under a line of credit loan agreement, security 

29 agreements or other financing arrangement or any creditor 

30 terminates, withdrawals, limits, or suspends the loan 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 31

1 agreement or other financing arrangement or calls due a 

2 balance on a line of credit. And there's also a change in two 

3 here as well. This is romanette 11 (b)(2). Hold on one second. 

4 Just a moment here. This is, I'm sorry, we're moving on to 

5 number, I'm sorry, we're moving on to number, on to the number 

6 two here. This is just strictly number two. My mistake. So, we 

7 have proposed some language changes to further clarify this 

8 section without making any substantive changes and this 

9 section still requires that two discretionary triggers become 

10 mandatory if they both occur and remain unresolved 60 days 

11 after the second trigger or remain mandatory if three or more 

12 discretionary triggers are hit. So, we'll look at the revised 

13 language here in in two. So. In the fiscal year following the 

14 year in which the Secretary is most as has recently calculated 

15 the institutions composite score the institution becomes 

16 subject to two or more discretionary triggering events as 

17 defined in paragraph D of this section that remain, that 

18 remain rather 60 days following the second triggering event. 

19 All further discretionary triggering events during that fiscal 

20 year become mandatory triggering events even if the two 

21 original triggering events are resolved. So, with that, I'll 

22 open the floor for discussion on mandatory triggering events.

23 MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Greg. Ernest, you are up 

24 first.

25 MR. EZEUGO: Yeah. Okay. So, in the interest of full 

26 disclosure, I actually have a comment about the previous vote. 

27 I am so sorry. I recognize that this is against what you all 

28 have been asking. And I actually debated not saying it, but I 

29 really feel it on my heart, especially after some of the 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 32

1 stories I heard yesterday, after our sessions and after 

2 negotiated rulemaking, I should say, to just say this clearly. 

3 I have to call at the fact that all of the dissent for Gainful 

4 Employment and I and to be honest, some other proposals that 

5 we've talked about over the course of the past couple of weeks 

6 seem to trend on everybody wants Gainful Employment, but no 

7 one wants to keep any schools out. Everybody wants to protect 

8 students but doesn't want to do what's necessary to do that. 

9 Everybody's concerned about the circumstances of students from 

10 low-income backgrounds, but they don't want to take the steps 

11 that might consider bettering a lot of those students. What 

12 students are seeing, at least with the students that from 

13 Young Invincibles and other organizations that we're working 

14 with who are watching are telling me is that they see 

15 institutions and they see other actors claiming to care about 

16 the well-being and their lives, but only up to a certain level 

17 of inconvenience. And for many, not all, but for many of those 

18 students, this actually reflects, and this is why I wanted to 

19 say this here and actually reflects the experiences that 

20 they've had on campus. I'm talking about students who have 

21 stopped out, students from nontraditional kind of backgrounds 

22 to higher education, who've had experiences that are not the 

23 experiences of the standard 18-year-old coming straight out of 

24 high school. And I do not want to diminish valid concerns that 

25 were brought up. That's not my intention, and it's not even my 

26 intention to doubt the intention of folks on this committee. 

27 That's not what I'm trying to do. It just feels important to 

28 say, especially after the particular story I heard last night, 

29 I want to protect that person's privacy, that this is the 

30 perception of people watching, at least for the students 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 33

1 watching. And it's one that hurts higher education, quite 

2 frankly, not even to speak of the obvious ways that it hurts 

3 students who are being left out of consideration when those 

4 dissents are made, especially from certain seats on this 

5 committee. The stories are clear and numerous, at least to me. 

6 I'm happy to just share some of them in the forum. The 

7 research supports them. We know that poorly performing 

8 programs, the ones that perform poorly, intentionally, and 

9 some that do so with good intentions, still hurt students in 

10 the short-term. And they hurt and have severe impacts on 

11 students and their families and their networks long after 

12 graduation. If they even get to that point, to the extent that 

13 these dissents throughout the rest of these negotiations, in 

14 this final consensus, we are critical and would directly 

15 impugn the different constituencies that we serve, their 

16 ability to serve these students like we say that we want to 

17 do. I just implore you to really make.

18 MR. WAGNER: Earnest, you have 30 seconds remaining.

19 MR. EZEUGO: Thank you. I appreciate it. I'm almost 

20 done. I really implore you to make that plain, because I'm 

21 telling you now, it's the students that I'm talking to and 

22 what they've shared about these processes, it's really 

23 disheartening. And it's just on my heart. I just have to say 

24 that I'm sorry for distracting and we can continue with the 

25 discussions.

26 MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Ernest. So, I think we left 

27 off at discussion on discretionary triggers is that right, 

28 Greg?
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 34

1 MR. MARTIN: Yeah. I just want to point out again, I 

2 know that coming off our emotional debate over GE I just want 

3 to remind everybody that even though we didn't reach consensus 

4 on GE, we are hoping to reach consensus on as many of the 

5 areas as possible. So, as you as we make our comments today 

6 try to tailor those with if there's something you see here 

7 that you would need to see different in order to reach 

8 consensus. Let us know what that is. So just directing 

9 everybody to specifically what you need to see here. At this 

10 point, this late in the week, it's going to be very difficult 

11 for the Department to provide additional data or, you know, 

12 I'm not against debating the theory behind this or if that's 

13 necessary, but I would like to have us move in the direction 

14 of where we need to be to get the consensus, if that's 

15 possible. Thanks.

16 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you. Again, thank you as 

17 well, Ernest. Barmak, you are up next.

18 MR. NASSIRIAN: Thank you. So, let's go to romanette 

19 one A, debts, liabilities, and losses. Page 11, I think.

20 MR. MARTIN: I'm there.

21 MR. NASSIRIAN: Okay. I don't quite grasp why the 

22 Department is only interested in institutions whose score was 

23 less than 1.5 and then drop down below 1. But in fact, the 

24 more severe case, in my opinion, would be an institution that 

25 has a more precipitous drop. An institution that actually 

26 scored way above 1.5 and suddenly drops below 1 should be of 

27 much greater concern to the Department, therefore, that 

28 qualifying openings should go. It should simply read if an 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 35

1 institution drops below one, you've got a problem with them. 

2 Their prior condition actually, you're picking a much weaker 

3 case of an institution that was already sort of barely there, 

4 dropping below 1, [inaudible] surprise. I think, I keep 

5 thinking of ITT and Corinthian that were in pretty good shape 

6 and then dropped like a rock. You repeat the same construct in 

7 two romanette two B. Again, it really doesn't matter or 

8 romanette 2 one, romanette two A, for a prop school whose 

9 composite score was again less than 1.5 if there's a 

10 withdrawal. No, I think any withdrawal, even if the score was 

11 higher than that, frankly, again, if the score was higher than 

12 that, they're withdrawing more money. So, I don't see why you 

13 would limit the Secretary's discretion here. Then I'd like to 

14 go to romanette 11. If I can find it. Creditor events. I see 

15 that, I believe this is just a redundancy and I'm being a 

16 little paranoid, but I don't see why you qualify the 

17 subsection A to only those actions taken by the Department. I 

18 mean, what if an institution, I believe B takes care of it but 

19 I don't understand. Maybe they bought too many Russian bonds 

20 and are now defaulting on their own obligations because they 

21 didn't get paid. I don't see why the action has to have been 

22 taken by the Department. I feel like default is default. And 

23 the Secretary does not need to limit him or herself to just 

24 the causality. I think default is sufficient by itself. Thank 

25 you.

26 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Barmak. Brad, you are 

27 up next.

28 MR. ADAMS: Thank you, Cindy. I've got a few comments 

29 in here, so I may need to get back in line, but on a romanette 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 36

1 three on the Gainful Employment. Let me first by stating I 

2 understand the intent of wanting to ensure somebody's 

3 financially responsible if they lose revenue, and it really 

4 could be losing revenue for any reason. It doesn't have to 

5 just be for Gainful Employment programs. But from this being a 

6 mandatory here's where I have my largest problem is we define 

7 as a discretionary trigger in number seven down below that, if 

8 you lose 25 percent of your students, that's a discretionary 

9 trigger. But here is a mandatory you've got 10 percent as 

10 Gainful Employment as a mandatory. So, you've given the bar at 

11 a much higher level for proprietary schools than the bar 

12 you've given for everyone else as a discretionary. And I 

13 really struggle with that. And in addition to that, we just 

14 talked about yesterday an administrative capability in 668.16 

15 M, that 50 percent or more would have to be failing for you to 

16 not be administratively capable. So, help me understand why we 

17 want a different threshold for proprietary schools here as a 

18 mandatory at 10 percent, then we're giving for everyone else 

19 down below as a discretionary 25 percent.

20 MR. MARTIN: Well here. Our concern is that where the 

21 revenue has been derived from a program deemed to be failing 

22 because if the program is failing thatcould be an indication 

23 that a very significant revenue stream for those institutions 

24 is in danger of being cut off. So that's the rationale behind 

25 including it as a mandatory. And once you've failed that the 

26 prospect of not having the revenue from that program anymore 

27 which is a fairly serious and you know, very concrete thing 

28 and that possibility certainly exists at that point.
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 37

1 MR. ADAMS: But Greg, I'm sorry, that's not answering 

2 the question that this financial responsibility is for 

3 everyone, for all colleges. And you've applied a mandatory 

4 trigger at a 10 percent level up here, and you put a 25 

5 percent trigger as a discretionary down below for the for 

6 everybody else. I mean, to me, that's not apples to apples and 

7 especially to me either gainful needs to move down as a 

8 discretionary or if it's going to stay as a mandatory, at a 

9 minimum, it should be tied to what we did in administrative 

10 capability, but it shouldn't be at a level 15 percent less 

11 than the nonprofits and publics. I don't think that's sending 

12 the right message that we don't care if they're financially 

13 responsible.

14 MR. MARTIN: We're saying we don't care if they're 

15 not financially responsible. The only situation in which in 

16 which a program could lose eligibility as a result of GE is a 

17 GE program. So that would be the only the only instance where 

18 that would be that outcome could occur would be in that 

19 situation. That wouldn't be the case with any program that 

20 wasn't subject to Gainful Employment. I think that's the 

21 difference. I don't know how else I could ask Steve if. Do you 

22 want to comment, Steve?

23 MR. FINLEY: Yeah. I don't think I can improve that 

24 observation.

25 MR. ADAMS: Well, I would like the Department to 

26 state why it shows a 25 percent revenue threshold for everyone 

27 not subject to Gainful Employment, which is everyone at this 

28 table but me. And you've got a 10 percent as a mandatory right 

29 here. At a minimum, it should be the same. Right? And I'd 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 38

1 argue they should both be discretionary, too. But you really 

2 haven't answered the question because a nonprofit could have a 

3 12 percent reduction in revenue and not [30 seconds]. Right? 

4 And I'm just I'm struggling with the difference in thresholds. 

5 It seems like you're picking and choosing who you want to fail 

6 based on not having the threshold the same.

7 MR. FINLEY: We'll take that back, Brad.

8 MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Jessica?

9 MS. RANUCCI: Just to respond briefly to Brad before 

10 I make the point I was going to make. My reading of this is 

11 that the discretionary trigger would include orderly closure, 

12 which would not pose the same level of risk to the overall 

13 finances of the school that could have been planned for years 

14 and could have been taken into account. And I will say from my 

15 own perspective, not speaking for the Department, I actually 

16 do think there may be reasons to consider financial 

17 responsibility different by sector. Specifically, the ability 

18 to essentially milk an institution for cash, put it in your 

19 own pocket and walk away. And having been on the other side of 

20 that and see students left holding the bag, I do think that 

21 that is a very serious risk that is much less available at 

22 schools that are nonprofit and public. But turning to what I 

23 was going to say was on number two, not romanette two, but the 

24 last thing that we talked about the multiple discretionary is 

25 leading up to the mandatory. I don't really understand why 

26 this is now tied to a fiscal year since it seems to be 

27 divorced from a composite score. It seems to me like two 

28 discretionary events that happen in September and October 

29 should be treated the same as two discretionary events that 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 39

1 happened in October or November, or November or December, 

2 whether they're in the same fiscal year doesn't really seem to 

3 be material. So, I would encourage the Department perhaps to 

4 do like a rolling 365 day period rather than a set fiscal year 

5 period.

6 MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

7 MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Jessica. Kelli.

8 MS. PERRY: Thank you. First, I want to support the 

9 Department's language on the debt liabilities. I know there's 

10 some concern, and that's why I want to say what I have to say, 

11 because I did say all the plus ones in the chat. Those are 

12 related to what Barmak said. So, I do agree with you from the 

13 concept of the fact that having a school that may be passing 

14 the financial responsibilities for it and then dropping down 

15 below is important if they incur a debt or liability that big. 

16 Right? But if you were to change that and change it, take out 

17 the 1.5 measure, you're in essence, addressing all schools. 

18 So, colleges and universities are sued all the time and as a 

19 result, there are some that result in the things that are 

20 listed in here. Right? So, if the Department were to consider 

21 removing that 1.5 and making this eligible for all schools, 

22 one, I very strongly disagree with that. But if you were, you 

23 have to go back to the concept of addressing materiality, 

24 because to require schools across the country to submit within 

25 ten days, every time they're sued and have a judgment or 

26 required to pay a debt as it relates to liability for 

27 settlement. If it's not material enough to affect the 

28 composite score it is something that will become unwieldy on 

29 both sides. So just to give you some context about removing 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 40

1 that 1.5, what that would do. So, if it's removed, the 

2 materiality concept needs to be addressed. The second question 

3 I would have, and I'm just curious more than anything, it goes 

4 back to these contributions and distributions section. And I 

5 think, you know, and we've talked about the whole concept of 

6 what we're trying to address here and the fact that somebody 

7 may contribute to pass the composite score and then make that 

8 distribution that would then cause them to fail. So, in 

9 essence, they would have failed without that contribution. 

10 When you get into the reporting of this, the concept is that 

11 you're going to report this within ten days, right? You're 

12 relying on the school to report to you. Yes, I made a 

13 contribution, then I made a distribution. And I'm assuming the 

14 reporting would be after that distribution. I guess the 

15 question I would have is, is that if I was a school and I was 

16 trying to, in essence, game the system by making that 

17 contribution, why would I, within ten days after making the 

18 distribution report it to you? So, I guess I just would 

19 caution the Department on this of how you're going to know 

20 this.

21 MR. WAGNER: You have 30 seconds.

22 MS. PERRY: Because this is not something that you 

23 would be able to see or pick out in the financial statement. 

24 So just some thoughts there.

25 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Kelli. Carolyn, 

26 you'll be up next. But I need to announce that Yael is coming 

27 to the table for state attorney generals. And Johnson Tyler is 

28 back at the table for a comment from legal aid groups. So, 

29 with that, Carolyn.
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 41

1 MS. FAST: Thank you. I just also was wanted to ask 

2 about the thing that Barmak had raised about limiting these 

3 provisions to schools that are all ready to start with at a 

4 below 1.5 composite score. It seems to be a pretty important 

5 issue in terms of how this would work and what schools would 

6 be affected. And I wondered if we could get potentially a 

7 response from the Department on whether they would consider 

8 making this change before consensus votes, since it seems like 

9 it is important to a lot of people on the committee based on 

10 what was in the chat and I think it might be useful to us to 

11 get in consensus.

12 MR. MARTIN: I will take it back and I'll discuss it 

13 over the lunch period, and see if I can get a decision on 

14 whether we would consider changing that or not.

15 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you. Barmak?

16 MR. NASSIRIAN: Yeah. I candidly did not quite 

17 understand Kelli's concern here in terms of materiality, if we 

18 remove the 1.5 percent, it seems to me that composite scores 

19 that drop from above 1.5 percent to below 1 would by 

20 definition be more material than the ones that drop from a 

21 number below 1.5 to a number below 1. But I mean, not always, 

22 but in general, I think that's a bigger delta in most cases to 

23 the same fixed number. But I also wanted to disagree with 

24 Brad. You know, we're not engaged in any kind of mystical 

25 numerology here where the numbers have to line up, the numbers 

26 have to make sense in the context of what we're doing. The 25 

27 percent reduction in enrollment is a fairly high threshold to 

28 accommodate orderly enrollment management practices that 

29 institutions engage in all the time. Deriving a subset of your 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 42

1 revenue from failing programs is a different animal 

2 altogether. I think a lower threshold is appropriate when the 

3 source of the revenues speaks to something about what the 

4 institution is engaged in. So, I don't know that ten is the 

5 right number or 25 is the right number, but I just wanted to 

6 argue against the belief that the numbers have to somehow 

7 elegantly line up. They don't. They have to be appropriate in 

8 the context of what index they're measuring. Thank you.

9 MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Barmak. Brad.

10 MR. ADAMS: Thank you, Barmak. Just a quick response 

11 here. To me, you should have the ability to also reduce some 

12 sort of expenses to offset changes in revenues. And that 

13 ability is not here. But I do think 10 percent is a low 

14 threshold as compared to some of the discretionary triggers. I 

15 do want to talk through what the others at the group have been 

16 talking about. In one romanette, one A and here's where I'm 

17 struggling. And maybe it is the CPA in me, a composite score 

18 by its nature is, number one, as we've mentioned, it needs to 

19 be updated, it's antiquated, but by its nature, it's a point 

20 in time score as of a certain date. And so, for us, we're a 

21 9/30 fiscal year end and what our composite score is as of 

22 that date, six months from now, if and again, we're above a 

23 1.5 and I think it should stay where it's just schools below 

24 1.0. And I agree with Kelli on this, that the administrative 

25 burden would be significant. The schools would have to know 

26 they're always recalculating their composite score for any 

27 liability. And we're talking no materiality out into the 

28 future. So, these liabilities a lot of times occur in the 

29 fiscal year subsequent to your audit. But the point here 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 43

1 being, six months from now, you get a lawsuit. You may be in a 

2 much better composite score position six months later. So, 

3 there's no opportunity as written. And I think Kelli actually 

4 proposed this in her proposed language to resubmit in interim 

5 financial numbers say yes, even though this occurred after the 

6 fact, and it could have taken me from a 1.4 down to a .9, I 

7 may be sitting as of today in a position where I'm at a 2.0 

8 because income's been good for the year, right? Because income 

9 flows through your equity part of your balance sheet. So, 

10 where I'm struggling with the composite score as written is a 

11 point in time midnight as of the end of your fiscal year. If 

12 you're going to try and recalculate it, you need to do an 

13 interim composite score as of that date that the liability 

14 occurred to then see if you're still below 1.0. And I think, 

15 Kelli, maybe you can speak to it because of your comment in 

16 the issue paper, but I do think you've got to be apples to 

17 apples, or you've got to change your composite score one way 

18 or the other, because the composite score is a date and time. 

19 And once you get to the next day, the composite score changes 

20 to whatever you are on that day. So, thank you. And I'll get 

21 back in line for my last comment.

22 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Johnson, real quick, do you mind 

23 if I check in with Kelli to see if her hands up in response to 

24 that? Would that be okay? Okay, Kelli.

25 MS. PERRY: Yeah. It was actually in response to what 

26 Barmak had come back with the second time, and then I can 

27 address what Brad said. So Barmak my concern is the reporting 

28 of the liability, right? So, the way that it's not so much if 

29 a school is not in the zone, which would be under 1.5 or 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 44

1 failing. Right? They're passing school. And the way that this

2 is what this says is that if you go from 1.5 down to 1 in a 

3 recalculated score that would trigger this. But if the way 

4 that the reporting language reads, unless I'm misinterpreting 

5 it, is that the deposit the Department is the one that has to 

6 recalculate that score, not the individual institution. Right? 

7 So, if the Department is the one that has to recalculate that 

8 score, that means me as an institution, regardless of if I'm 

9 say I have a 3.0 and any debt or liability that I have, I then 

10 have to report to the Department within ten days so that they 

11 can recalculate my score. Let's say that that that liability 

12 is only $20,000. And my financial statements show, you know, 

13 revenue of 400 million, that $20,000 isn't going to have an 

14 impact. And it's going to create a lot of work for schools and 

15 a lot of work for the Department if the Department is the one 

16 that has to do the recalculation. If the school can do the 

17 recalculation and say, okay, you know, I just had a $20,000 

18 liability, that $20,000 is not going to affect my composite 

19 score. So, I don't have to report at anything. That's 

20 different. And so, I guess maybe there's clarification on that 

21 per se. And then to what Brad talked about, you know, he's 

22 right in the perspective of that the composite score is a 

23 point in time, and it's calculated based on your audited 

24 financials. Schools are schools, you're right, they could 

25 change, they could go up, they could go down, that liability 

26 is also a point in time and will affect what your financial 

27 statements look like or what they or they could be better, 

28 right. So that that liability is not going to have an impact 

29 on that score. But the problem with calculating composite 

30 scores in the middle of the year is that not all schools do 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 45

1 accrual-based accounting throughout the year. So not all 

2 schools are closing their books on a regular basis every 

3 single month to recalculate a composite score. So, there's 

4 just a lot of complexities in that recalculation that would 

5 potentially be challenging.

6 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Kelli. Johnson?

7 MR. TYLER: Thanks. I'm not an accountant. I don't 

8 get into the high finance. I think the attorney general's 

9 here. Carolyn used to be one as well, do a lot of this stuff 

10 when they're going after them. But I did help a borrower once 

11 in a Borrower Defense claim and we see a lot of these from 

12 this one institution that was right next to Penn Station, 

13 preyed on a lot of low-income people there, including homeless 

14 people, including veterans who are protecting transportation 

15 hubs during right after 9/11. They were in this great, crazy 

16 financial thing that the shareholders brought the suit and 

17 that's how I know about it. So was trying to get these loans 

18 discharged. So, the owners issued $10 million of stock 

19 certificates and then sold it about three or four months later 

20 and took $9 million in cash. And the shareholders brought an 

21 action and that's how it's public. But I think there has to be 

22 some way to deal with this composite score stuff where that 

23 sort of shenanigans doesn't happen. That school is now out of 

24 business. There are thousands of students. My colleague 

25 Jessica has been, her organization is part of trying to help 

26 those students and the company's gone bankrupt. And there's 

27 really nothing for the students. They all have a ton of debt, 

28 and they have nothing to show for it. So, I really do think 

29 that, you know, the Secretary needs some flexibility on this 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 46

1 and should think about how important that metric is. I just 

2 think it's important to be able to do something in that sort 

3 of situation and not rely on shareholders to try to protect 

4 our own interests. And the students get nothing out of it. I 

5 mean, the school went out of business 10 or 12 years after 

6 that lawsuit. So, thank you.

7 MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Johnson. Appreciate that. 

8 Barmak?

9 MR. NASSIRIAN: Yes. First of all, I wanted to

10 appreciate Kelli's clarification of where her concern is. But 

11 I have to tell you, I don't see anything about reporting here. 

12 What I see is a provision that limits the Secretary's 

13 discretion and precludes action where it's most needed, where 

14 there is. Now, however, we calculated what the basis of 

15 reporting is that we can talk about. But I would posit that an 

16 institution that precipitously drops from a 3.0 to .5 is 

17 probably a better target of immediate concern than an 

18 institution that drops from 1.1 to .9. So, in this provision, 

19 I don't see why the Secretary would want to limit that 

20 discretion and preclude action where they really ought to 

21 hustle and get something done. With regard to the example, 

22 obviously the judgment of materiality should also be available

23 to the institution itself. An institution with $400 million of 

24 revenues on a $20,000 judgment would be pretty safe in 

25 assuming that that its 3.0 is not going to be dislodged to a 

26 0.9 as a result of that particular judgment. I think that's 

27 where the reporting language resides and what the obligations 

28 are I don't presently have in mind, but it seems to me that 

29 here we're talking about the legal basis of authority for the 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 47

1 Secretary to intervene and to me just doesn't make any sense 

2 to exclude larger drops from above. 1.5. Now how you get it 

3 reported, I understand. And apropos Brad's point, of course, 

4 it's a fluctuating number. The composite number may be 

5 different by the hour. But guess what, the number that should 

6 concern us is when it drops, even for a moment below a 

7 critical threshold. Because, yes, while there is a high, there 

8 may be a theoretical possibility that it could bounce back. 

9 What we've seen historically is that it doesn't bounce back. 

10 That is indicative of a dangerous trend that ends up costing 

11 students and taxpayers. So, it has to be monitored. The 

12 Department has to monitor it. That is standard practice in 

13 commercial credit transactions. We don't just take a snapshot 

14 and say, good luck, I'll see you next year. You obligate 

15 people to report changing circumstances that have an impact on 

16 their ability to service the debt. Thank you.

17 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. I think we're going 

18 to take the three hands that are up, Brad, Kelli and Jessica, 

19 and see if there's some new information to share with the

20 Department and then let the Department move on to the next 

21 section of this, as you do have this as a large document to go 

22 through, so we want to be sure we can get to all of it. Brad.

23 MR. ADAMS: Well, I do have a comment within 

24 mandatory, but I may let Kelli and Jessica if they want to 

25 finish up on one A, romanette one. I think there's still on 

26 that topic, but I'll hold off, if that's alright and keep my 

27 place in line.

28 MS. JEFFRIES: Sure. Just want to check in. Kelli and 

29 Jessica, do you have something new that you want to share?
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 48

1 MS. PERRY: No, I just wanted to just one more 

2 response to what Barmak just said. I'm not saying that this, 

3 so the reporting that I'm talking about is actually in this 

4 issue paper. We get to it a little bit later. And all I'm 

5 saying is that if we're going to do something with this one, 

6 we need to take them in tandem and do them together. Is what 

7 I'm saying.

8 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. I see the advisor, 

9 David McClintock, has come on camera and has his hand up. Do 

10 you have some input on this, Dave?

11 MR. MCCLINTOCK: I just wanted to make a quick 

12 clarification, I guess. So, the composite score is a 

13 combination of a point in time because you use the balance 

14 sheet, right? So, the last day of the year, but it also 

15 includes the PNL, so the profitability of the entity during a 

16 time period. So, it's not as if it's a continuous calculation 

17 of the composite score because you would need to update it 

18 with activity since the most recent balance sheet dates. So, 

19 there are considerations about the timing of when you look at 

20 whether it be a month end or quarter end or something that 

21 would be reasonable to do, it's not every single day a school 

22 would calculate it. The changes could be made. You just have 

23 to consider that as part of the process.

24 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thanks, Dave. Appreciate it. So, 

25 Jessica, is your comment on one A? Okay. So, Brad has deferred 

26 to you on that before him. So.

27 MS. RANUCCI: Thank you. I'll try and be quick 

28 because this is just, I believe, a drafting issue. But I 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 49

1 wanted to bring it up because I think it's maybe an important 

2 one. My understanding of one A is that it was intended to 

3 cover a variety of liabilities resulting from settlements or 

4 final judgments, whereas one B was intended to cover certain 

5 losses of state and federal losses that have not gone to 

6 judgment. But I'm a little concerned that the redrafting of 

7 one A with the language that says proceeding described in 

8 paragraph (c)(1) one B or C of this section, that that clause 

9 suggests that that entire list of things. So, debt or 

10 liability from a settlement or arbitration proceeding, final 

11 judgment, judicial proceeding is only limited to things that 

12 are otherwise described in paragraph B and C, and I don't 

13 think that that was intended to be based on all of our 

14 conversations and the rulemaking. So, I was wondering if you 

15 could just take a look at that? I can try and rephrase it if 

16 that's not clear.

17 MR. MARTIN: Could you put that, would you put that 

18 in the comment please? Thank you.

19 MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Jessica. Brad.

20 MR. ADAMS: Thank you. So, I had a comment on, its 11 

21 creditor events, B. And I understand the point, but there's no 

22 materiality threshold in here whatsoever, and this is a 

23 mandatory trigger. But, you know, I was an auditor in 08, and 

24 I saw what the banks did to companies and just calling a 

25 balance on a line of credit. You can have a balance called on 

26 a line of credit for not using your line of credit. And it 

27 doesn't mean you're not fiscally responsible. So, I just am 

28 really struggling with how we word B as we worded it. I 

29 actually think in the discretionary number two creditor events 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 50

1 is actually worded more I guess at a higher level than this. 

2 This is just so open to discretion. Maybe someone can help me 

3 understand why we think calling a balance due on a line of 

4 credit that may be because it's not being used is a bad thing 

5 and it means you're not fiscally responsible.

6 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. I'm not seeing an immediate 

7 response, Brad. Maybe something the Department has to mull 

8 over and get back to you on.

9 MR. MARTIN: I'll take that, I'll take it back. 

10 You're talking about the creditor term, about the suspension 

11 of a line of credit. Well, our concern is obviously where 

12 schools are experiencing financial difficulties. One of the 

13 ways we have of picking up on that in time to do anything 

14 about it is where creditors begin to limit or suspend lines of 

15 credit or call-in balances on loans. And so, I think that's 

16 stuff that we're coming from here is trying is a lot of this 

17 is ways in which the Department can be aware of where an 

18 institution is potentially in trouble. And while I do 

19 understand that that you could have a line of credit ended for 

20 not using it. Our overriding concern is this is awareness here 

21 of when an institution begins to be in financial trouble. And 

22 these are important indicators of that. But I will take it 

23 back.

24 MR. ADAMS: And I added comments in the text for you, 

25 Greg. I do think if we just added at the very end of B because 

26 the institution is in financial distress or something that 

27 relates to the fact that it was called because of the fiscal 

28 nature of the school or being in a bad position, however you 

29 need a word it but some sort of qualifier there. And then I'd 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 51

1 like to move to two right below it on the two discretionaries 

2 becoming a mandatory and we'll get through this when we cover 

3 discretionaries but some of these discretionaries as you know 

4 having not been defined that the Department can't tell us how 

5 you resolve it, is still a problem for me. And I understand 

6 why the Department has discretionary triggers and why we want 

7 them to be not limiting. But at the same time, if a school has 

8 no idea what the benchmark is, I don't see how two of them 

9 that are undefined can then result into a mandatory financial 

10 issue that would be could potentially require a letter of 

11 credit. I just don't think it's worded in a way with the 

12 discretionary triggers down below that that we could live 

13 with. Thank you.

14 MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Brad. Certainly, if you have 

15 some suggestion what the language would look like, that would 

16 be more acceptable. You could put that in the chat. The 

17 Department's looking for that type of information as well for 

18 consideration. I'm not seeing any more hands on this section, 

19 Greg, so why don't we go ahead and move to the discretionary 

20 triggers, I believe are next.

21 MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Cindy. Yes. We will be moving 

22 to the discretionary triggers and those are found in paragraph 

23 D. So, we'll wait for those to come up. Renee, can you bring 

24 up D? Oh, there it is. Thanks. Oh, Vanessa's started. Okay. 

25 So, we had a switch over. No problem. Thanks, Vanessa. So, 

26 Vanessa Freeman is doing this now, so want to acknowledge her 

27 efforts here. So, this should be page 14, right? I think we 

28 need to go back, Vanessa. Yeah. This is page. Right, right 

29 there. Thanks. That's great. Fantastic. Okay, so we are 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 52

1 starting with our discretionary triggers here in D and let's 

2 move down to D two, which is creditor events. And you see that 

3 there. We have clarified the cross-references in this item. 

4 And again, we've updated throughout the section what we mean 

5 by the entity of financial statements were submitted to the 

6 institution. So that's just noting those changes there. And 

7 then we'll move on to, let's move on to number six on page 15, 

8 Vanessa. This is pending Borrower Defense claims number six 

9 there that you see. And we have revised this item to clarify 

10 the original intent. And here under pending Borrower Defense 

11 claims there are pending claims for borrower relief discharge 

12 under 685.206 from students or former students of the 

13 institution. And the Secretary has formed a group process to 

14 consider the claims under 685.402. And then moving down to 

15 number seven. Discontinuation of programs. These here we have 

16 moved the affecting at least 25 percent of the students from 

17 reporting requirement for this trigger to the discretionary 

18 trigger itself. Because we think the intent of the trigger 

19 will be clearer. So, in number seven, then the institution 

20 discontinues a significant share of its academic programs, 

21 affecting at least 25 percent of enrolled students. And our 

22 next change is under ten, number ten, which is borrowing. And 

23 we have clarified here this applies to all borrowing during 

24 the last quarter that is repaid during the first two quarters. 

25 So, there I'll read the revisions to ten. An institution's 

26 financial statements submitted under 600.20 G or H or 668.23 

27 or subpart L of this part include a line of credit or 

28 borrowing in the last quarter of the fiscal year that was 

29 repaid during the first two quarters of the next fiscal year. 

30 And then we move down to number 11, the loss of program 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 53

1 eligibility. And we've added this discretionary trigger here 

2 (d)(11). This is a new trigger, discretionary trigger that 

3 will ensure the Department has adequate information about such 

4 actions but does not require the Department to take action 

5 where loss of eligibility is against a single small program at 

6 an institution. And this is, again, number 11, loss of program 

7 eligibility. One or more programs at the institution has lost 

8 eligibility to participate in another federal educational 

9 assistance program due to an administrative action against the 

10 school or its programs. And that is everything for the 

11 discretionary triggers under D. So I'll open the floor for 

12 discussion.

13 MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Greg. Brad, you are up 

14 first.

15 MR. ADAMS: Thank you, Cindy. And back to my previous 

16 comment on the language. I think we should remove the two 

17 discretionary triggers becoming mandatory since the Secretary 

18 already has the ability to judge any trigger it wants to that 

19 warrants a consequence. So that would be my recommendation. 

20 I'll put it in the chat. On this, again, I'm struggling with 

21 three and four. Three in particular on a fluctuation in Title 

22 IV, because it's not a fluctuation only down, it's a 

23 fluctuation up. So, you could have an instance where revenues 

24 increased 25 percent that you could be deemed financially not 

25 responsible. So, in the fact that neither one of these as Greg 

26 nor Mr. Finley’s own admission in session to the Department 

27 can define what either one of these is. And so, I don't know 

28 how a school knows whether they're triggering either one of 

29 these two. I did want to bring up, though, on the new item 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 54

1 number ten. I'm struggling with this one because there's no 

2 way to game the system with borrowing money at the end of the 

3 year anymore. It's now the money has to be used for a fixed 

4 asset in order to help your composite score. So why are we 

5 going to penalize schools that have short-term borrowed money 

6 in the last quarter of one year and then pay it off in the 

7 first six months of the next year when it doesn't help you 

8 game any kind of calculation. All we're doing here is saying 

9 schools don't pay off your debt early or you'll be penalized. 

10 So maybe someone talk to me why we think number ten is 

11 important here? Paying off debt early is good, I thought. I'm 

12 confused.

13 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Greg? Nope. Okay.

14 MR. MARTIN: I'll take that back.

15 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, you'll take that back? Alright. 

16 Thank you. And I don't know, maybe some of your other 

17 negotiators may weigh in on that as well, Brad. We'll see. 

18 Kelli?

19 MS. PERRY: Yeah, I have some concerns about ten as 

20 well, because there's a very good chance that a school could 

21 use a line of credit as a cash need. So, I'll give you an 

22 example. A lot of schools will have lines of credits set up 

23 with banks, but they never draw on them. But let's say, you 

24 know, the school is running short on cash. Let's say they have 

25 a June 30 year end. They're running short on cash because 

26 their fall tuition revenue hasn't all come in. And they need 

27 to use that line and that line of credit to get through the 

28 summer months and then they pay it back once that fall tuition 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 55

1 revenue comes in immediately. So, this is this whole concept 

2 of having a line of credit that you borrow against in one 

3 fiscal period and you pay it back in another fiscal period is 

4 something that Treasury Department's use or can use as a means 

5 of determining how they use their cash because they don't want 

6 to dip into their investments or their endowment or such. So, 

7 they have a real concern about this one, because I think this 

8 happens more than you think for reasons not because the school 

9 is at risk of closure, but because they do it to manage their 

10 cash.

11 MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Kelli. Greg, I don't see 

12 any other hands. Oh, here we go. Jamie?

13 MS. STUDLEY: I think the change to number seven, 

14 adding the 25 percent program closure level is a good 

15 direction. I don't know if 25 is magic, but I appreciate the 

16 ability to distinguish between appropriate management and 

17 terminating programs for whatever reason and the need to look 

18 at them as triggers. I will reiterate the two discretionaries 

19 should not become mandatory refrain that you've heard. I rise 

20 now just to speak to the simple question of number one 

21 accrediting agency actions has placed or places the 

22 institution on a status is a very reasonable discretionary 

23 trigger but has no time horizon. So, it could I don't think 

24 the Secretary would, but it could encompass an accreditation 

25 status ten years ago. So, I'm not sure what has placed adds 

26 since what you're looking for is a delta something that 

27 happens that the Secretary wants to be informed of and look 

28 at. So, if the intent is the institution is placed on the it 

29 has placed the institution on probation or show cause that may 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 56

1 be a sufficient trigger or you can add a timeframe. I don't 

2 think it's a severe problem, but it just leaves open a 

3 historic door that the Department's probably already looked at 

4 that action.

5 MR. MARTIN: Certainly, certainly our intent is not 

6 to do that, to go back to ten years. But I can understand that 

7 there could be some that could be read in there. So, take a 

8 look at it.

9 MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Jamie. Debbie?

10 MS. COCHRANE: I'm just trying to understand some of 

11 the comments that have been raised around the two 

12 discretionary triggers becoming one mandatory one given and I 

13 know there's some questions have been raised around what can 

14 be added authorities like give the Department. I'm just 

15 wondering if the Department had a response on that?

16 MR. MARTIN: About the two discretionaries becoming 

17 mandatory?

18 MS. COCHRANE: Yeah. Given that it can already look 

19 at the kind of take any one discretionary triggering event and 

20 kind of escalate it. That's what I think if I'm understanding 

21 what some of the other negotiators have been asking about, I 

22 would just like to hear the Department's perspective.

23 MR. MARTIN: It is true that we can take any of the 

24 discretionary ones are at our discretion. It is as I think, 

25 acknowledgment in the regulation that if there are two or more 

26 discretionary events that happen, that that becomes a that 

27 becomes an item of concern. And at that point, they become 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 57

1 mandatory. And it elevates what the Department has to do as 

2 well as opposed to what the Department can do. So that, but I 

3 get the I take the point that, yes, that we can use any of 

4 these in any of these discretionary triggers independent of 

5 that independent of that mandatory trigger. I sense there 

6 seems to be a considerable amount of concern about the 

7 mandatory discretionary two or more discretionary triggers 

8 becoming mandatory.I'll take that back for discussion.

9 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Greg. Barmak?

10 MR. NASSIRIAN: I wanted to echo Brad's comment and 

11 Kelli's comment with regard to a ten. If short-term borrowing 

12 and repayments really doesn't have an impact on the composite 

13 score. What's the point of just forcing institutions to report 

14 and overwhelming the Department with non-actionable

15 information that it can't really use? I don't see that as 

16 particularly adding any value to anything. But the comment I 

17 had was my and this may have to do with the manner in which 

18 the mandatory trigger on default was crafted, maybe? But the 

19 way I read it, number two, romanette one and two, which are 

20 intended to be discretionary triggers are actually more 

21 limited than the mandatory trigger on default. This seems to 

22 be from my reading, this is already a mandatory default and is 

23 already a mandatory trigger. So now you're saying you have to 

24 default and there has to be further conditions. And if those 

25 conditions are met, this becomes just a discretionary trigger. 

26 Just it seems either redundant or there's something kind of 

27 incongruent about what we're doing here. I just don't 

28 understand what this provision is supposed to do if default is 

29 a mandatory trigger. What is this provision doing here? I may 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 58

1 be missing some nuance, which I often do, but some 

2 clarification on this would be helpful.

3 MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Barmak. Carolyn?

4 MS. FAST: I just wanted to offer some support for 

5 the Department's proposal that two discretionary triggers 

6 would equal a mandatory trigger. That seems to be a very clear 

7 need for this type of provision here. There's been a 

8 historical problem with the Department acting in time to 

9 protect students and taxpayers from these closures. And part 

10 of it is that the Department has other things to do or there 

11 might be other concerns that the Department is wrestling with 

12 instead of just focusing on what can we do to protect students 

13 and taxpayers before it's too late. So having a mechanism that 

14 says here are some multiple big problems and this is going to 

15 be mandatory without having to get the Department to 

16 necessarily pay attention or resist other pressures, to let 

17 these things go to have protections in place seems to be 

18 extremely important. And it would be a big step backward to 

19 get rid of that provision.

20 MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Caroline. Greg, you have 

21 your hand up?

22 MR. MARTIN: Yeah, after we take the last comment, I 

23 wanted to ask if I may impose upon our advisor, Mr. 

24 McClintock, to comment on ten about the extent to which, in 

25 his professional opinion, he feels that the borrowing in the 

26 last quarter and repayment in the first two quarters could be 

27 used to gain composite scores. If he feels he would like to 

28 comment on it.
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 59

1 MS. JEFFRIES: Sure, wait just a second. Yael was in 

2 line, and I want to see if she's okay with you holding your 

3 place right now and letting Dave address that or? Okay, great. 

4 Thank you. Okay, Dave.

5 MR. MCCLINTOCK: Yeah. Thanks. And I did add to the 

6 chat. I know the public can't see that, that I don't see a way 

7 that it can be game. So, after the Borrower Defense went into 

8 effect, the way the composite score works, schools have to 

9 subtract their net fixed assets from equity, but they can add 

10 back long-term debt and they now have to add any new fixed 

11 assets any new debt has to be specifically tied to the 

12 acquisition of fixed assets. And so, in this case, if you 

13 borrow money and pay it back, it's not getting captured in the 

14 composite score or that add back in any way. So, I can't see a 

15 way that it would game the composite score calculation.

16 MR. MARTIN: Thanks, David. I appreciate that.

17 MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, David. Okay, Yael?

18 MS. SHAVIT: Thanks. I just want to add on to 

19 Carolyn's comment. I view the necessity of the two 

20 discretionary triggers becoming mandatory the same way that 

21 Carolyn does. And I do want to note that the discretionary 

22 triggers are constrained and targeted. I think it's good to 

23 give the Department discretion there. But where there are two 

24 discretionary triggers at issue, I think at that point, 

25 understanding the different obligations of the Department and 

26 the amount of time that it can take to make discretionary 

27 actions. Time is not on the side of the institutions or their 

28 students, and I think it's unlikely for the Department in 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 60

1 those scenarios to be able to act as quickly in every 

2 circumstance as would be necessitated by multiple red flags 

3 going off. So, I think as a timing matter, more than anything, 

4 this is a critical addition. And I do just want to note again, 

5 it isn't the case that the list of discretionary triggers is 

6 expansive. I think it is targeted and I think it's meaningful. 

7 And so, where there are more than one of these triggers 

8 creating red flags and concerns, I agree that it's not only 

9 appropriate for the Department to create a mechanism by which 

10 two discretionary triggers become mandatory. I think it's 

11 critical for the functioning of these regs.

12 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thanks, Yael. I appreciate that. 

13 Okay. Jamie, do you have something quick because we're fast 

14 approaching the lunch hour?

15 MS. STUDLEY: I can wait till after lunch, if you 

16 prefer?

17 MS. JEFFRIES: No, go ahead. We need to get as much 

18 as we can, because you still have a significant piece of this 

19 paper to cover.

20 MS. STUDLEY: It, I respect the considerations, 

21 although managing the Secretary by regulation is a challenging 

22 task. Maybe the Department at some point can explain that, 

23 that remain unresolved. That might be helpful and knowing the 

24 limit of this. Just very briefly, here's the situation that 

25 I'm concerned about not having an automatic effect. So, and 

26 it's a much more benign counterpoint to the multiple seriously 

27 troubling issues that Carolyn and Jessica have spoken to. A 

28 college in prudent management of the institutional programing 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 61

1 in the best interests of the student says we need to 

2 discontinue a quarter of our programs. We've planned for that. 

3 We do that so that we can continue to offer good programs. The 

4 secretary says, yes, that's no problem there. You're not in 

5 financial distress. In fact, that's good for you. Oh, and we 

6 are closing some locations that will also change our 

7 structure, but it's all to the good. And the Secretary says 

8 that's fine. Does the third thing that they want to do, that 

9 they would otherwise have the right to talk to the institution 

10 about why they wanted to close something else, throw them into 

11 a mandatory financial responsibility. After all this prudent 

12 planning to reorganize themselves, they are now mandatorily in 

13 a financially determined state to be financially precarious 

14 when in fact these were the changes that were necessary to 

15 make them healthy. And the Secretary has exercised this 

16 discretion to say they are. I don't know that you can answer 

17 it right now. That's the needle we're trying to thread to I 

18 respect the idea of moving these and not having them sit 

19 around when there are decisions to be made. But I also I think 

20 that's why the 25 percent helps that that may tilt the balance 

21 of this as we navigate this. But that's the kind of thing that 

22 I worry about, not the bad ones, but the ordinary course kinds 

23 of activities that are appropriate for discretion. Could a 

24 school doing wise things be thrown into that pot? That's it.

25 MS. JEFFRIES: Appreciate that, Jamie. And you 

26 brought us right directly to the lunch hour. So perfect. So, 

27 we will adjourn and reconvene at 1 p.m. today and pick up on 

28 financial responsibilities. Hopefully being able to move 

29 through that document and at least look at, I believe, change 

30 of ownership would be next, right? Yes.
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 62

1 MR. MARTIN: Correct.

2 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Alright. So, with that, if we 

3 could go off broadcast and everyone have a great lunch.

4 Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary 

5 Education

6 Zoom Chat Transcript

7 Institutional and Programmatic Eligibility Committee

8 Session 3, Day 3, Morning, March 16, 2022

9 From Kelli Perry - (P) Private Non-Profits to

10 Everyone:

11 Emmanual will continue for GE

12 From Debbie Cochrane (P), State Agencies to

13 Everyone:

14 It is still dark here!

15 From Adam Welle, State AGs (P) to Everyone:

16 The notion that programs with failing D/E rates are 

17 considered as to overall institutional capability (here, for 

18 purposes of entering a PPA) seems entirely reasonable.

19 From Jamienne Studley--Accrediting agencies (P) 

20 she/her to Everyone:

21 Same question as Brad: what might be the burden on 

22 schools to calculate if not the same as IPEDS, and is that a 

23 standard disclosure? 
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 63

1 From Anne Kress (P) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

2 +1 Jamie and Brad

3 From Dave McClintock (Advisor) Auditor to Everyone:

4 The educational spending outlined would be a new 

5 disclosure

6 From Ernest Ezeugo (P) Students and Student Loan 

7 Borrowers to Everyone:

8 +1 Johnson and Barmak

9 From Johnson Tyler (P) Legal Aid to Everyone:

10 I think the educational spending on instruction is 

11 already in IPEDS data.

12 From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to

13 Everyone:

14 Educational spending is already part of IPEDS 

15 submission, so if the definitions align it will not create an 

16 additional burden. If the don't align I believe it will create 

17 confusion.

18 From Jamienne Studley--Accrediting agencies (P) 

19 she/her to Everyone:

20 Thanks, Brad.

21 From Carolyn Fast (P) Consumer/Civil Rights 

22 organizations to Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 64

1 IPEDS does have instructional spending reporting, 

2 but it does not currently allow for a good understanding of 

3 non-educational expenditures because expenses for advertising 

4 are included in other categories, including "student 

5 services"" This definition addresses that problem.

6 From Kelli Perry - (P) Private Non-Profits to

7 Everyone:

8 I will be coming back to the table for Fin Resp.

9 From Sam Veeder (P) FA Administrators to Everyone:

10 I will be rejoining for FA

11 From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aid to Everyone:

12 I’ll be coming to the table for legal aids

13 From Johnson Tyler (P) Legal Aid to Everyone:

14 Jessica is taking over for legal aid. thx. johnson

15 From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to

16 Everyone:

17 my request remains the same that use IPEDs 

18 educational spending definition as it currently exists and if 

19 we want to change the current IPEDs definition then to do it 

20 in IPEDs so that they align and are the same.

21 From Johnson Tyler (P) Legal Aid to Everyone:

22 Thank You Ernest
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 65

1 From Carolyn Fast (P) Consumer/Civil Rights 

2 organizations to Everyone:

3 Thank you Ernest.

4 From Ernest Ezeugo (P) Students and Student Loan 

5 Borrowers to Everyone:

6 Of course, and I appreciate that reminder Greg. 

7 Thank you.

8 From Amanda Martinez (P) Civil Rights to Everyone:

9 +1 Ernest. Important perspective to share for the 

10 public and group.

11 From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to

12 Everyone:

13 Thanks for sharing Ernest. As I have stated for 

14 three sessions I firmly believe a DE and earning disclosure 

15 for all programs at all institutions would provide students 

16 with valuable information about the value of a program. The 

17 small program rate is a good start, but it could go to all 

18 degree programs as well.

19 From Carolyn Fast (P) Consumer/Civil Rights 

20 organizations to Everyone:

21 +1 to Barmak - why would we limit this provision to 

22 schools that start with scores under 1.5? If a school drops 

23 below 1, that is significant, regardless of the prior score.

24 From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aid to Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 66

1 +1 to Barmak/Carolyn

2 From Debbie Cochrane (P), State Agencies to

3 Everyone:

4 Agree on the point raised by Barmak/Carolyn.

5 From Jamienne Studley--Accrediting agencies (P) 

6 she/her to Everyone:

7 +1 to Barmak/Carolyn/Debbie on this issue of 

8 dropping below

9 From Adam Welle, State AGs (P) to Everyone:

10 Yael is coming to the table for state AGs

11 From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aid to Everyone:

12 Johnson is coming back to the table to make a 

13 comment

14 From Barmak Nassirian (A) Servicemembers & Vets to

15 Everyone:

16 "you may be in a better position 6 months later . . 

17 . but you may not be"

18 From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to

19 Everyone:

20 I am going to let Barmak go in front of me so we can 

21 finish debate on 1 (i) A

22 From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aid to Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 67

1 I’m coming back to the table for legal aids

2 From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aid to Everyone:

3 I am concerned about the language in (c)(1)(i)(A) 

4 regarding settlement, arbitration proceeding... administrative 

5 proceeding described in paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B) or (C)...” I 

6 believe that this final clause (“described in paragraph 

7 (c)(1)(i)(B) or (C)”) is NOT intended to circumscribe this 

8 whole list to events listed in (B) or (C), but I’m concerned 

9 that it could be read that way.

10 From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to

11 Everyone:

12 I recommend we change 11 B to the following:

13 Any creditor terminates, withdraws, limits, or 

14 suspends any line of credit, loan agreement, or other 

15 financing arrangement because the institution is in financial 

16 distress.

17 From Jamienne Studley--Accrediting agencies (P) 

18 she/her to Everyone:

19 + 1 to Brad --as I've said before i don't understand 

20 why two discretionary triggers become mandatory, since the 

21 Secretary always has the ability to judge that a discretionary 

22 trigger warrants attention or consequence

23 From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to

24 Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 68

1 +1 Jamie. My recommendation would be to remove the 

2 two discretionary triggers become mandatory since the 

3 secretary has the ability to judge any discretionary trigger 

4 that warrants consequence already.

5 From Barmak Nassirian (A) Servicemembers & Vets to

6 Everyone:

7 +1 on Brad's point on 10

8 From Dave McClintock (Advisor) Auditor to Everyone:

9 I would echo the comments about #10 and don't 

10 understand the risks it is trying to address now that all debt 

11 must be specifically assigned to new fixed assets in the 

12 composite score calculation

13 From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to

14 Everyone:

15 +1 to Jamie. I appreciate the department defining a 

16 figure on point 7. I am not sure 25% is the right number and I 

17 would like for it to align to point 3 in mandatory, but 25% is 

18 a defined number which helps institutions.

19 From Ernest Ezeugo (P) Students and Student Loan 

20 Borrowers to Everyone:

21 Thanks for asking Debbie. I've been seeing it as a 

22 streamlining process but am also curious to hear this 

23 response.

24 From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to

25 Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 69

1 +1 Debbie

2 From Kelli Perry - (P) Private Non-Profits to

3 Everyone:

4 +1 Debbie

5 From Emmanual Guillory (A) PNPs to Everyone:

6 +1 Debboe

7 From Emmanual Guillory (A) PNPs to Everyone:

8 *Debbie

9 From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aid to Everyone:

10 In response to Jamie, aren’t all discretionary 

11 triggers subject to the introductory language that “the 

12 Secretary determines... likely to have a material adverse effect 

13 on the financial condition of the institution”? If so, I think 

14 that might take care of the long-ago accreditation action 

15 issue.

16 From Jamienne Studley--Accrediting agencies (P) 

17 she/her to Everyone:

18 In a sense the "two discretionaries" provision could

19 override the Secretary's discretion to judge that they are not 

20 of concern. Thanks, Debbie, for asking.

21 From Anne Kress (P) Comm Colleges to Everyone:

22 +1 to Jamie’s reading as the heart of the concern
Committee Meetings - 03/16/22 70

1 From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to

2 Everyone:

3 +1 Barmak. As I referenced not as well as Barmak I 

4 am not sure why creditor events are in both places.

5 From Kelli Perry - (P) Private Non-Profits to

6 Everyone:

7 +1 Barmak

8 From Ernest Ezeugo (P) Students and Student Loan 

9 Borrowers to Everyone:

10 That's how I've been seeing it, thanks Carolyn.

11 From Johnson Tyler (P) Legal Aid to Everyone:

12 +1 Carolyn

13 From Debbie Cochrane (P), State Agencies to

14 Everyone:

15 Thanks everyone, I can see those perspectives. The 

16 discussion of the topic is helpful.

17 From Emmanual Guillory (A) PNPs to Everyone:

18 Also, what happens for institutions that are simply 

19 restructuring majors?