Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and Institutional Quality – 2/7/24

1

 

 

 

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING PROGRAM INTEGRITY 

AND INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY

SESSION 2, DAY 3, MORNING

FEBRUARY 7, 2024

On the 7th day of February, 2024, the

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

to 12:00 p.m.
2

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

P R O C E E D I N G S

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning, everyone, 

and welcome back to session two, day three of the 

Department Program Integrity and Institutional Quality 

Committee Regulatory Negotiations. As usual, we will 

start off this morning with a roll call from our 

committee members. We will start with our nonFederal 

negotiators, beginning with our business officers from 

institutions of higher education, Joe Weglarz.

MR. WEGLARZ: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. And 

alternate, Dom Chase.

MR. CHASE: Present.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. Our civil 

rights organizations and consumer advocates, we have 

Carolyn Fast as primary.

MS. FAST: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. And Magin 

Sanchez. Oh. Alright. We didn't quite hear you, Magin, 

but I think we'll just work on your audio later to make 

sure that's working. For our financial aid 

administrators, JoEllen Price.

MS. PRICE: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. And Zack 

Goodwin.
3

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

MR. GOODWIN: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. 

Representing historically Black colleges and 

universities, tribal colleges and universities, and 

minority serving institutions, institutions of higher 

education eligible to receive Federal assistance under 

Title III parts (a) and (f), and Title V of the HEA, we 

have Charles B.W. Prince. DC? Alright. DC is not in yet. 

D'Angelo Sands? Alright. I don't see D'Angelo yet, 

either. For our institutional accrediting agencies 

recognized by the Secretary, Jamie Studley.

MS. STUDLEY: Good morning. Hello.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. And 

Michale McComis.

MR. MCCOMIS: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. Our legal 

assistance organizations, Robyn Smith.

MS. R. SMITH: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning, Robyn. 

And Sophie Laing.

MS. LAING: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. For our 

private nonprofit institutions of higher education, we 

have Erika Linden.

MS. LINDEN: I'm here. Thank you.
4

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. And Scott 

Dolan.

MR. DOLAN: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. For our 

programmatic accrediting agencies recognized by the 

Secretary to include state agencies recognized for their 

approval of nurse education, Laura Rasar King.

DR. KING: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. And Amy 

Akerson.

MS. ACKERSON: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. For our 

proprietary institutions of higher education, we have 

Jillian Klein.

MS. KLEIN: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. And 

Alyssa Dobson.

MR. COHEN: Should be David Cohen.

MS. DOBSON: I think.

MS. K. SMITH: I thought I saw her.

MS. DOBSON: Yeah, I'm here, but I'm

from four-year public institutions.

MS. K. SMITH: Oh. I'm sorry. My 

apologies. Yes.

MS. DOBSON: Good morning.
5

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

MS. K. SMITH: For proprietary 

institutions of higher education, David Cohen, my 

apologies.

MR. COHEN: No problem. Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning, David. 

Now, for public four-year institutions of higher 

education, Jason Lorgan.

MR. LORGAN: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: And again, Alyssa, good 

morning. For our public two-year institutions of higher 

education, Jo Alice Blondin.

MS. BLONDIN: Hello.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. And 

Michael Cioce.

MR. CIOCE: Happy Wednesday.

MS. K. SMITH: Happy Wednesday. For 

our state attorneys general, Diana Hooley.

MS. HOOLEY: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: And the alternate 

position is not filled. For state officials, including 

state higher education executive officers, state 

authorizing agencies, and state regulators of 

institutions of higher education, we have John Ware.

MR. WARE: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. And Rob 
6

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

Anderson.

MR. WARE: Rob's not here today. He 

had a family issue.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay, thank you. For 

students or borrowers, including currently enrolled 

borrowers or groups representing them, we have Jessica 

Morales. Jessi? Okay. I don't see her just yet. I think 

she will be joining us shortly. And Emmett Blaney.

MS. MORALES: Sorry, can you hear me?

MS. K. SMITH: Oh, yes. Okay. Jessi. 

Okay. Good morning.

MS. MORALES: I'm here. Emmett won't 

be here today.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay. Emmett won't be.

MS. MORALES: I just turned on the 

camera and I'm working on renaming. But I have internet 

today, so right now, we're at a win.

MS. K. SMITH: Alright. That is, we 

are winning. And finally, we have U.S. Military service 

members, veterans or groups representing them, Barmak 

Nassirian. Oh. Good morning, Barmak. And Ashlyn HaycockLohmann.

MS. HAYCOCK-LOHMANN: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. Alright. 

For the Department today we have our Federal negotiator 
7

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

is Greg Martin. Greg, if you just want to say good 

morning.

MR. MARTIN: Good morning, everyone.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning. And we do 

know that leading our discussion today of R2T4, is Dave 

Musser from the Department. Good morning, Dave. And from 

the Department's office of general counsel, we'll have 

Denise Morelli.

MS. MORELLI: Hi, all.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning, Denise. 

And Donna Mangold. Is Donna here?

MS. MANGOLD: Good morning.

MS. K. SMITH: Good morning, good 

morning. Okay. Before I turn it over to Dave for- to get 

us started with R2T4, we do have just two quick 

announcements. First, we are halfway through, so 

congratulations, everyone. We do want to just be mindful 

that we do have American Sign Language interpreters 

actively interpreting us. So if we can be mindful of that 

with our speaking pace. And also, since we are halfway 

through, time is of the essence. So remember a few 

things. To please keep your comments concise and germane 

to the issue at hand offering new ideas. And if we can 

try to refrain from piggybacking. And remember that there 

are multiple ways in which we can share information with 
8

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

the rest of the committee members and the Department, 

including in the chat box, and through proposals and 

information sharing through Gmail. Alright, without 

further ado, I would like to turn it over to Dave Musser.

MR. MUSSER: Alright. Thanks, Krystil. 

So this morning, I think we'll dive right on in to return 

on Title IV funds if everyone is prepared to do that. And 

I think to get started, we will throw the issue paper up 

for everyone to review it. And I'll go through each 

issue, including the ones, for which, no changes have 

been made, just to make sure that everyone remembers what 

the Department's intent was and what we were doing with 

each of the items. So we'll start out with the change to 

34 CFR 668.21, in which we amended the requirements for 

cases where a school disbursed direct loan funds to a 

student in excess of the charges for the institution and 

the student did not attend for the period that the 

disbursement was made for. Previously, the requirement 

was that we would- the school would provide information 

to the servicer, and the servicer would issue a final 

demand letter to the student, essentially requiring the 

student to repay the entire amount. And this change would 

alter that to have the student repay the loan under the 

terms of the master promissory note that the student had 

signed. I'll pause there and see if anyone has first, any 
9

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

comments on this? And we have not made any changes to 

this provision.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay seeing none. I 

think we're free to move on.

MR. MUSSER: Okay. Well, actually, I 

think I'd like to take temperature checks on each of 

these items as we go through, just to have a sense of 

where everyone stands on each item. So if we could take a 

temperature check on this one.

MS. K. SMITH: Absolutely. Alright. 

And just as a reminder of how our temperature checks 

work. Thumbs up if you are in favor of the language as 

proposed. If you maybe have a few reservations, but you 

can still live with it, we're going to be a sideways 

thumb. And if you disagree with it and, you know, would 

like to mark that, you would go thumbs down. So let's see 

a show of thumbs if we can. Okay. Alright. I think we see 

yours, Jessi. I am marking that there are no thumbs down, 

so thank you for that.

MR. MUSSER: Alright. Thanks, 

everybody. I think then we'll move on to the next item. 

Thank you, Vanessa. And this is beginning the section on 

exemptions to a student being treated as withdrawn and 

therefore subject to the return of Title IV funds 

requirements. If you can scroll down a little bit 
10

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

Vanessa? So if everyone recalls, previously, the 

Department had proposed to strike the exemption for 

students that complete a module or a combination of 

modules that comprise at least 49% of the payment period 

for which the student received Title IV funds. We heard 

some feedback that there were cases where this could 

significantly disadvantage students who only take, you 

know, a few courses, especially in summer terms, where 

it's actually quite frequent that a student might take 

only one course in one module and another course in 

another module, in which case the other exemption for 

completing a module within a payment period would not 

apply. And that, of course, is the exemption for 

completing at least half-time coursework in a payment 

period. So hearing the concerns posed by institutions and 

others, the Department has replaced the original language 

in this section that would provide that an exemption 

exists if a student completes a module or a combination 

of modules that comprise at least 49% of the payment 

period or period of enrollment. And I will pause there 

for a comment from the committee.

MS. K. SMITH: While we're waiting on 

comments, I do just want to note that the alternate for 

the HBCUs, HSIs and TCUs D'Angelo Sands has stepped in 

for the primary. And Jillian.
11

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

MS. KLEIN: Thanks. I just wanted to 

thank the Department for hearing the comments from the 

committee in January and reverting back to this language. 

That's all. Thanks.

MR. MUSSER: Thanks, Jillian. And I 

guess I should make one more comment. We did receive a 

proposal, I think it was intended to help assuage the 

Department's concerns about the burden associated with 

this calculation. The proposal was for us to make this 

optional, and we determined that we don't have the legal 

authority to do that. It's essentially an all-or-nothing 

proposition. Either we consider the student to be 

withdrawn in these circumstances or we do not. And so we 

have gone and simply replaced the provision. Alright. In 

that case, we'll take a quick temperature check on this 

one.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay. For 668.228 

(a)(2) romanette 2 (a)(2). Let's see thumbs on that. It 

looks like we have no thumbs down for. Jamie? I'm sorry. 

Okay. No thumbs down for that. Thank you.

MR. MUSSER: Alright. Thank you, 

everybody. And I think we can move on to the next item, 

which is the second exemption that the Department had 

proposed on altering. And if everyone recalls in this 

instance, the Department has proposed to exempt from 
12

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

consideration as a withdrawal and therefore the return of 

Title IV requirements. A student who, although they may 

have been in attendance on campus, the institution treats 

the student as if they never attended, the institution 

returns all of the students Title IV funds. The studentthe institution refunds all institutional charges to the 

student, if you can scroll down a little bit, and the 

institution writes off or cancels any current year 

balance owed by the student to the institution due to the 

institution's returning of Title IV funds to the 

Department. So this was an interesting topic of 

discussion last time. What we heard was general support 

for the provision with some concerns proposed by schools 

who acknowledged that there were services and goods and 

other items that a student might purchase from the 

institution, including room and board, that the student 

did make use of for a period while the student was in 

attendance. And some of those negotiators proposed that 

we allow schools to leave some of those charges on a 

student's account and still qualify for this exemption. 

However, the Department's position is that the exemption 

is intended to treat the student as if they truly never 

attended and never had any costs for the period. And for 

that reason, we believe that writing off or canceling any 

balance owed from those charges is important. And we 
13

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

don't believe that we can make exceptions to that and 

still consider the student to not have withdrawn. In 

those circumstances, we believe it's more appropriate to 

treat the student as a withdrawal and simply have the 

student- the school complete the R2T4 calculation for the 

student, and which would result in at least a small 

amount of Title IV funds, typically, remaining- the 

student remaining eligible for. But now I will pause 

there and open it up to the committee for discussion on 

this point.

MS. K. SMITH: Jason?

MR. LORGAN: Thank you. So I just have 

a question or a clarification around this. So the revised 

text indicates when a student is not considered to have 

withdrawn, but if the text is passed, then would those 

institutional debts paid by loans now be refunded to the 

student? This seems like it could be an unintended 

consequence of the changes in both sections. Thank you.

MR. MUSSER: So this is a circumstance 

where the student is treated as a non-attender and the 

student received loan funds and because they're treated 

as a non-attender they would therefore simply repay the 

loan as part of the MPN. Is that the question? Got it.

MS. K. SMITH: He's nodding his head.

MR. MUSSER: So in these 
14

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

circumstances, and I'll make sure and turn to my 

Department colleagues to make sure that they agree with 

me. But I believe our intent was that the Departmentthat the institution would return all of the student 

Title IV funds for the period, including amounts that the 

student received, in excess of institutional charges. 

Such that there would be no loan funds remaining that the 

student had incurred as debt for the period in question. 

So the provisions of 668.21 that we referred to earlier 

would not apply in these circumstances because there 

would be no loan funds that fell into the category of 

remaining debt that the student was then responsible for.

MS. K. SMITH: Any other comments on 

this section before we do a temperature check? Okay 

seeing none. Let's do a see thumbs for 668.22 (a)(2) 

romanette 2 (a)(6) and (7) with a strike-through.

MS. K. SMITH: Alright. I am. Jamie? 

Okay. Looks like there are no thumbs down for that one. 

Thank you.

MR. MUSSER: Okay. Thank you, 

everyone. And then I think we can move down to the final 

exemption under discussion. So can we scroll up a little 

bit, Vanessa? For just first to talk through what we had 

previously proposed. The Department had originally 

proposed to not consider a confined or incarcerated 
15

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

individual to have withdrawn in certain circumstances 

where the student was forced to cease attendance for 

reasons outside the student's control. What we heard from 

the committee was that there were some concerns with that 

proposal for several different reasons. One of which 

being that, some institutions have already have

established generous refund policies that incorporate the 

concept of R2T4, meaning that they make students whole in 

these circumstances with the understanding that students 

are not likely to be able to repay amounts that get 

returned or work through institutional debts that result 

from the R2T4 process. We also evaluated this from a 

legal perspective, and ultimately, we determined that we 

don't believe that we have the ability to fully consider 

a student who have not withdrawn if they have begun 

attendance and none of the other exclusions apply. For 

that reason, we have struck the original proposed 

language here. But we have introduced another set of 

changes that we hope will at least- that will address 

some of our concerns about these situations. So, Vanessa, 

if you could scroll down just a little bit here. So we 

are proposing a new condition under the leave of absence 

regulations under 34 CFR 668.22 (d) that are targeted at 

confined or incarcerated individuals. And this is 

essentially intended to allow these individuals to return 
16

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

to their coursework in a more flexible way. If they, 

especially if they experience one of these instances 

where they are unable to complete their coursework due to 

circumstances outside their control. So if you scroll 

down to the language that we've introduced here, this is 

under 668.22 (d). Approved leave of absences allow an 

institution to temporarily place essentially the student, 

the way I think of it is, in a holding pattern if they 

meet certain criteria. Generally, it requires that the 

student submit a request to be placed on the leave of 

absence in accordance with specific policies that the 

institution has established, although in certain 

circumstances if there is an emergency, the student can 

be placed on a leave of absence after the fact as long as 

the school has adequate documentation of the 

circumstance. However, in term-based programs, there are 

some very strict limitations on when this can be used. 

Typically, you don't see leaves of absence in term-based 

programs because they're of the requirement that you see 

here under (d)(1) romanette 7. Which is that, the only 

way that you can allow a student to go on a leave of 

absence currently in a term-based program that does not 

include a subscription-based program is if, upon the

student's return, they are permitted to complete the 

coursework that they began prior to the leave of absence. 
17

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

In the vast majority of cases students who are in termbased programs, if they withdraw, they withdraw from all 

their coursework and they simply return in a new term, 

generally starting new classes. There are exceptions. 

There are cases where schools are able to make that work. 

But it's our belief and understanding that it's quite 

rare. So we have in this iteration of our proposal, we 

have added another exclusion to this limitation, to say 

that if a student is in an eligible prison education 

program, the school has more flexibility, including, in 

term-based programs, to allow the student to return to 

coursework that starts later on without necessarily 

completing the coursework that they began prior to the 

leave of absence. This would allow the school to, for a 

period of time, allow the student to be out for whatever 

reason. Again, it could be because the facility in which 

they are incarcerated has locked down, there could be 

other medical reasons the student is out, but in any 

event, as long as the student is able to return to 

coursework within 180 days, which is the time limit for 

leaves of absence overall, the student could resume 

without being treated as a withdrawal in these 

circumstances. So let me pause there and see if there are 

questions or comments from the committee before we talk 

through it.
18

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

MS. K. SMITH: Looks like we're good 

on that one, Dave.

MR. MUSSER: Okay. Seeing no other 

comments or questions, we'll take a temperature check on 

this new language.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay. So let's see our 

temperature check for 668.22 (d). Can I see thumbs? Okay. 

Just one. Jamie? Jamie? I don't know.

MR. ROBERTS: Looks like our internet 

might be out. I'll reach out to her.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay. But outside of 

that, there are no thumbs down for that. And she looks 

like she's good too. Alright.

MR. MUSSER: Alright. In that case, I 

will move on to the next item. As a reminder, this was 

the proposal that the Department made last time. We did 

not make any changes to this one. In this one, we 

specified that in cases where a student has entered a 

second or subsequent payment period in a clock-hour 

program, the- sorry, let me go back, that's the wrong 

provision. In this one, we are codifying a long-standing 

policy that if a student withdraws from a program that is 

required to take attendance, they must, within 14 days of 

the last date of attendance, document the student's 

withdrawal date. And essentially that means that the 
19

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

clock starts for the return deadlines for that student no 

later than 14 days after the student's last date of 

attendance. And I'll pause there again and ask if there's 

any discussion on this point.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay.

MR. MUSSER: Zack has questions.

MS. K. SMITH: Oh, okay.

MR. MUSSER: I see it in chat.

MS. K. SMITH: Alright, so Zack 

Goodwin is coming in?

MR. GOODWIN: It was actually about 

the next item. So I will go off camera for me.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay. Hearing no 

questions or comments, we will take a temperature check 

for 668.22 (b)(2). If we can see thumbs for that. And Joe 

Weglarz? Okay. We have accounted for all the thumbs. No 

thumbs down. Thank you.

MR. MUSSER: Thanks for that. In that 

case, Vanessa, I think we can move on to the next item. 

In this section, we are dealing with the withdrawal date 

for a student who withdraws from an institution that is 

required to take attendance. Originally, as you guys 

recall, the Department proposed here to require 

attendance taking for students who were enrolled in 

distance education coursework. However, the draft 
20

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

language referred to a program offered through distance 

education. We heard from the committee that there were 

some concerns with that drafting and especially that it 

suggested that enrollment in even one course or even any 

distance education could cause an entire program to be 

treated as distance education. That was not the 

Department's intent. So we did revise the language here 

to refer to a distance education course. However, I want 

to remind the group of our discussion yesterday. We havewe were considering adding a definition of a distance 

education course. And if we do so, I think that would 

also be the term that we used here rather than a course 

offered entirely through distance education for

consistency's sake we would use the term that is 

established elsewhere in the regulations that would apply 

more broadly for this purpose. We did receive some- a 

proposal that certain kinds of programs be exempt from 

this requirement. However, it is the Department's view 

that distance education, generally, should be subject to 

this provision for the reasons that we previously 

described. We believe that such programs generally have a 

better ability to record course assignments as well as 

interactions between students and instructors, which are 

part of the requirement for regular and substantive 

interaction in distance education programs. That's the 
21

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

criteria that separates them from correspondence courses. 

And therefore, we have not made any changes to the types 

of programs that are subject to this. It would be, any 

course offered through distance education. And I'll pause 

there and ask for discussion from the negotiators.

MS. K. SMITH: Alright. Before I take 

Jillian, Zack Goodwin is coming in for the financial aid 

administrators. Jillian?

MS. KLEIN: Thanks. I'll get fighty 

separately on types of programs, but so I think we had 

this conversation in January and part of what I submitted 

in a proposal was trying to fix what I think is still 

clunky language. So I don't know if you want to bring the 

proposal back or the language back up or you don't have 

to, I guess. But the way this still reads to me is that 

if an institution offers one course via distance 

education, the entire institution is required to take 

attendance. And I thought we talked about this in January 

and I thought the Department said that wasn't the 

intention, but the language still says that. So I guess 

I'm struggling. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what the 

Department is intending here. But that feels different 

than the conversation we had in January.

MR. MUSSER: That's understandable. So 

on this point, if you look at the language for the other 
22

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

provisions, they all say the same thing, which probably 

is also confusing based on what kind of the way that it 

reads. But the Department's historical interpretation has 

been that this applies on a much more granular level and 

not to the institution as a whole. So, for example, if 

you look at (b)(3) romanette 1 (b), the institution has 

itself has a requirement that its instructors take 

attendance. That would apply only in cases where, for 

example, in a particular program the institution required 

its instructors to take attendance. But if it did not 

require instructors to take attendance in other programs, 

the Department would not apply the attendance-taking 

requirement to those other programs. So we mirrored the 

language that exists elsewhere in this provision for 

this. And we would apply the exact same approach, which 

is to say that, this only applies in cases where the 

student is taking a course through distance education. 

And I want to pause for a second and also return to a 

discussion that we had last time about how this would be 

done. In cases where a student is taking some courses 

through distance education and some that are not through 

distance education. In a payment period or a period of 

enrollment where the student is taking both distance 

education courses and courses that are not offered 

through distance education and do not otherwise have 
23

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

attendance-taking requirements, that student is treated 

as a nonattendance- is not required to take attendance 

for that period. Because the presence of one course for 

which the school is required to take attendance does not 

give assurance that the attendance is accurate for the 

student for the entire period if there are other courses 

that the student is taking for which attendance is not 

required. So this really only applies in cases where the 

student is enrolled in all distance education courses for 

a particular payment period or period of enrollment, or 

in cases where the student is enrolled in a combination 

of classes for which that are distance education, or 

where one of these other attendance taking requirements 

apply.

MS. KLEIN: So I hear what you're 

saying, but with all due respect, I think current (a) (b) 

and (c) actually do speak at an institution level. And so 

this actually feels like an outlier to me in terms of the 

construction. But I guess, you know, putting that aside, 

I guess if you guys are already making changes to this 

language, why wouldn't you just change an institution is 

required to take attendance to actually reflect what the 

Department's intention is? As opposed to saying, we'll 

have this language and then give guidance that it 

actually doesn't mean what it says. I guess I would just 
24

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

suggest clarity because I think it reads really clunky. 

And, Dave, I trust you and you're sitting here and 

telling us your expectation for institutions, but I don't 

know that the guy after Dave is going to feel the same 

way. So I guess, respectfully, I would just say I think 

it would make more sense if you would actually just edit 

the language to say what it is you're saying right now.

MR. MUSSER: We can consider that. And 

I acknowledge that the language has been interpreted over 

time in a way that does seem different from the drafting 

of it. And you can find those things in our preamble 

discussions of the other provisions throughout time. But 

I do acknowledge that it might be a good idea to amend 

the actual technical language here. We were frankly 

hoping not to introduce too many additional changes which 

where we could make other mistakes. But we will look at 

it from a legal perspective and decide whether it's worth 

doing that. And I appreciate the suggestion.

MS. KLEIN: Yeah. Thanks. I would just 

urge the Department to avoid regulating via preamble, if 

possible. Thanks.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you. Zack?

MR. GOODWIN: I think in light of some 

of the discussion with Jillian. But now my question may 

have changed slightly. I think I have heard over the 
25

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

course of the years because you have tended to- the 

Department has tended to be very flexible about how we 

interpret required to take attendance for students. A 

school could require it across the board. It could 

require it for certain programs, for certain courses, for 

certain parts of the payment period, even. And there has 

been, at least in my interpretation, some flexibility 

around, if a professor of their own volition, let's say, 

chooses to take attendance that were considering that 

course, perhaps as a required to take attendance type, of 

course, and we could then rely on those attendance 

records for determining a withdrawal date. Not that we 

were necessarily required to do that, but that was still 

something we could do. Is that, given that debate here 

between required to take attendance and cases where 

attendance may be taken but not required to be taken. 

Could we still for this online course, rely on those 

attendance records in the absence of other information?

MR. MUSSER: Yes. So, that's a great 

question, Zack. There's a separate provision that permits 

an institution to refer back to its records, its 

attendance records for the student. And even in cases 

where the student might be enrolled in some courses that 

are attendance taking in other courses that aren't, the 

school can use its best judgment to use the attendance 
26

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

records that it can find for that student. And I'll give 

an example of how that would probably play out here. You 

would have, for your distance education course, you would 

have attendance records presumably that are accurate, 

since if the school is complying with this for this to 

become regulation. But you would also probably go back to 

the other nonattendance taking classes and ask the 

instructor for whatever records they could provide. And 

then you would use the record for the last date- the 

furthest into the payment period that you could determine 

that the student attended based on the combination of all 

those records. Now, that student for that period is not 

considered to be at an institution required to take 

attendance. So you're not required to use those records. 

But a lot of schools do. A lot of schools choose to give 

the most accurate representation of the student's 

attendance for the period out of a sense of fairness and 

accuracy. So that would still be fine here.

MR. GOODWIN: Okay. Thank you. I more 

wanted to be sure that that option was retained. Thank 

you.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you. Just to 

note, that Scott Dolan is coming in for the private 

nonprofit institutions. Jason?

MR. LORGAN: Thank you. So I just 
27

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

wanted to provide a little more context about what I 

think is unclear about the language. So financial aid is 

not my subject matter expertise. So I consulted with the 

ten financial aid directors in the UC system and also the 

UC system headquarters. And there was- and everyone 

agreed that they believed that the way the regulations 

are currently written, includes the entire institution 

versus an individual course. So I realized that you just 

said that it does not. But I wanted to, you know, 

reiterate that I really do think that it's perceived that 

it's the entire institution, the way it's written. Thank 

you.

MR. MUSSER: That's good to know, 

actually. I think that gives some additional support to 

Jillian's suggestion that the Department amend this 

language to be more specific about what we intend here. 

And I think we're willing to go back and take a look at 

that.

MS. K. SMITH: Scott?

MR. DOLAN: I guess just given that 

the context for the changes was around simplicity. I 

think some of the conversation we're having here maybe 

might beg the question about whether or not how it's 

written is making things simpler for institutions, 

especially if it's going to be left open to 
28

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

interpretation. And I know some of the constituents 

within our group have raised some concerns around, you 

know, what this would look like in practice, where, an 

institution might use multiple learning management 

systems and have different components of this. Right? So 

having those speak to their financial aid systems and 

address it. And I hear the openness to flexibility of 

interpretation but I think, you know, I have some 

concerns about whether or not it's really as stated, 

helping the Department meet its intent, if the intent is 

really just about simplifying the process and not 

something else. Right. Because there were some 

conversations earlier in the first session about 

potential noncompliance, but there- and there were some 

at least brief discussions about where that might have 

occurred, but not a whole lot of data and evidence to 

support the noncompliance side of [inaudible]. So that 

would just be another suggestion. If it's more than 

simplicity to maybe provide a bit more of a rationale and 

justification for moving in this direction, given the 

fact that it will at some institutions become more 

complicated to implement.

MR. MUSSER: Understood. Thanks, 

Scott. I do want to make a note from our original 

discussion that the Department's intent here is both to 
29

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

improve the clarity of the regulations and the simplicity 

of the requirement, but also to improve the accuracy of 

return of Title IV calculations. Part of the simplicity 

piece of this is that the guidance that the Department 

has previously published on whether an institution is 

required to take attendance for distance education 

coursework is actually focused on 668.22 (b)(3) romanette 

1 (b). And actually, maybe Vanessa, if you could quickly 

bring up the language just so everyone can see that item. 

I want to make sure to make sure I explain the context 

here so that everyone understands. I don't know if 

Vanessa is able to, oh, there she is. So (b) is the 

requirement that if the institution itself has a 

requirement that its instructors take attendance, they 

are considered in attendance taking institution. So as I 

mentioned, the Department has interpreted that in a much 

more granular level than it seems to be to read here. And 

in guidance, we specified that there were cases where if 

an institution was recording a student's activities in a 

particular course, and those activities rose to the level 

of academic engagement, meaning that they were not merely 

log-ins, but they were more substantive activities such 

as submitting assignments, that kind of thing, then they 

would be considered attendance taking. But if they 

weren't, if they were merely log-ins, then they would not 
30

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

be attendance-taking. We revised that language, more 

recently to focus on synchronous sessions where 

attendance might be taken or cases where the institution 

was using the attendance data for purposes of maintaining 

enrollment and potentially removing a student who was a 

non-attender. But in any event, this has been a very 

confusing set of- area for institutions. And many 

institutions have told us over time that they didn't 

understand whether they were or were not subject to 

attendance-taking requirements for this provision. So 

that's the broad argument for making this change for 

simplicity. But I do hear you, Scott, on your request for 

more data on specifics. As I mentioned with the 

asynchronous clock hour issue, it is sometimes difficult 

for the Department to dig down to the level of very 

specifically which part of the R2T4 requirements were 

violated. We do have findings codes that allow us to get 

at broadly which ones are which and we will try to dig 

down and see if we can get you some more examples of how 

this has gone awry in the past as well. But that is thewhat I just described is the broad reason that we are 

trying to make this clearer. And we also believe, as I 

mentioned, that this will make calculations much more 

accurate in cases where schools were already obtaining 

much of this data through their distance education LMS. 
31

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

Especially since in many cases, the assignments, etc. are 

being submitted directly to the institution and have to 

be submitted through that format in order for them to 

track the student's progress in a class. So I'll pause 

there and go back to other committee members.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay. Thank you. 

Barmak?

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yes. I guess I'm a 

little concerned about the formalism of attendancetaking. Mainly because to the extent that there are audit 

trails that satisfy the Department's requirements. Those 

audit trails are presumably more reliable. You know, the 

recording of a data withdrawal is entirely and 

unilaterally within the power of the institution. And it 

would be nice if the idea is to create a reliable 

evidentiary basis for the determination of the exact date 

of nonattendance in a course to the extent that 

alternative, more reliable, real-time audit trails that 

satisfy the academic engagement requirement are 

available. I think those should be deemed very explicitly 

as the superseding evidence of the date of attendance. 

I'm just worried that institutions may have reasons to 

record dates of nonattendance that may be different than 

what the student believes, and I don't know what the 

remedy would be for the student to go back to the 
32

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

Department to request greater investigation.

MR. MUSSER: Thanks, Barmak. I guess 

I'm- I think I'm- first, I want to be sure I understand 

your point and the issue that you're focused on. Are you 

concerned primarily about what we were just discussing 

with Zack, where the school can use other records from 

courses that it's not taking attendance in or required 

its instructors to take attendance in to determine the 

student's withdrawal date?

MR. NASSIRIAN: I'm just concerned 

that the idea of creating a proxy in the form of a 

notational mandate on the schools gives the school 

unilateral power in some ways to put a date down when 

there are- and that may be the only remedy we have when 

there is nothing else there, right, in a face to face 

setting where the faculty actually takes formal 

attendance, that's all you got. But in cases where you 

have systems with audit trails that retain information

about student participation, engagement with the faculty, 

with the course material, etc., etc., I think those 

should be- those should trump some notational entry by 

unilaterally by the school that claim a particular date 

of nonattendance. For what it's worth, I don't know what 

you can do with it, but it's sort of, I'm just suggesting 

that there are more reliable evidentiary bases for 
33

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

determining these dates than just what the school records 

and reports to the Department.

MS. K. SMITH: Denise's hand is also

up. I don't know if she wants to weigh in.

MR. MUSSER: I'll let Denise go first.

MS. MORELLI: So Barmak, in situations 

where our program reviewers, at least that's what I deal 

with, are going in and looking to determine whether the 

last date of attendance is accurate for the return 

calculations. They are looking in the LMS system, if 

that's what you're talking about, rather than, in fact, 

I've had cases where there might be a different- the Alma 

System might be set up here, and then it gets 

transferred, and we haven't accepted the transfer over 

where an individual is now putting in some kind of master 

attendance. So from the program view perspective, I don't 

know about the auditors, the Department is looking back 

at what you're talking about, I think is more reliable 

and right in the system to see where we can see academic 

engagement. So we are looking behind that as policy in 

FSA.

MR. MUSSER: Yeah. And thank you, 

Denise. And I think, I mean, I think Barmak, you're 

speaking to an issue that frankly, has always been part 

of the return of Title IV process and a concern of the 
34

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

Department's from the very beginning. Back when before 

there was really distance ed used broadly, we were forced 

to rely on attendance records that instructors kept that 

may or may not have been accurate. And still to this day, 

if they're not required by the school to take attendance, 

we don't have a whole lot of ability to really dig in any 

further to see if the attendance- the instructor was 

taking good attendance, if he was really monitoring who 

was there when. And the Department's position for many 

years has been that we rely on the institution, 

ultimately to make this call. That said, if we received a 

complaint from a student that asserted that the school 

had essentially established a date that was too early or 

too late, I guess it could be either way, for the student 

and the student argued that they didn't submit something, 

or that they did and the school didn't record it. We 

would still pursue that with the school. And as part of 

the complaint resolution process, we would take that all 

the way to the school to ask them to go into their 

records and evaluate it. But there is, I think, a 

certain- there's a certain level of accuracy the 

Department just cannot get down to without the support of 

the institution. But we frankly believe that this will 

help us because it will turn institutions toward use of 

their LMS systems in cases where it's clear that they had 
35

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

to use that to track a student's attendance. But I'm not 

sure how much further we could go to resolve the broader 

issue of cases where there is no particular requirements. 

We would certainly ask them to look at the best available 

data and that's been our position. But there are cases 

where that may not be possible.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you. Just to note 

that Erika Linden will step back in as primary. Robyn?

MS. R. SMITH: Hi. Thank you. I just 

want to thank the Department for proposing this provision 

and say that we strongly support it because as the legal 

aid folks we've seen a lot of abuses in this area. And 

I'll just give one example. We had a client who enrolled 

online at the University of Phoenix and she couldn't 

attend a single day. She couldn't even log on because she 

lacked the equipment necessary to do so. But the 

University of Phoenix never returned any Title IV funds 

and she eventually, even though she thought she had 

withdrawn and told them that, she was disabled and 

eventually was having her Social Security disability 

income garnished to repay defaulted loans. And when we 

tried to get through a FERPA request, tried to get 

student records of login attempts, sort of to 

substantiate an unpaid refund discharge we had a very 

difficult time getting those. So I say this is very, very 
36

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

helpful to students. And I would ask the Department to 

consider a guidance or something clarifying that students 

should be able to access their login records when they do 

FERPA requests, that those kinds of records are included 

in student records available to students. But, again, 

really appreciate this provision. Things.

MS. K. SMITH: Alright. Erika?

MS. LINDEN: Thank you. This may just 

be because I have a lot of gray hair and I don't remember 

from our January meeting. But it did occur to me in my 

notes that we referenced students, for example, in Ph.D. 

programs who may- how was attendance to apply to a 

student in a Ph.D. program who is away from the academic 

environment, but working diligently on dissertation and 

things like that, where there might not be those touch 

points. And I just don't recall where we landed last time 

and I don't see any notes here about that. So if that's 

something Dave, you can clarify. I'd appreciate it. Thank 

you.

MR. MUSSER: This is a very good 

question. So doctoral dissertations are an area that the 

Department traditionally has handled a little bit 

differently than other kinds of coursework. I think 

there's an acknowledgment that although there typically 

is interaction and there is an expectation of regular 
37

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

interaction between students and their advisors which we 

would interpret as instructors during these periods. 

Coursework is not carried out in exactly the same way 

during dissertations. We did hear the concern from the 

group that the concept of distance education, you know, 

may not apply in these cases. I think that right now, the 

Department's view is there's one of two things happening 

in an institution's dissertation coursework. Either the 

student is not actually interacting with their advisor 

instructor on a frequent basis and or the institution is 

not recording that interaction. In which case the course 

might be a correspondence course rather than a distance 

education course and this would not apply, but other 

requirements would apply. Or the institution is recording 

the interactions that the student has with their 

instructor or advisor and the dates of those interactions 

in an effort to ensure that they're meeting the regular 

interaction requirements for a distance education course. 

In that case, we would still apply this requirement here 

because there is an expectation that the school is 

recording those interactions.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you. Jillian?

MS. KLEIN: Yeah, I can put my hand 

down. My question was a similar statement to Erika's. I 

mean, I think just to reiterate the proposal I sent you 
38

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

guys that you didn't like. I think there are concerns 

functionally in terms of how doctoral programs especially 

in sort of late-stage dissertations are handled here. And 

I should say and I think, I mean, the Department knows 

this, we, I mean, at Capella, we've been taking 

attendance since before it was a requirement for sure 

because we have those LMS records that have tracked every 

action that a student is taking in a course. So I think 

in theory, functionally, I don't have concerns with the 

Department sort of codifying what I have understood to be 

long-standing guidance from the Department that if the 

institution has this data, they should be using it for 

R2T4 purposes anyway. So in general, I totally agree with 

this approach, but I do think it's challenging when we 

talk about some of these specific program, either types 

or elements within a program like doctoral programs. And 

I have not completed one, but I think some of these 

negotiators have, I'm guessing probably Jamie has. I know 

I'm sure Laura has. I think, Scott's off-camera, but I 

know he has a doctoral degree. I think they can all speak 

to how the dissertation phase is different. In terms of 

what that interaction is between the student and the 

institution. And, you know, just to be frank, like, 

certainly institutions can build in low-value academic 

attendance requirements in those programs to meet this 
39

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

requirement. But I think it disadvantages students 

ultimately because they're not going to feel like- or 

they're not going to readily know, like, oh, I need to go 

in every 14 days and do this thing because of this 

Department requirement. And so I guess I would just push 

back again and ask the Department to consider the 

proposal that I sent. Which is not asking for the 

Department to not take this approach, but to really 

consider in the doctoral space. And I know I'm the only 

person, I know I'm the only person in this whole group 

that cares about direct assessment programs, but it's 

very similar there. Especially because the Department is 

really scrutinizing the programs that get approved for 

direct assessment. You guys signed off on every element 

of the way that we get aid to students in those programs, 

including how we handle attendance. And so I would just 

ask the Department to think again carefully about those 

aspects with respect to this proposal.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you. JoEllen.

MS. PRICE: So I just want to say I'm 

at a school that also takes attendance and I agree with 

everything Jillian just said. I don't have concerns. But 

I'm trying to think logistically how this is going to 

work for schools that do not, that they don't take 

attendance. So my question is, Dave, for schools that 
40

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

don't take attendance, but they have online programs that 

have that online interaction with the student and record 

that information. If the student were to withdraw 

officially on one date, are you saying this financial 

administrator has to go back to look at those online 

recorded records? Can they use that official withdrawal 

date or now they have to go back and find those records 

of when the student last interacted online with their 

whatever process they're using at the school?

MR. MUSSER: That's a great question.

MS. PRICE: Can you clarify that for 

me?

MR. MUSSER: Yeah. Yeah. The answer is 

that if the student is enrolled entirely in distance 

education courses, again, under this provision, under 

this proposal, if they were enrolled entirely in distance 

education courses or a combination of distance education 

courses and other attendance-taking courses, the 

institution would be required to go back to actual 

records to determine the student's withdrawal date. You 

couldn't simply use the official withdrawal date. 

Because, as you know, students often attend, you know, 

days after the official withdrawal date, days prior to 

the official withdrawal date. For attendance-taking 

programs, the school always has to use the last date of 
41

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

attendance as they define in there- as they determine 

from their records.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay. Is there any more 

discussion on this section before we go to a temperature 

check? Okay, hearing none. I think we are ready for a 

temperature check on 668.22 (b)(3) romanette (i)(d). If 

we can see thumbs on that. Looks like we do have one 

thumb down. Jillian, did you want to add anything that 

you haven't already talked about? Okay. Thank you. We 

have marked that. And we are ready, Dave, today to go on 

to our next section.

MR. MUSSER: Yeah. Thank you everybody 

for the very interesting discussion. I think the 

Department does have a few things to think about on that 

provision. Vanessa, I think we can go on to the next one. 

And that takes us down to 668.22 (f). This is the 

provision that I thought I was talking about earlier, 

relating to clock-hour programs and students who have 

reached the second or subsequent payment period in those 

programs before withdrawing. So if you can scroll down, 

just for a moment here. In the case of a program that is 

measured in clock hours by dividing the total number of 

clock hours in the payment period or period of enrollment 

into the clock hours scheduled to be completed. And we 

have added, since the student began attendance in the 
42

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

payment period or period of enrollment as of the 

student's withdrawal date. And again, I'll go back to,

hopefully people will remember this rather complicated 

explanation for why we're doing this. There are currently 

two different ways, legitimate ways, for schools to 

interpret the existing regulatory language, and that is 

to simply add up the scheduled hours without 

consideration for when the student actually reached the 

next payment period. We are specifying here that 

scheduled hours in a payment period don't begin counting 

until the payment period actually begins. Which is to 

say, the day that the student successfully completes all 

of the hours in the prior payment period. I'll pause 

there for any discussion on this one.

MS. K. SMITH: Any comments or 

discussion? Okay. Seeing none. I feel that we are ready 

for a temperature check on section 668.22 (f)(1) 

romanette 2 (a). Can we see thumbs on this section? It 

looks like we have everything marked. No thumbs down. 

Thank you all.

MR. MUSSER: Thanks, everybody.

MS. K. SMITH: Let's go on to our next 

section.

MR. MUSSER: Alright. And then the 

last item here. This was a change to the way that the 
43

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

Department determines when the days in a module are 

included in the denominator of the return of Title IV 

funds calculation. We previously discussed that the 

current process, we have heard from institutions is 

somewhat complicated. It involves additional 

administrative steps to determine whether, first, there 

is an R2T4 freeze date that the school uses to determine 

when to freeze the days that they would include in the 

denominator. As well as if the school is not using that, 

a determination of at the end of the period what the 

student was scheduled to attend throughout the period. We 

believe this proposal will substantially simplify that 

process by simply saying that the days in a module are 

included in the denominator of the calculation only when 

the student begins attendance in the module. And because 

schools generally do identify attendance in a module at 

least once, for Pell Grant purposes, and/or general 

purposes, at least once during the payment period, most 

institutions are already collecting this information and 

would be able to do this without a substantial amount of 

additional burden. I'll pause there and ask if there's 

any additional discussion on this one.

MS. K. SMITH: Okay. If there is no 

additional discussion, we'll do our final temperature 

check for R2T4. That's 668.22 (i)(9). Let's see a show of 
44

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

thumbs. Okay. Alright. Thank you all so much. And thank 

you all so much for your discussion today. An excellent 

use of the chat box as well. Our next topic is going to 

be accreditation, which we can roll right into. I- okay. 

Denise?

MS. MORELLI: I just wanted to let 

everybody know I'm going to be stepping back and my 

colleague, Donna Mangold will be now at the table, as we 

call it. And in case there's anybody wondering, Dave and 

I have been getting off camera when there's votes so that 

the facilitators can see only the voting members. So if 

anybody out there was wondering why we keep getting off, 

that's why.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you. And thank 

you so much. Oh, David?

MR. MUSSER: I was just going to say 

the same thing. I will be stepping back and letting my 

colleagues from the accreditation group come to the 

table. Thanks, everybody, for the great discussion today.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you. Coming to 

the table on behalf of the Department to lead us is 

Herman Bounds. Good morning, Herman. And at this point, I 

will also turn it over to our FMCS facilitator, Cindy 

Jeffries. I will take a step back and Cindy will take 

over as facilitator. I thought I saw another hand. Did I 
45

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

not? No. Okay.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Krystil.

MS. K. SMITH: Thank you. Take it 

over, Cindy.

MS. JEFFRIES: I just want to mention 

that, Greg Martin, as the Department negotiator and 

Herman Bounds will be both at the table for the 

accreditation portion that we're about to embark on. 

Seeing no hands before we get started. Jamie? You're on 

mute, Jamie.

MS. STUDLEY: Thanks, everyone for 

pointing out my signal problems. I have switched to three 

new forms of technology. Let us hope. Second, I would 

like to ask for a caucus at this point before we launch 

into this topic. And I would like to invite the state 

negotiators and all of the institutional representatives. 

To my eye, but I don't have that list open in front of 

me, that includes the representatives from the HBCUs, MSI 

and tribal colleges, two and four-year institutions, 

proprietary institutions, business officers and financial 

aid administrators. If there's anyone representing 

institutions and I have forgotten that category. Our 

purpose in doing this is we would like to understand the 

effects of some of the provisions that we're going to be 

discussing so we can facilitate the conversation and 
46

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

anticipate where there are some things that might impinge 

on institutional considerations so that we can be aware 

of them and well prepared for the conversation that we 

will all have together. I don't want it to seem like- I 

think it's important that we all hear all perspectives, 

but we would like to be informed by talking to these 

particular entities if they are willing to join a caucus. 

I'm thinking- we wondered 25 minutes? 30, if you want to 

round it?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yeah. That'd work fine. 

Let's do this. I do know that you asked if you had missed 

anyone from institutions. I think private nonprofit was 

inadvertently not mentioned. Was there anyone else you 

wanted to add, Erika? Okay.

MS. STUDLEY: Sorry, I meant I justwhen I was thinking.

MS. JEFFRIES: Yeah, well we're going 

to ask everybody to raise their hand here that's willing 

to participate in a minute. Laura?

DR. KING: Jamie, you didn't mention 

all of the accreditors either, so I just wanted to make 

sure you mean all of the accreditors.

MS. STUDLEY: Of course. When I did 

that, I actually was speaking on behalf of Laura and 

Michale as well in calling the caucus.
47

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MS. STUDLEY: I haven't done that step 

before.

MS. JEFFRIES: So, Brady, if you want 

to assist here, and I think we'll have to have everyone 

turn on their camera so that we can see hands. Alright, 

so show us your hands if you are participating in this 

caucus so that we can do a call-out for the record. I'll 

give it a minute here because it keeps jumping around. So 

I'm showing at this moment Scott Dolan, David Cohen, 

Jillian Klein, Alyssa Dobson, Laura Rasar King, JoEllen 

Price, Amy Ackerson, Jason Lorgan, Erika Linden, Dom 

Chase, let me know if I'm going too fast, Brady, Jo 

Blondin, Zack Goodman, Jamie Studley, Michale McComas, 

the D'Angelo Sands, DC, Joe Weglarz, Michael Cioce, let 

me switch pages here. Alright, did I miss anyone?

MS. HOOLEY: Can I just quickly ask 

for clarity? I wasn't sure if at the top you mentioned 

states as well or if I just misheard you. But I just 

wanted to clarify.

MS. STUDLEY: I was inviting the state 

regulators.

MS. HOOLEY: Got it. Okay, it cut out 

on my end, so I just wanted to make sure I wasn't- yeah, 

okay. Thank you.
48

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

MR. ROBERTS: I think we did miss John 

Ware as well, but John, I'll send you an invite.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Okay. So 

that is who will be caucusing. I showed as 11:06. Let's 

do a check-in. Jamie will check in with you at about 

11:35 and see how you're progressing. David, do you have 

your hand up with a question or just still from. Okay, 

great. Thanks.

MR. ROBERTS: I think we should be 

good. Let me know if anyone whose name did not get an 

invite there's a bunch of folks so I might have missed 

someone, but I think we are okay.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. So with that, we 

can pause the live stream. And welcome back, everyone the 

caucus parties have returned. At this time I'm going to 

ask Jamie who called the caucus if they have anything 

they would like to report out on.

MS. STUDLEY: You know, thank you very 

much, Cindy. And thank you, everybody, for the indulgence 

of the time. I think that the comments that we had were 

helpful in us reviewing some of the specific provisions 

and that the interchange in the caucus would be most 

helpful if people just discussed their viewpoints as we 

go through provisions that have some interactive effect 

between accreditors and institutions. So, nothing to 
49

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

report except a friendly conversation that we think might 

be helpful in exploring some of the topics that we'll be 

coming to.

MS. JEFFRIES: Well, good. Thank you 

for that, Jamie. I'm glad you were able to make good use 

of the caucus time. With that being said, are there any 

additional comments before we start? Barmak?

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yes. Given the time, I 

would like to request a caucus with all of the committee 

members that were excluded from the previous caucus. They 

can just raise their hands, maybe to self-identify for 

your convenience. And hopefully, we can get it done 

before lunch so that the proceedings can start 

immediately after lunch.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. So, Brady, I'm 

calling on your assistance. That would be, Barmak, 

Carolyn, Robyn, Jessi Morales, Diana Hooley, Magin 

Sanchez, Sophie Laing. Am I missing anyone?

MR. NASSIRIAN: Yes. The Department.

MS. JEFFRIES: Oh, you want the 

Department? Okay. Greg?

MR. NASSIRIAN: They are negotiators.

MR. MARTIN: Sure. Absolutely.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. So you would like 

Greg and Herman. And would you like Donna in there as 
50

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

well?

MR. NASSIRIAN: Absolutely. Of course.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Anyone else in 

the Department besides those three?

MR. NASSIRIAN: Anybody that the 

Department chooses to bring is obviously the Department 

is.

MS. JEFFRIES: Greg, did you want 

anyone else from the Department besides the three of you?

MR. MARTIN: I will leave that up to 

our supervisor, Antoinette Flores, as to whether she 

wants to have anybody else. I don't know yet because I 

haven't communicated with her just yet but she'll be with 

me about anybody else she wanted to include from the 

Department. Right now, it would be Donna, Herman, and me. 

And then if Antoinette chooses to add somebody, I'll let 

you know.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Sounds good. So, 

it is 11:45. Let's plan on all doing this caucus. We will 

incorporate the lunch break during that and we will 

resume back here at 1:00 to start in with the 

accreditation discussion. Okay? So with that, if we pause 

the livestream and move people into the caucus room, I'd 

appreciate it.

MR. ROBERTS: Yep. You all should be 
51

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

getting invites to room six right now.

 
52

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

Zoom Chat Transcript

Program Integrity and Institutional Quality- Session 2, Day 3, Morning, February 7, 2024

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

From P, DC, HBCUs, MSIs, TCUs to Everyone:

HBCU Alternate will be stepping in for this discussion

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

Thank you!

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

Reacted to "Thank you!" with ���

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone:

Reacted to "Thank you!" with ���

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

Reacted to "Thank you!" with ��

From P, Jamie Studley, Ins�tu�onal Accreditors to Everyone:

im here and was thumbs up

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

Zack has que�ons

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

Sorry

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

Zack will come to the table for FA Administrators for this sec�on with Ques�ons/Comments.

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

Agreed with this sen�ment about need for more clear language and intent. This seems to 

make ins�tu�ons atendance taking if they offer one course

From A-Alyssa Dobson, 4Yr. Public Ins�tu�ons to Everyone:

Reacted to "Agreed with this sen..." with ���

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone:

Reacted to "Agreed with this s..." with ���

From P - Erika Linden, Private Nonprofit Ins�tu�ons to Everyone:

Reacted to "Agreed with this sen..." with ���

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

agreed with Jillian here. why leave it up to interpreta�on
53

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

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

Reacted to "agreed with Jillian ..." with ���

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

Reacted to "Agreed with this sen..." with ���

From A-Alyssa Dobson, 4Yr. Public Ins�tu�ons to Everyone:

Reacted to "agreed with Jillian ..." with ���

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Ins�t to Everyone:

I would recommend: "An ins�tu�on is required to take atendance in a course if--"

From P - Erika Linden, Private Nonprofit Ins�tu�ons to Everyone:

Reacted to "I would recommend: "..." with ���

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

plus 1 to that sen�ment as well

From P - Erika Linden, Private Nonprofit Ins�tu�ons to Everyone:

Scot Dolan entering for Private Nonprofit Ins�tu�ons.

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone:

Jason--Same with community colleges.

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

I agree. It should be writen in a way that is clear and doesn't leave room for 

misinterpreta�on.

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

Erika will step back to the table for private nonprofits.

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

Reacted to "I agree. It should b..." with ���

From P - Erika Linden, Private Nonprofit Ins�tu�ons to Everyone:

Reacted to "I agree. It should b..." with ���

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

i think it is important to note that late stage disserta�on work tends to operate simiarly this 

way regardless of modality.

From Jamienne Studley to Everyone:

sorry, Jillian: I only have a law degree, no disserta�on, not a Dr.

From A, Scot Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:
54

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality - 2/7/24

plus 1 for being careful about outcomes-based (direct-assessment) programs

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Ins�t to Everyone:

Replying to "sorry, Jillian: I on..."

You're s�ll a star! :)

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Ins�t to Everyone:

Reacted to "i think it is import..." with ���

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

Replying to "sorry, Jillian: I on..."

I will say, the whole design of late stage disserta�on work is to support the learner moving 

in a more self-directed fashion. This was certainly true of my experience at an R1 flagship state 

university

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

Reacted to "I will say, the whol..." with ���

From P - Laura Rasar King, Specialized Accredita�on to Everyone:

Reacted to "I will say, the whol..." with ���

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Ins�t to Everyone:

Reacted to "I will say, the whol..." with ���

From P, DC, HBCUs, MSIs, TCUs to Everyone:

Hello, P, DC will be returning

From A - D'Angelo Sands HBCUs, HSIs, TCUs to Everyone:

DC P for HBCUs, HSIs. TCUs will be joining.

From (A) Dom Chase - Business Officers to Everyone:

Could that have happened concurrently?

From Jamienne Studley to Everyone:

let us be clear that what we discussed will be brought to the discussion of par�cular 

provisions

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone:

Reacted to "Could that have ha..." with ���