Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21 

1

 

 

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

AFFORDABILITY AND STUDENT LOANS COMMITTEE 

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING SESSION 3, DAY 5, MORNING

December 10, 2021

On the 10th day of December, 2021, 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.
2

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

P R O C E E D I N G S

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning, everyone, 

I am Cindy Jeffries. I will be the FMCS facilitator this 

morning. I welcome you all back to session three, day 

five. With that in mind, what I'd like to do is, first 

of all, remind everyone that since this is day five of 

the final session, there is no public comment today. So 

let's proceed right into our roll call. I will call the 

constituency represented, then the primary and the 

alternate. If you could just acknowledge your presence, 

it'd be greatly appreciated. So for dependent students, 

we have Ms. Dixie Samaniego. Dixie, have you joined us 

yet? Okay, she has not, her alternate, Mr. Greg Norwood 

will not be here today. We'll circle back to Dixie at 

the end of roll call. Independent students, Ms. Michaela 

Martin.

MS. MARTIN: Good morning. I'll be on 

camera shortly.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, great, thanks 

Michaela. And alternate, Dr. Stanley Andrisse.

DR. ANDRISSE: Morning, everyone.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning, Stanley. 

Student loan borrowers, Ms. Jeri O'Bryan-Losee.

MS. O'BRYAN-LOSEE: Good morning, 

everybody.
3

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. And Ms. 

Jennifer Cardenas.

MS. CARDENAS: Buenos Dias. Good 

morning, everyone.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. Legal 

assistant organizations that represent student and/or 

borrowers, Ms. Persis Yu.

MS. YU: Hello. Good to be here today.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning, Persis. 

And alternate, Mr. Joshua Rovenger.

MR. ROVENGER: Morning, everyone.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. U.S. 

military service members, veterans, and groups 

representing them, we have Mr. Justin Hauschild

MR. HAUSCHILD: Hi folks, pleasure to 

be here with you on the final day.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. And Ms. 

Emily DeVito.

MS. DEVITO: Morning, happy Friday.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. Same to 

you. For states attorney general, Mr. Joseph Sanders.

MR. SANDERS: Morning, everyone.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. And Mr. 

Eric Apar.

DR. APAR: Morning, everyone.
4

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

MS. JEFFRIES: Morning. State higher 

education executive officers, state authorizing agencies 

and/or state regulators of institutions of higher 

education and/or loan servicers. Mr. David, or Dr. David 

Tandberg. Sorry, Dr..

DR. TANDBERG: No problem. Thank you, 

Cindy. Happy to be here.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks. And Ms. Suzanne 

Martindale.

MS. MARTINDALE: Good morning.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. 

Individuals with disabilities or groups representing 

them, Ms. Bethany Lilly. Hard to combine that name.

MS. LILLY: Oh, it's fine. I get 

called a lot of things. Good morning, everybody. John 

will not be joining us today Cindy so, or at least not 

until this afternoon.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, great. Thanks for 

sharing that. Financial aid administrators at 

postsecondary institutions, Mr. Daniel Barkowitz.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Happy holidays and 

good morning, everyone.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. And Ms. 

Alyssa Dobson.

MS. DOBSON: Morning.
5

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

MS. JEFFRIES: Two-year public 

institutions of higher education, Dr. Robert Ayala.

DR. AYALA: Good morning, ladies and 

gentlemen.

MS. JEFFRIES: Hi, Bobby. And Dr. 

Christina Tangalakis.

DR. TANGALAKIS: Good morning.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning, again. 

For state department of corrections, Ms. Anne Precythe.

MS. PRECYTHE: Morning. Happy Friday!

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning! Four-year 

public institutions of higher education, Dr. Marjorie 

Dorime-Williams.

DR. DORIME-WILLIAMS: Good morning, 

everyone.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. And Ms. 

Rachelle Feldman. Okay, Rachelle's not with us at this 

point. Moving on, private nonprofit institutions of 

higher education, Ms. Misty Sabouneh.

MS. SABOUNEH: (Inaudible)

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning, Misty. 

And Dr. Terrence McTier Jr..

DR. MCTIER: Good morning, everyone.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. 

Proprietary institutions, Ms. Jessica Barry.
6

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

MS. BARRY: Good morning, everyone.

MS. JEFFRIES: Morning. And Dr. Carol 

Colvin.

DR. COLVIN: Morning.

MS. JEFFRIES: Morning. Minority 

serving institutions, Ms. Noelia Gonzalez.

MS. GONZALEZ: Good morning.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. Family 

federal education loan lenders and/or guarantee 

agencies, Ms. Jaye O'Connell.

MS. O'CONNELL: Morning. TGIF.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. Mr. Will 

Shaffner.

MR. SHAFFNER: Good morning. Happy 

Friday, everyone.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. 

Accrediting agencies, Dr. Heather Perfetti.

DR. PERFETTI: Good morning, everyone. 

Good to be back today.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. And Dr. 

Michale McComis.

DR. MCCOMIS: Good morning.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. And let's 

circle back to dependent students, Ms. Dixie Samaniego.

MS. SAMANIEGO: Good morning, 
7

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

everyone. Happy Friday.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning, Dixie. 

And it's still our understanding that Greg will not be 

here today, correct? Okay. And then we have U.S. 

Department of Education, Dr. Jennifer Hong.

MS. HONG: Morning, everyone. Happy 

Friday.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. We have 

two non-voting advisers present, Ms. Heather Jarvis for 

PSLF.

MS. JARVIS: Good morning.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good morning. And Dr. 

Rajeev Darolia on economic and higher education policy 

and data.

DR. DAROLIA: Good morning.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. There are 

actually three non-voting Department Office of General 

Counsel officials. I believe we have have Todd Davis 

present this morning, correct?

MR. DAVIS: Yep. Good morning, 

everyone.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Did I miss 

anyone? Yay. Alright, so with roll call completed and 

announcements completed, we will pick up where we left 

off yesterday. And on the Borrower Defense, so I will 
8

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

turn it back over. Oh, Josh, you have a question.

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. I just like to 

call a very quick caucus with everyone except 

proprietaries and the Department. I don't think it'll 

take more than 5 10 minutes.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, great. So if we 

could go off live stream, why we set that up. Welcome 

back, everyone. Are we prepared to move on to BD at this 

point? Seeing no. Okay. Jennifer, we will turn it over 

to you.

MS. HONG: Okay. So if we could queue 

the BD document we were working on yesterday, that's the 

main rule. We left off, I believe on discharge. I think 

I finished presenting on this piece. Are there any more 

questions about how we've framed discharge here? Section 

34 CFR 685.408. Okay, if not, we can proceed to the next 

page. And then we can go all the way to recovery. There 

we are, page 42. Okay. This is a recovery section. 

Basically, we we haven't changed anything between from 

here on out in the rule, we've not changed anything 

under recovery or the other sections regarding 

cooperation by the borrower transferred to the Secretary 

the borrower's right to recovery and then the 

severability text. But we can go back to recovery and I 

can just briefly summarize again for loans disbursed on 
9

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

or after July 1st, 2023, the Department will collect 

from from school on the case of a closed school another 

principal from common ownership, the amount that the 

Department discharges. We may have the option to not 

collect if the cost of collecting would be more than the 

amount to recover. Any outside limitations period,

preexisting settlement agreement, or we collected in a 

separate proceeding. Again, just to reiterate, the 

limitations period is no later than 6 years from 

borrower's last date of attendance. And the limitations 

period does not apply if the Department officially 

notifies school of the BD claim prior to the end of the 

limitation period. Any questions on recovery?

MS. MACK: Jessica, please go ahead.

MS. BARRY: Sure. So all of these 

components together form one Borrower Defense framework. 

And in the past, when the Department approved group 

discharges, it announced those decisions publicly. If an 

institution does not have an opportunity to respond 

before the Department discharges loans, a public 

announcement could result in undue reputational harm for 

the institution. Indeed, approval of large Borrower 

Defense group discharges could create panic at 

institutions, as students may fear that Borrower Defense 

approval will cause the institution to close. The 
10

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

Supreme Court has previously recognized that a person's 

reputation is a protected liberty interest under the 

federal due process clause. And we think that separating 

these processes without providing institutions an 

opportunity to respond could result in reputational harm 

for institutions, thus denying them due process. All of 

these sections are interrelated, and I can't divorce one 

from another for purposes of my vote.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jessica. 

Josh.

MR. ROVENGER: So I'll just respond 

quickly to that before moving on to what I wanted to 

say, which is I think the law on reputational harm is 

far more complex than the proprietary institutions have 

alluded to there, but it's neither here nor there. So I 

do agree that these BD regs, they are one one package, 

and I agree with the sentiment that the Department is 

what's driving this specific provision, I think that a 

school should be held accountable when in the instances 

in which a Borrower Defense would be granted. I do, as 

I've expressed before, have concerns about the 

unintended consequences of the way that this section is 

structured and in particular the the possibility that it 

could either delay or preclude Borrower Defense relief 

at all. At the end of the day, though, I think the 
11

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

Department has done a really good job with the Borrower 

Defense regulations as a whole. And moving forward, I 

would continue to urge the Department to consider this 

section carefully and to consider whether it should add 

more discretionary components to this section, not only 

for the unintended consequences for the borrower, but 

just more generally the unintended consequences for the 

regulations.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Josh. 

David.

DR. TANDBERG: Yeah, I, just one, 

well, I realized we plus one in the comments, those 

aren't public right now, and so I want to go on the 

record supporting what Josh said. I would similarly 

similarly encourage the Department to consider those 

things carefully as they move forward in drafting final 

regs.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, David. 

Joe.

MR. SANDERS: Yeah. Two quick points. 

You know, the the I've caucused with my constituency on 

this point and we're supportive of the Department's 

discretion to make a decision that works for them in 

terms of administration of Borrower Defense. We would 

encourage the Department to consider this language in 
12

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

through the lens of providing maximum relief to 

borrowers. We think it's important that student loan 

borrowers are not burdened by student loan debt, and we 

don't want competing considerations with the schools to 

impede that. So that's the lens that we view it through, 

and we encourage the Department to look at this language 

through that lens. That said, we're supportive of where 

the Department came down on this. As to the reputational 

harm piece, I don't have any particular concerns but as 

Jessica said, you can't, generally speaking, if the 

Department is making truthful statements about actions 

that they took, I don't see any due process issue there. 

We often get pressure from entities that we're 

investigating on press releases and what we're going to 

say in press releases. But you know, we we have 

discretion to make truthful statements about actions 

that we're taking. So that's not a particular concern to 

us.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Joe. Dixie.

MS. SAMANIEGO: So I've spoken to this 

from the first session since proprietary institutions 

have also continuously said that reputational harm is 

something that they're worried about. And I've said this 

before, and I'll say it again last day of neg reg and 

I'll reiterate that if an institution does something 
13

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

wrong and it's truthful, there's no reputation to 

protect point period blank. And I'm generally supportive 

of the neg reg overall. And so, yeah, I just had to say 

that one more time, because there's no reputation to 

protect if an institution is harming and putting in 

jeopardy the future of students, and that should not be 

a concern for any of the negotiators. And while it is, I 

will reiterate that there's just no reputation to 

protect or any reputation to harm if an institution is 

wronging students and I just don't think that for me, 

that's any concern of mine. And I've said it before, and 

I'll say it one last time that for all the negotiators 

here, I think we've all generally done a great job of 

centering students. But in this one thing in 

reputational harm, I just I just don't see the issue 

here. So I just wanted to say that one last time on the 

last day of neg reg.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Dixie. 

Anyone else? Okay. Jennifer.

MS. HONG: Yeah, I'll just quickly 

respond to Josh's point. I think the Department wanted 

to balance the concerns that you raised while stating 

assertively the Secretary's responsibility in 

collecting, recovering from institutions while 

preserving flexibilities and giving (inaudible) 
14

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

flexibility to the Secretary. We believe that this 

language conveys that. But we do appreciate your 

comments. For Jessica, I just wanted to kind of loop 

back. I know you said that given the interconnectedness 

of of the issues here, we are taking them up on three 

different votes. I just wanted to say, was your comment 

suggesting that on any of the way that we've divided of 

the three issues, meaning the adjudication of the actual 

claim separate from the recovery piece and separate from 

everything the reconsideration piece that you would be 

voting against all three?

MS. BARRY: Yes, that is what I meant. 

I just feel are our concerns have not been addressed and 

I just can't support it at this time in any of those 

areas.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you. Is 

there anything else you need to walk through on on this 

document, Jennifer?

MS. HONG: Yes, I'll just briefly go, 

so after recovery and you can scroll down. We have 

cooperation by the borrower. This is all, nothing has 

changed between two and three, this is all kind of 

standard template language that we have in the 

regulation. And then after that, 411, transfer to the 

Secretary of the borrower's right to recover against 
15

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

third parties. Again, same language that we brought up 

in session two. And then the severability section. I'll 

take questions on those remaining issues and then I'd 

like to circle back on the edits that were proposed, the 

minor kind of edits, three edits that were proposed 

yesterday in the document. As well as I was, I realized 

we never went over the aggressive and recruitment 

document, and I want to circle back to that document, 

which will be pertinent to the federal standard piece. 

And the issue six as we're taking it up for consensus.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MS. HONG: Okay, great, if we could 

queue back the document, Aaron, and start with page 32, 

I think that's the first, got it. And these were again 

captured by our, our eagle eyes on the committee, 

Daniel. 32, I'm sorry, actually, we had some right 

before, I think page 28. I'm sorry, yeah, right here. So 

these are these are just the cross reference actions. 

Purely technical nature that Daniel had pointed out, so 

we've made those corrections here. Okay, scroll down. 

Okay, now, this is the language on limitations that 

Misty put forward. Well, raised as a concern, and then 

our Office of General Counsel suggested this remedy and 

I think that you were okay with that Misty. Excellent. 

And then the next one is to go down to the 
16

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

reconsideration section, which is 407, oh yeah, more 

edits there right above the green highlight was above 

were just more technical cross reference edits. Yes, 

there we go. And then we can go down. Here we go under 

reconsideration. Yes, reconsideration applies both to 

individual applicants and group borrowers. So we've 

deleted group to make that clarification. Okay, let's 

keep scrolling down through reconsideration. Okay, just 

this was raised by Justin, and just to clarify this this 

is a separate section F. So it's not, it's just it's 

it's just to reassert, excuse me, the Secretary's 

authority to reopen a Borrower Defense application that 

was partially or fully denied at any time. Excuse me, 

Justin had suggested that we strike the language “after 

any time” and we've struck in that language. And I 

believe that is the last edit on there. And are there 

any questions? So basically we took all the suggestions 

made by this committee yesterday on those edits. Okay, 

if if there are no other questions, I'd like to circle 

back to the aggressive recruitment document. This is a 

two-page document, and I'm happy to go over that with 

you. And this is proposing a new subpart R under section 

668. So we will cross-reference it in the Borrower 

Defense regulations. Okay, this is a new sub part, 

establishing what constitutes aggressive and deceptive 
17

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

recruitment tactics. Okay, so basically, we're defining 

aggressive recruitment and the types of aggressive 

recruitment under this section to include demand 

demanding or pressuring to make enrollment or loan 

decisions immediately, falsely claiming spots are 

limited, taking advantage of a student's lack of 

understanding of the process to pressure the student, 

discouraging student perspective or discouraging 

students or prospective students to consult with 

independent parties, failures to respond to students 

requests for more information, obtaining information 

about the student or prospective student through 

aggressive means, falsely presenting an individual as a 

neutral party, for example, as an academic advisor or 

counselor, the use of threatening or abusive language, 

repeated unsolicited contact, and the use of emotional 

manipulation. And we modeled this section under the 

misrepresentation document that we list. We reviewed it 

earlier and again, this is another basis for a claim 

under the proposed BD regulations. So I'm happy to take 

any questions or comments on this document.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, 

Jennifer. Daniel.

MR. BARKOWITZ: I just want to call 

out my appreciation of the Department's movement on this 
18

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

to a standard that is measurable and objective 

objective. So I had concerns when we originally saw the 

language, and I'm very happy with where we ended up. So 

I just want to comment and appreciate the Department for 

for making something that is measurable and clear here. 

So thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. 

Daniel, any other comments? Joe.

MR. SANDERS: Yeah. So this is 

obviously different than the language that we submitted. 

That being said, I think the Department did a good job 

of laying out some examples here of aggressive 

recruitment. And, you know, the fact that these are 

examples and not the entire list of aggressive 

recruitment means that this is something that the state 

attorneys general can live with.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Joe. Dixie.

MS. SAMANIEGO: Just wanted to say 

that I'm super appreciative of the Department for taking 

into consideration what I was like my own story and my 

personal experience I shared in session one and putting 

it into this definition. I think also with what Daniel 

said, I think it's measurable. I think it's really good 

that there were examples. So I'm really appreciative of 

the Department.
19

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Dixie. 

David.

DR. TANDBERG: This was an area of 

particular concern to state higher education agencies as 

they are an entity that formally receives complaints 

from students on issues like this. We had, you know, 

under Joe's leadership, worked on developing that list 

of, well the document on aggressive recruitment that he 

had shared. There are pretty distinct differences, but I 

think this approach is something that would give the 

Department the ability to effectively identify and deal 

with aggressive, improper recruitment. And I think is 

also a nice guide for states as they deal with it at 

their level and so in support of it and appreciate the 

efforts of the Department.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, David. 

Justin.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Yeah, thanks so much. 

I'll echo what has already kind of been conveyed here, 

appreciate what the Department's done. I think from our 

perspective, we would have liked to see maybe a few more 

items included for demonstrative purposes. We submitted 

some additional language on aggressive recruitment, and 

I won't belabor the point in terms of the specifics 

there, but broadly supportive of what the Department's 
20

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

done here and want to say thank you. So.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Justin. 

Anyone else?

MS. HONG: Just to jump in. We do 

appreciate all the feedback that we received on this 

section, I think you'll see both that we've taken the 

concepts in our conversations with Joe and state AGs 

into consideration. We did want to include more kind of 

exemplary language per Daniel's concerns. And none of 

this would be possible without the courage and the 

bravery of coming forward in terms of students and 

borrowers like Dixie and our public commenters. So that 

is reflected here as well. So I appreciate the work that 

went into this.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jennifer. 

Joe.

MR. SANDERS: Yeah, I just want to 

briefly second what Jennifer said about the public 

commenters. This is the type of stuff that state AGs see 

every day in our consumer complaints, and I think it was 

really powerful for everybody else to see that. I know 

that the rest of us probably hear from students as well, 

but it was good for me to have those views expressed to 

the group and, you know, it can be overwhelming 

sometimes to get those complaints day in and day out and 
21

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

know that you can't help every every person. And so I 

just think that that the public commenters really added 

to the whole rule making, and I want to thank the 

Department and the facilitators for having them.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Joe. Justin.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Apologies. Struggling 

with buttons.

MS. JEFFRIES: Oh, okay, no worries. 

Joe, are you? Okay. Alright, Josh.

MR. ROVENGER: Totally plus one that 

and agree in future sessions just because I can't leave 

well enough alone, I think a for-profit borrower and a 

borrower who is going to the Borrower Defense process 

would be extremely valuable for the process. But 

completely agree on the value of public comment here.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Josh. Okay. 

Jennifer, I'm not seeing any additional hands for 

comment. Are we ready to move to consensus? Oh, Daniel. 

Daniel, your hand kind of blends in with that beautiful 

orange around your hand today, so if I miss you, I 

apologize.

MR. BARKOWITZ: No, no, I raised my 

hand late. I just have one final question as we move to 

a consensus vote and I want to just understand better. 

There was something that that Jessica said in her 
22

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

comment about the public notice. And I'm just trying to 

get a better understanding of what actually is the 

procedural process. So there is something in the in the 

reg text that talks about the Department making a 

decision in the case of group claims. What is the 

intention in terms of of notifying publicly either 

institutions or borrowers or the general public about 

that decision? So in the case of a large institution 

that that has acted in bad faith and there is a decision 

that's made, clearly, the borrowers would be notified 

the institution would be notified, will there be a 

public notification other than the notice to the 

institution and the notice to the borrowers? Or what is 

the, what is the plan from the Department in terms of 

sort of notification publicly other than to the 

borrowers and the institutions?

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. It looks like the 

Department may need some time on that one, David or 

Daniel. Do want to pop that into the chat just to 

preserve it?

MR. BARKOWITZ: Sure. Yeah, it's not 

it's not going to change my vote. I'm just curious to 

understand sort of where the Department's intention is 

in that regard and trying to help move the conversation 

forward. But.
23

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, appreciate that. 

Thank you. I want to make note that Emily is coming to 

the table for veterans and service members. Emily.

MS. DEVITO: Thank you. Just quickly 

to echo what Justin said, we're happy with the progress, 

wish we could have seen some more items. And but even 

some of the items that that Joe had shared, it seemed 

like there was maybe an intention to combine them into 

one in order to to include as much as possible. So just 

to kind of have on the record a concern specifically 

with excessive contact sort of combining repeated 

contact and an unsolicited contact and an individual who 

is has been requested or has requested the institution 

stop contacting them. By putting them all together, just 

a concern would be the requirement to meet all three in 

order to have that be aggressive recruitment when each 

one individually, as an or really really is aggressive. 

I shared at the last session working on an institution 

that used the word unsolicited as a caveat to not have 

to meet the regulation, the DOD regulation, of three 

times. So just want to flag that. Hope that this can 

still be impactful and deter aggressive recruitment of 

any three of those types.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Emily, 

appreciate it. Any additional hands? Okay. Jennifer.
24

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

MS. HONG: Yeah, just a quick reaction 

to Daniel's question. I think our ultimate goal would be 

to have some kind of public notification through our 

website by publishing the findings. But we'd be 

interested in hearing your thoughts on that.

MR. BARKOWITZ: And Jennifer, I'm 

happy to provide them separately again. For me, it's 

not, it's not this is not a make-or-break issue, so I'm 

happy to provide my thoughts and guidance. But but it's 

not going to change my outcome vote. But but I'm 

respectful of Jessica's concern around the reputational 

risk, so I understand that and through public notice 

will will will potentially cause that, but but I don't 

think it's necessarily a make or break item, but I 

understand it. So thank you for that.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jennifer and 

Daniel. Michaela. Oh, Michaela before we start, can I 

just note that Justin is going back to the table for 

veterans and service members.

MS. MARTIN: Yeah, and Daniel, I 

apologize to you for this, but I I'm going to say that I 

do not have respect for the reputational harm of these 

proprietary institutions. Truthfully. It's got to go 

somewhere, right? People need to be aware of whether or 

not a school is doing these kinds of things. And when we 
25

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

think about again, power, and and oppressive systems, 

right? Proprietary institutions have quite a bit of 

resources in power like that has been a historic thing, 

like they have plenty to go and lobby at the Capitol and 

take all of their lawyers and do all of the things, 

right? Like this is the thing that keeps happening on 

the backs of students who don't have degrees and have a 

ton of student debt. Like particularly on single and 

student parents and other marginalized communities. So 

like while I understand the concern of reputational 

harm, I do not have respect for it.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Michaela. 

Josh.

MR. ROVENGER: Yeah, so similar to 

Michaela's point, I just want to be careful about how 

we, Daniel I take your point, but I want to be careful 

about how we describe the causation there. Because I 

don't think it's the public release of the findings 

that's causing the reputational harm. I think it's the 

school's bad actions that are causing them reputational 

harm. And so I just want to be very clear as to that as 

to that connection.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Josh. 

Justin.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Yeah, thank you. And I 
26

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

wasn't necessarily going to raise this, but I I've been 

a little bit concerned, particularly by some of the 

concerns raised by proprietary institutions about the 

framing here. And this is maybe a somewhat simplistic 

view on my part, but I'm really trying to keep in mind 

that these are Borrower Defense regulations and not 

institutional defense regulations with regard to 

allegations of impropriety or potential reputational 

damage. So I understand that's somewhat simplistic, but 

really, for me, that's a helpful framing and remembering 

the very real purpose of these regulations and what what 

they're intended to do here. So again, I just want to 

thank the Department for what they've done with these 

regulations. They're a massive improvement over where 

where we are now. They're going to help untold numbers 

of students, including service members and veterans that 

have been defrauded by bad actor institutions. We think 

these this regulatory text very clearly reflects the 

voluminous input by not just the negotiators here, but 

members of the public that have provided comment that 

they're well-reasoned. And while they might be able to 

be, we think they probably could be improved in certain 

areas, we certainly won't be standing in the way of of 

of massive improvement here. So thank you wholeheartedly 

to the Department.
27

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Justin. 

Marjorie.

DR. DORIME-WILLIAMS: Thank you, 

everyone, for your comments, and I just I think it's 

important and I want to play specifically to some 

languages by Jessica yesterday about this issue of 

equity. In particular marginalized students including 

immigrants and women of color. Yes.

MS. JEFFRIES: Marjorie, you're you're 

coming in and out as garbled. I know you were having 

internet issues earlier. It might help if you turn off 

your camera as far as the garbling for what you want to 

say.

DR. DORIME-WILLIAMS: Is that any 

better?

MS. JEFFRIES: It appears to be, yes.

DR. DORIME-WILLIAMS: Okay. Okay. So I 

just again, I want to point to this issue of equity 

specifically in the comments from Jessica yesterday. And 

I think it's really problematic when we talk about 

equity for institutions, when many of the institutions 

that have been engaged in this type of behavior have 

targeted marginalized students. And that's like Michaela 

said, students of color, women, single parents, and 

veterans. And so I just want to again commend the 
28

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

Department because when we came into this, right, some 

of the issues addressed equity issues in student loan 

affordability and borrowing. And so I think it's 

important that we keep in mind that the folks that we're 

trying to make this better for are not institutions. 

Yes, we need to consider what's reasonable. But at the 

end of the day, this regulation is about how do we make 

sure we're serving students and how do we make sure that 

we're serving students who are often marginalized and 

targeted and victimized honestly by institutions that 

are not engaged in proper behavior by servicers that are 

not engaged in proper behavior? And so I just I want to 

make sure that when we're using the word equity, we're 

using it appropriately.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Marjorie. If 

you want to turn your camera back on, that's fine. 

Appreciate it. It did help a lot. Any final comments? 

Michaela.

MS. MARTIN: Alright. Just Marjorie, 

thank you for being so awesome. But I did also want to 

point out that the only institutional rep that currently 

has an issue with this is for-profit colleges. And if 

that alone doesn't speak volumes, I don't know what else 

possibly could, right? Because if you're not an 

institution committing fraud against your students or 
29

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

harming your students, then you don't really have a lot 

to worry about. And if if that's a systematic thing 

that's occurring within your industry, then I think that 

you must reevaluate the practices that are occurring 

because they aren't occurring at the same rate 

everywhere.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, 

Michaela. Alright. I think with that Jennifer, we're 

ready to move to consensus on the three individual 

issues. Do you have a preference with which one you want 

to start issue six, seven or eight?

MS. HONG: So we could just take them 

in order if we if we're beginning with issue six, as a 

reminder, that's everything from the beginning up to 

page through page 35 up to reconsideration, inclusive of 

the two addendum documents misrepresentation, which is 

introducing a new subpart F, under 34 CFR 668 and then 

the third document we just reviewed, which is aggressive 

and deceptive recruitment, a new subpart R in 34 CFR 668 

and those are part of the federal standard. We're taking 

all that for consensus on issue six for BD.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, is everyone clear 

on what you are taking consensus on? With that, if we 

could see your thumbs and I will read out the 

positioning of those. Turn chat off so I have bigger 
30

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

one. Jessica, is thumbs down. Jeri, is thumbs up. Jaye, 

thumbs up. Daniel, thumbs up. Josh, thumbs up. Heather, 

thumbs sideways. Bethany, I can't see your thumb. She is 

a thumbs up. Dixie, thumbs up, Joe, sideways thumb. 

Christina, thumbs up. Anne is not not weighing in and 

that will not hold up consensus. David is a thumbs up. 

Misty is a sideways thumb. Justin, thumbs up. Noelia, 

thumbs up. Marjorie, thumbs up. Michaela, thumbs up. 

Jennifer, thumbs up. Alright, I think I got them all. So 

as is the process defined and the protocols, I'm going 

to ask dissents to add any additional comments. Serious 

reservations that they haven't already stated and to 

offer solutions that would get you from the thumbs down 

to a sideways thumb. So with that, Jessica.

MS. BARRY: Sorry, had to find my mute 

button. I have nothing new to share, I just think we're 

too far apart on these issues.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, so you have 

nothing new to share, and that includes resolutions?

MS. BARRY: I do not at this time.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Okay, so 

consensus is not reached on issue six. We will table 

that if time allows today, we'll circle back, but you 

have a pretty full robust agenda as it is. So Jennifer, 

issue issue seven issue papers seven.
31

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

MS. HONG: Yes, thank you, Cindy. 

Issue seven is post adjudication where we've included 

starting on page 36, the new reconsideration process, 

and then it'll take us through discharge, how we're 

going to deal with discharge amounts and that table with 

examples that we provided all the way through page 41 up 

to recovery. That's issue seven on BD.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Okay. Everyone 

clear? Alright. Let's see the thumbs. Jessica, thumbs 

down. Jeri, thumbs up. Jaye, thumbs up. Daniel, thumbs 

up. Josh, sideways thumb. Heather, sideways thumb. 

Bethany, thumbs up. Dixie, thumbs up. Joe is sideways 

thumbs. Christina up. Anne is not weighing in, which 

will not hold up consensus, David is sideways thumb. 

Misty is sideways. Justin is sideways. Noelia is thumbs 

up. Marjorie is thumbs up. And Michaela is thumbs down, 

or I'm sorry, thumbs up. I apologize. Don't come through 

the screen, Michaela. Alright. Same questions to 

dissents as the process, Jessica.

MS. BARRY: (Inaudible) the same 

answer as the last two. I've shared my solutions and I 

have nothing new to share.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. 

Alright. Consensus is not reached on issue seven. Issue 

number issue paper number eight. Jennifer, if you could 
32

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

identify it for us, please.

MS. HONG: Yes. Issue number eight is 

the recovery piece through the end of the rule. Recovery 

through the end.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Alright. Let's 

see the thumbs, please. Okay. Jessica, thumbs down. 

Jeri, thumbs up. Jaye, thumbs up. Daniel sideways. Josh 

sideways. Heather sideways. Bethany sideways. Dixie, 

thumbs up. Joe sideways. Christina, up. Anne not 

weighing in, won't hold up consensus. David sideways. 

Misty sideways. Justin sideways. Noelia, thumbs up. 

Marjorie, thumbs up. Michaela, thumbs up. Jennifer from 

the Department, thumbs up. Okay. Jessica have to holding 

true with process, I need to ask you the same questions 

with a dissent vote.

MS. BARRY: Sure, and I would add that 

I have nothing additional to add. I've suggested all of 

my suggestions.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you. So 

consensus is not reached on issue paper number eight. We 

do have some hands up. Jeri.

MS. O'BRYAN-LOSEE: I just wanted to 

say thank you to the Department of ED for for making 

these changes, and also I want to thank the the 

educational component of what I've learned from the 
33

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

negotiators about this subject. I came in not knowing a 

lot about this and I've really, really learned so much. 

And I just want to say thank you for those of you who 

took the time to educate me, as well as probably some 

others about about this process. And I'm very happy for 

the almost consensus we got.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you ,Jeri. Josh.

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks, I'll start just 

by echoing everything Jeri just said. I agree entirely 

with that. But what I wanted to come on here to say was 

that I think the language we use to describe that vote 

is really important that there was consensus here, 

except for the for-profit industry. And so to uplift the 

points that Michaela and Marjorie were making before, 

there is consensus across borrowers, across four-year 

schools, two-year schools, except for the for-profit 

industry. And now that we've had that vote, it's very 

clear that they are the only ones standing out here. And 

I don't think that's a surprise when you look at the 

statistics, some of which we've discussed before. But 

this is an industry that takes in tens of billions of 

dollars in federal student aid and spends less than 25%,

on average, on its students. That accounts for between 9 

and 13% of all students, but makes up over a third of 

student loan defaults that accounts for 98% of the loan 
34

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

cancelation applications. And to Marjorie's point, that 

specifically targets the most vulnerable people, and 

that yields 70% of black borrowers who attend for-profit 

schools to default within 10 years. So I think I would 

urge the Department as it's moving forward to consider 

this consensus, except for the for-profit industry and 

to move forward with a very strong Borrower Defense 

regulation that that has been put forward.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Josh. David.

DR. TANDBERG: My message was going to 

be somewhat similar to Josh's. I think it's rather 

outstanding that we reached consensus sans one. That's 

pretty remarkable. I think it, I hope the Department 

treats it as essentially consensus and that the language 

they resist lobbying, they resist other interests that 

may try to push them away from the strong language that 

they've developed and to implement it with fidelity. I 

think that's the message from these constituents. It's a 

very strong and clear message to the Department, and so 

I encourage it to act accordingly.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, David, Joe.

MR. SANDERS: Yes, I'm here.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MR. SANDERS: State attorneys general 

just want to thank the Department expressly for the 
35

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

inclusion of the state law standard. This is very 

important to us. We really appreciate you putting it in 

there. We think it's an acknowledgment that state law 

has really brought problems with for-profits to light, 

has provided borrowers with relief, and will continue to 

protect borrowers going forward. It's very important for 

us to have the state law standard in these regulations, 

in part because, many schools, once we take action, will 

seek refuge in bankruptcy, in receiverships, and will 

not have the financial resources to make borrowers 

whole. That means that relief on their federal student 

loans is often the only avenue that borrowers have for 

relief, and so allowing the claims that we bring against 

the schools, to then be applied as a defense to their 

repayment of their loans is extremely important for 

borrower relief. Again, thank you to the Department for 

inclusion of the state law standard. It's such an 

important step forward.

MS. JEFFRIES: Michaela.

MS. MARTIN: Yeah, just real quick. I 

really want to tell so like, you know, we've had a lot 

of really great public commenters, but also Dixie and I 

met with with different groups of of students who have 

had a Borrower Defense, including with Ms. Jessica 

Barry, and I just feel a lot right now for the folks 
36

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

that (inaudible) and was really, we're really hoping 

that this was going to be like a way out and just not 

hopelessness that I know that is really easy to come by 

and that I hope that students watching like, still have 

hope like this isn't like it.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Michaela. 

Dixie.

MS. SAMANIEGO: I'll try my best not 

to get emotional, but yeah, I really want to thank the 

folks who are going through BD who met with Michaela and 

I to answer all our questions in great detail. It really 

shaped, you know, Michaela's and I's advocacy on this 

topic and it was super helpful. And I'm trying really 

hard not to cry. But yeah.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Dixie. 

David.

DR. TANDBERG: First of all, I just 

want to acknowledge the important and sincere emotions 

that have been shown here. It shows a lot of bravery, 

but also it's a nice reminder of the work that we're 

doing is it has real implications for real people in 

tremendous ways. And I think the Borrower Defense in 

particular has the potential to at least somewhat 

correct harms that have been done and and provide people 

hope and relief in ways that are pretty dramatic. So 
37

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

thank you for sharing those feelings and showing us 

those true, sincere emotions. It's it's brave and it's 

helpful. I also want to second publicly on the record 

what Joe said, the state law standard is just 

tremendously important to our members, the state higher 

education agencies, and it's a dramatic improvement over 

what has existed. I think that in particular, I 

encourage the Department to include the language as it 

is now in the final rules that they submit for public 

comment. That exclusion would be would be horrible. And 

so just know that we we strongly support that and thank 

you for including it.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, David. At 

this point, we are going to take a 10 minute break when 

we return from that, we will be moving on to predispute 

arbitration. So let's plan on being back here, I see 

11:04, let's say, 11:15. Welcome back, everyone, I hope 

you all had a chance to get refreshed and get up and 

moving a little bit. Appreciate the promptness. So 

Jennifer, if the Department is ready, I think we're 

ready to move on to issue nine, predispute arbitration.

MS. HONG: Great, thank you, Cindy. 

Aaron, if we could cue the document, the proposed 

regulatory tax for issue nine, predispute arbitration 

and class action waivers. Just as a reminder, this is 
38

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

reinstating the ban on predispute arbitration agreements 

and class action waivers. There's basically no no 

substantive changes between two and three, and we did 

catch a technical change that we needed to delete on 

page one at the bottom. If we were to reinstate this 

language, we would not need H. And that is, so we've 

deleted all of H. Otherwise, everything is the same as 

you saw it in session two.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, 

Jennifer. So if you could stop sharing, Aaron, we will 

open it up to the committee. Anyone have any? Josh.

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. So, you know, 

as we've stated before, we are in full support of the 

Department reinstating this regulation, it is a critical 

tool for students to hold schools accountable. We also 

understand the reluctance to include any additional 

provisions in in the regulation in light of past legal 

decisions regarding the regulation. So we would just 

urge the Department in subregulatory guidance or in 

practice to consider adopting some of the proposals that 

we put forward before, including requiring schools to 

submit court records to the Department, so long, if a 

any party is asserting that a Borrower Defense claim is 

at issue, to making clear that the notice language to 

students and the language in the agreements with 
39

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

students has to precisely mirror what's in the 

regulation. And then three, making sure that students 

are third party beneficiaries of the regulation. Again, 

though, generally just wanted to reiterate our support 

for the Department's decision on this regulation.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you, Josh. 

David.

DR. TANDBERG: Yeah, I too, this was 

another area of importance to state higher education 

agencies again because they're involved in the consumer 

protection work. And so this was a priority, I think, I 

too appreciate the efforts by the Department in the 

language as it now stands. It's something that I and my

constituency can support. I do think that it could be 

pushed forward through, as Josh described, guidance and 

practice and application, and I encourage the Department 

to consider the points that have been raised by 

different members of the committee as they implement the 

regulation. And again, not sure how the vote will go, 

but I imagine near or complete consensus, and I hope the 

Department, either way, we'll treat it as consensus 

language.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, David, Joe.

MR. SANDERS: Thank you. State AGs 

want to voice support for the pre arbitration language, 
40

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

we think it's important that students are able to pursue 

their own claims. Government bodies should not be the 

only entities that are policing conduct here, we can't 

do it all. And we think it's important that students 

have the ability to pursue their own claims in court. 

Finally, I would second Josh's suggestion on third party 

beneficiary language in whatever format the Department 

deems appropriate. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Joe. I want

to make note that Carol is in at the table for 

proprietary institutions. Michaela.

MS. MARTIN: Yeah, I just, because I 

really like saying the quiet part out loud, want to flag 

this will probably very well could be another area where 

its proprietary institutions that are going to act as a 

block to consensus. And that, like I personally now, 

have gone to three different types of institutions. As a 

high school drop-out so I started community college, 

went to a state university and now I'm at a private 

nonprofit graduate law program. And none of these 

institutions have required me to sign away my right to 

due process. So I don't want to use that language 

because in the prior conversation, just moments ago, the 

issue was surrounding access to due process. And now I 

can imagine, unless I'm like, totally off base, which I 
41

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

hope I am, now we're going to want to for for-profit 

industry is going to want to deny students their right 

to access due process. And how that contradiction is 

going to look and come across I think it's important as 

we move forward, and I just really hope that I'm wrong 

(inaudible) Optimism constantly, and then I cry, this is 

there's, that's it.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Michaela, 

Justin. Or Jennifer, did you have something you wanted 

to say?

MS. HONG: Yeah, I just realized I was 

remiss in my introduction. It is, we're restating the 

ban on these items. But remember what is new in this 

rule making in terms of language is that we are also 

requiring the submission of arbitral and judicial 

records. And I believe that was something that was 

raised during the session. So that just didn't change 

between two and three, but that is new for 2023 and with 

the ultimate goal of publishing it in a centralized 

database.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jennifer. 

Justin.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Thanks. I actually 

probably don't even need to speak here, considering the 

what has been said by Michaela and Joe and others, but I 
42

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

just wanted to reiterate our very strong support for 

this. It's our view that students shouldn't be forced to 

give up other legal remedies they may have and this 

accomplishes that or prevents that. So. Thank you so 

much.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you, 

Justin. Further comments? Seeing none. Oh, Carol.

DR. COLVIN: We have reviewed this 

with our constituency and appreciate the input of the 

caucus from the last session. The use of predispute 

arbitration provisions and class action waivers isn't 

uniform across career schools. Also institutions, 

including some large online nonprofit universities, use 

these clauses to ensure effective resolution of 

individual claims. While at the same time it mitigates 

the risk presented by plaintiffs’ lawyers in some 

situations. Arbitration of individual claims ensures a 

student that was harmed will get their claim heard in a 

relatively time and cost effective way, and that their 

recovery is tailored to the actual harm that they 

experienced, which is important. For these reasons,

these provisions are used in scores of consumer facing 

industries. Putting aside the merit of those clauses, 

after reviewing the matter and consulting with counsel 

and our constituency group, I would question if the 
43

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

Department has the authority to enact the provision. As 

the Department is aware, there are numerous court 

decisions holding the prohibitions on predispute 

arbitration agreements and class action waivers 

violating Federal Arbitration Act. Congress's commitment 

to the Arbitration Act was restated in 2017 when it 

passed a joint resolution signed by the President 

nullifying the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's 

rule on class action waivers and aspects of arbitration. 

While the arbitration provisions in the 2016 Borrower 

Defense to repayment rule was upheld in court, it was 

upheld prior to the Supreme Court's 2019 decision in 

Epic Systems vs. Lewis. In light of that case, the 

Department in 2018 said it didn't have the authority to 

impose restrictions on predispute arbitration clauses 

and class-action waivers. I'm aware of no new authority 

that undercuts this recent precedent. Also, predispute 

arbitration in no way prevents a student from being 

eligible to file a Borrower Defense claim and to pursue 

relief in those situations. Nor does it prevent a 

student from filing a claim with the Department of ED 

through the FSA feedback system or through the VA system 

and other regulatory systems, which we support and 

encourage students to use when appropriate. Because of 

this, I would have to be a no vote, as we wouldn't 
44

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

support something that appears to violate federal 

statute and Supreme Court precedent.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Carol. Josh.

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. So just want to 

tick through some of those talking points. The first 

being that it's more cost effective and efficient for 

students. I mean, again, I emphasize this before, the 

reason for that is because students have virtually no 

right to discovery or opportunities to actually 

vindicate their case in arbitration. And I would ask our 

friends on the for-profit side how frequently you've 

rejected consumer contracts that have arbitration 

clauses for that reason. You're essentially forcing

students to give up these rights in situations where 

you're holding all of the power. The other talking point 

I'll touch on is recovery, which, when you're in 

arbitration and you're restricting the availability of 

class actions, you're in many instances cutting off any 

viable for any viable path for relief without the class 

action option. And while I think it's interesting that 

our friends on the for-profit side are now pointing to 

Borrower Defenses available, I don't understand how they 

could in good faith say that when they've spent the past 

three months trying to water down a Borrower Defense 

regulation. And the final point I'll raise is on the 
45

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

legal authority side, I want to be very clear that this 

is not a prohibition on an arbitration bans on 

arbitration provisions and class action bans. You still 

have the choice whether or not you're going to include 

that it's solely a question of whether you're eligible 

for Title IV funds. And there's nothing in recent 

Supreme Court jurisprudence which would undermine that, 

and if there's specific language in the 2018 case that 

you're aware of, but I would be interested in seeing it.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Josh. I want 

to make note that Brian Siegel has joined the table for 

the Office of General Counsel. Bethany.

MS. LILLY: I just want to verbally 

back up everything, Josh on this and thinking that this 

is an incredibly important consumer protection. I am 

curious, Carol mentioned in her statement that there 

were some, let me make sure that I'm getting this right, 

that there were some private nonprofit or private 

nonprofit schools that use arbitration agreements. I'm 

just curious who those groups would be. But of course, 

she doesn't have to answer if she doesn't have a list 

handy.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Bethany. 

David.

DR. TANDBERG: As far as I'm aware of 
46

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

the private nonprofits that use these provisions are 

former for-profits. Those are the ones that come to my 

mind. But I'd also be really careful about citing the 

the prior administration as precedent because in most 

actions regarding federal higher education policy, they 

were, their actions were major divergence from existing 

precedent. And so you have to be careful of what your 

reference point is, and I wouldn't I wouldn't use them 

on most issues as an effort to establish precedent 

within a policy area. In fact, they were a major 

divergence. I'll just leave it there.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you, David. 

Any further comments? Michaela.

MS. MARTIN: Yeah. I'm sorry, I'm just 

kind of on one about this whole for-profit industry 

thing because I really tried to hold out hope. I know a 

lot of folks in this room know like, I was like, no, 

like, it's fine, but like the fact that like, you know, 

like I also like could have words in rather than like 

responding to any concerns, the for-profit rep just read 

off of something, just read a statement. And I just I 

think that's so devoid of like, humanness, right? Like, 

I'm not going to address the fact that we, what is being 

talked about, I'm just I'm just going to say what I have 

to say. And also to be very careful when you're throwing 
47

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

around very legal, complicated arguments in a way that's 

simple and not the most factual, because that's just 

really harmful I think in these situations, and I don't 

think that everything that's been represented by the 

for-profits in regards to their legal concerns are like 

factually accurate and just for folks that might be 

watching at home, I just wanted to flag that. Be 

careful. Do your research before you believe everything.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Michaela. 

Seeing no other hands, Jennifer, are you ready to move 

forward with consensus?

MS. HONG: Yes.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. So at this point, 

we will be taking a consensus check on issue nine 

predispute arbitration and class action waivers. If 

there are dissents indicating that consensus is not 

reached on under definition, then the dissent will be 

asked for any further serious reservations and to 

provide remedies or solutions in an effort to move this 

forward to get the full consensus. So with that, could I 

please see your thumbs? Alright. Daniel, thumbs up. 

Jeri, thumbs up. Heather sideways. Josh, thumbs up.

Carol, thumbs down. David, thumbs up. Joe, thumbs up. 

Jaye, thumbs up. Justin, thumbs up. Bethany, thumbs up. 

Christina, thumbs up. Noelia, thumbs up. Dixie, thumbs 
48

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

up. Michaela, thumbs up. Anne, no, no weigh in, does not 

hold up consensus. Misty, thumbs up. Marjorie, thumbs 

up. So with that, consensus is not reached as there was 

one dissent, Carol. Josh, before I get to you, is it 

okay if I go to Carol? As is process, for you to clearly 

articulate your serious reservations and offer solutions 

that might move this towards full consensus?

DR. COLVIN: Thank you. We support the 

current regulations that are in place that permit a 

borrower institution to voluntarily enter into a 

predispute arbitration agreement. We did bring to the 

table a couple of suggestions, including a reasonable 

cooling off period and suggested maybe three days so 

that the borrower would have time and would not feel 

forced or pressured to go into the student who could 

potentially borrow, would not feel forced to sign a 

predispute arbitration agreement and would have time to 

discuss it with family, friends, and other college 

access professionals outside of the prospective school. 

Never to to pressure them to make that decision, but to 

give them time to reasonably consider it.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you, Carol. 

Josh.

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. I just want to 

make two quick points. The first again, I think the way 
49

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

we discuss this matter is I think we did reach 

consensus, except for the for-profit rep, that is number 

one. Number two, I'm thinking about kind of the issues 

that we've been focusing on and three of them closed 

school discharge, Borrower Defense, and now predispute 

arbitration and class action, are three critical pieces 

to protecting students and holding schools accountable. 

And on all three of those issues, the through line is 

that we've reached full consensus except for the forprofit rep. And I just I just want that to be abundantly 

clear.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Josh. 

And I do understand what you're saying, Josh. I'm when I 

presented, I'm just merely speaking from the consensus 

process that any dissents indicate that full consensus 

has not been reached. Okay? Justin.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Yeah, thanks, and I'll 

try to be quick. I think, I would just encourage folks 

to do their own analysis about what's happened here on 

Borrower Defense and predispute arbitration and and 

really not just the fact that there is a single 

roadblock to consensus here in terms of negotiators even 

standing out among their institutional peers. But but 

the massive chasm that sits between where they want to 

be and where everyone else agrees is best for borrowers. 
50

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

That's really concerning. I would encourage folks to 

draw their own conclusions about that. And just real 

quick, this doesn't need to be done, but I have to say, 

because it was a solution proposed, it's really not a 

solution. This idea of a cooling off period that you get 

three days to consider and consult with your close 

friends, I think that's probably more appropriately 

explained as, take this, obtain legal counsel, and have 

a lawyer explain to you the ramifications of these 

provisions, which is incredibly unreasonable when we're 

talking about a student trying to enroll in an 

institution of higher education. So I just I just want 

to throw that out there, and that's not really a 

compromise. That's a way for them to get to what is a 

very extreme positioncomparatively speaking, when we're 

looking at where we have functional consensus right now, 

so thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Justin. 

David.

DR. TANDBERG: Yeah, it seems like 

we've got a pattern going here. Following up on what 

Josh and Justin said, I want, I want, I once again want 

to publicly and on the record voice that I would 

appreciate it if the Department treated this essentially 

as consensus language. Implement it in what is sent out 
51

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

for public comment with fidelity to the language as it 

is. I think that would be the most reflective of where 

we're at now. Give it a chasm between everyone else and 

the proprietary representative. Regarding the potential 

solutions suggested by Carol, the the idea that there 

would be no pressure put on the student to sign the the 

agreement. I just can't accept that given the record of 

abusive tactics towards students and putting high 

pressure on them to enroll and do other things within 

that sector, I have no reason to believe that there 

wouldn't be widespread pressure put on students to sign 

these agreements. And there is a huge difference in what 

the student brings to that discussion and what the 

institution brings. So many of the the students have 

never heard of predispute arbitration, don't know what 

it is, that just can't work. It doesn't work. It's not 

fair. Therefore, I, as my thumbs up indicated I strongly 

support the language as it is now and strongly encourage 

the Department to implement it with fidelity.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, David. 

Jennifer has or Jen has joined us at the table. Go 

ahead, Jen. Your hand is up.

MS. CARDENAS: Hi, so. What can we say 

other than this administration has shown us that they 

want equity? The Department of Education has shown us 
52

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

that they're willing to make spaces of education 

equitable for people of color. Our black and brown 

communities are seeing that Department of Education is 

doing so much. Yes, we didn't come to consensus right 

now. But let's I mean, let's get real. Whose philosophy 

has been not for students? It hasn't been anybody with 

their thumbs up, that's for sure. I think one thing that 

I really hope the Department of Education takes in 

consideration is all our voices of students and all the 

thumbs up. Yes, it's not consensus. I understand that, 

but I really urge the Department of Education to see 

that the people that were here, honestly with students 

in mind showed us with their thumbs up that they were 

here for students first and not money and not 

corporations and not other institutions that have made 

it a point to make sure that students of color suffer 

because you're giving them, you think three days is 

ideal, three days to find a babysitter, three days to 

tell my job, to tell both of my jobs, hey, I need time 

off. That's ridiculous. That is really ridiculous. And I 

hope the Department of Education sees all the work that 

we put in and really takes in our thumbs up and sees 

that we really care about students. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jen. 

Alright, so there are no further hands.
53

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

MR. BARKOWITZ: Cindy, I have my hand 

up, I know my background...

MS. JEFFRIES: I'm sorry. Yep, there 

it is. Thanks, Daniel.

MR. BARKOWITZ: So you may have been 

going where I was going. I appreciate this conversation 

and I want to touch base on where we are. So if I were 

to summarize sort of where we are for the week and the 

process, I see sort of three distinct sets of issues. I 

see a set of issues where it has been, as as has been 

noted, the proprietary representative is the only 

representative voting no. I'm not sure that prioritizing 

that set of issues for further conversation is going to 

be productive. So that is, particularly the closed 

school Borrower Defense predispute authorization, So I 

would like I would like to propose that we set those 

aside. I see a set of issues where frankly, the 

Department is the sole dissenter, and that is the issues 

around PSLF and Income Driven Repayment. Again, I'm not 

sure that the Department has has ability or willingness 

to move on on those issues. So I'm not sure that it's 

productive to return to those either. I do see a third 

set of issues, well, let me start by saying, there are a 

couple of issues that we reached consensus on, yay, but 

there are some issues that remain, which I think it 
54

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

would be productive to swing back to. And those include 

in my notes, if I'm following this correctly, the prison 

education programs, the false certification discharge, 

although Josh, your constituents may not be able to make 

movement there. And I think those are the only two that 

remain. So, you know, perhaps we can prioritize those 

two in our next conversations. And I hate to do your 

work for you, Cindy, but maybe that is what I'm doing. 

But I just I note that I think we're close on those two 

issues and with some productive conversations can 

probably come closer to a set of agreements than we 

might on the other issues.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, I thank you for 

that, Daniel. And yes, you did kind of steal my thunder, 

but that's okay. I'm good with that. It is true that you 

have now taken an initial consensus on all 12 issues. 

Okay? And that the committee has reached consensus on 

the total and permanent disability, and interest 

capitalization. The remaining 10 issues do not have 

consensus and as we have been discussing all along all 

week, that we will, you know, time permitting, revisit 

those. I appreciate your outline of it, Daniel. Our 

intent was if time permitted this morning, which is 

short, okay, that we revisit closed school discharge and 

false certification. I I don't I don't think the FMCS 
55

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

team has a strong preference on which one of those goes 

first. Hearing you loudly, I'd like to turn to the 

committee and see if if Daniel's suggestion of false 

certification for this short period of time would make 

the most logical sense. It is, you know, it is our 

intent to move to the Pell discussion this afternoon, 

okay? So I did not want to not address that Daniel. 

Okay? Michaela.

MS. MARTIN: I was just wondering for 

these conversations, did anybody or does anybody have 

like how the votes went or did we like keep track of 

like why people were stuck on certain issues? And I just 

ask that for like expedited conversation, because now 

it's been like a whole week and a lifetime, I don't 

remember what people’s like, you know, massive 

reservations for the phraseology that we've been using 

for if they were thumbs down. So I think that starting 

from that vantage would probably be ideal.

MS. JEFFRIES: You know, I don't, FMCS 

doesn't have, you know, necessarily the record list of 

of that. We have noted in our summaries what has reached 

consensus and which has not. I don't want to misstate 

people's votes. So I don't know Jennifer, if the 

Department has.

MS. HONG: I think we got I think we 
56

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

have a good handle on it.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Alright. So I'm 

not hearing any strong preference or any dissent on 

going to false certification first. So with that, do we 

want to let's go ahead and revisit false certification 

so we can utilize some of this time.

MS. HONG: Yes. If Aaron could, Aaron, 

if he could queue the regulatory language. I see Jen's 

hand's up hand up. I don't.

MS. JEFFRIES: She did? Jen, did you 

have your hand up?

MS. CARDENAS: No, sorry, I forgot to 

put it down.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you, Jen. 

Okay, Jennifer.

MS. HONG: Thank You. Thank you, Aaron 

and Cindy. So false cert, we this is the issue with Josh 

and the group discharge language. I think that's the 

only outstanding issue. We had some strong reservations 

of the inclusion of that language. We believe that this 

the regulation as proposed, provides for a group 

discharge. I know that legal provided some suggested 

language. I understand the concept is very important for 

them. Again, we would argue that the language as 

proposed provides for process for group discharge. If we 
57

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

could move you to a thumbs up, Josh would if we took 

that first sentence of the language you proposed. I'd 

like to get your thoughts on that, I don't I don't know 

that we could do, we wouldn't be able to do anything 

more than that. And even that, you know, we had to do a 

lot of contemplating. So that is, I know you guys don't 

have a language in front of you, I think Josh provided 

it in between sessions two and three, but if, I'll go to 

the floor to Josh if you want to look at it.

MR. ROVENGER: Yeah, I actually just 

need to pull it up as well. I don't have my false cert 

notes handy. One minute.

MS. HONG: If it's the concept of 

incorporating a group discharge and flagging that, that 

is, we're making that explicit. The first sentence that 

Josh proposed, I'm just, while you pull it up, Josh, is 

“a state attorney general or nonprofit legal services 

representative may submit to the Secretary in an 

application an application for a group discharge under 

this section” period.

MR. ROVENGER: I think that probably 

gets us there. But I'd like if it's if we can defer this 

vote till after lunch so I can just consult with a few 

colleagues. That would be much appreciated.

MS. HONG: Sure.
58

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

MS. JEFFRIES: Sure. Thank you, Josh. 

Appreciate you willing to reach out to your constituents 

and and see where they're at on this. I will say that on 

that issue, it's my understanding that in the 

temperature check in the in the previous initial 

consensus, there was just one dissent. Okay. Alright, so 

we still have a few minutes, I am going to suggest that 

we move back to closed school discharge just because 

that is with the limited time we have left, I'm hesitant 

to get into the other one and preparations are not 

finalized to be able to move to Pell until after lunch. 

Okay? Let's see. Jessica's coming back in for 

proprietary institutions. Welcome back Jessica. Michaela 

you have your hand up.

MS. MARTIN: Yeah, I'm so sorry, I 

think I don't understand what just happened. So are we 

taking another consensus on all of the closed schools or 

is that? I think I just missed the last like a different 

process.

MS. JEFFRIES: Right, well, we are 

deferring an additional consensus check on false 

certification until after lunch so that Josh has it 

because the Department did put some forth, Josh has time 

to reach out to his constituency, so we will table that 

briefly until after lunch. And then moving us to closed 
59

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

school discharges. Okay? Where it is, my understanding 

there also was, Jennifer correct me if the record showed 

differently, one dissent on this, correct?

MS. HONG: I'm sorry, one dissent on 

closed schools, is that what you asked?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes. Okay, thank you. 

So with that, Jennifer, do you want the language cued

back up?

MS. HONG: Sure, that'd great, if we 

could cue back closed school discharge. So. It was a bit 

more challenging for us, I know that Jessica you 

expressed kind of more general, broader, philosophical 

differences and offered us to take another look at the 

definition. We did consider the definition proposed 

language that you and others provided, we felt we had 

reservations both conceptually as well as being able to 

implement that language. So but more importantly, we 

would like to stay with a definition that we have to 

make sure that we are reaching all potential situation 

closed school situations that could adversely affect a 

student. So, we that that's why we we didn't incorporate 

the proposed language that you and others have provided 

earlier on the process, so I don't know if there's any 

there's anything new that you wanted to suggest. But I 

understand that that was kind of the sticking point, 
60

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

initially.

MS. BARRY: Yeah, that is a sticking 

sticking point with some others, but Jennifer, I really 

appreciate you taking another thought, at least at that 

language and and thinking about whether that was 

something you could do even if you couldn't. We have 

thought about this since Monday and thought through 

different ideas, but we haven't come up with anything 

new that would get us to a yes, but thank you for 

circling back to me.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Daniel.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Is, I just want to 

return back. Was there a commitment, am I remembering 

this wrong, was there a commitment from the Department 

to add the table that was subregulatory? I believe I 

remember that that there was a commitment to either 

putting that in the FSA handbook or adding it as part of 

the preamble to these regulations. If we could achieve 

consensus or even if separately drafted. Is that 

commitment still on the table, Jennifer from the 

Department, is that still something that you would be 

willing to do?

MS. HONG: We're definitely willing to 

do that, yes. The document that you saw does need some 

kind of technical updating and revisions, but we will 
61

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

definitely take that into consideration. We don't have 

any problems against doing that.

MR. BARKOWITZ: I was hopeful that 

that could assuage some of your concerns, Jessica. 

Sounds like maybe not, but but again, I think that would 

be really helpful because again, it was the first time I 

had seen that guidance in any public space, and it did 

help me in large scale move to greater comfort with the 

definitional issues that I had raised at first.

MS. JEFFRIES: Michaela.

MS. MARTIN: Yeah, I, I still am just 

really struggling with this idea that the for-profits 

are really saying that we need to get students to sign 

an agreement that says you don't have access to your 

right to due process because you're going to be forced 

into arbitration, right? Where somebody who's probably 

paid for, contracted by the institution will be the one 

to determine what that resolution of the situation is. 

When it comes to something like closed school 

discharge, you're saying that the school could close 

down and I'm not allowed to sue you, right? That just is 

a really big ask I think and I just wonder like Jessica, 

like is throwing around like we and I don't know who we 

is, right? I feel like other institutions and other 

people here are thinking about students, and I just 
62

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

don't know who the the we is that you're consulting that 

has problems with with allowing students to be 

protected.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, 

Michaela. Heather.

DR. PERFETTI: Thank you, and I just 

want to reiterate what Daniel indicated, because I know 

I was part of the group looking at the closed school 

definition and some of the definitional challenges that 

we saw. So I appreciate the Department's willingness to 

look at what we were calling the chart, which we 

distributed to everyone, which helps to clarify 

circumstances when a closure is triggered under these 

regulations, and I offer the support and assistance from 

accrediting agencies as closures are becoming more 

nuanced if we can contribute to that chart in any 

meaningful way, we're happy to assist as well.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Heather. 

David.

DR. TANDBERG: Yeah. As state agencies 

are often the ones that are left holding the bag to 

directly help students, close down schools, retain 

records, implement teach out agreements after the 

institution no longer exists, this was of particular 

interest to us. Most other entities’ interests dissolve 
63

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

with an institution dissolving. However, students and 

their interests remain, and state agencies are often the 

ones that directly deal with them after a school's been 

closed. Closed school discharge, therefore, is something 

that we strongly support. We also, along with Heather, 

pledge our willingness to assist the Department as they 

deal with implementation, identifying closed schools,

Our members have to identify them themselves, and it 

sometimes is a little tricky, but it's something of 

great interest to them. And so we're we're happy to work 

as a triad too and will be an up vote on this, and I 

hope others will likewise.

MS. JEFFRIES: Jaye.

MS. O'CONNELL: I just wanted to speak 

in support of the chart, so as guarantors are in the 

fold of this and making determinations, I had passed 

that along to some operations folks in my team and said, 

wow, that will be really helpful. So the the nuances of 

what is a closed school could be really useful I think 

to the FFEL, the FFEL participants that may have other 

closed school discharges presented.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Jaye. 

Okay. I'm not seeing any other hands. From facilitator's 

standpoint, I did not hear anything new, and I'm going 

to turn back to Jessica. I know you have stated in this 
64

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

conversation that you are still a no vote. I'm going to 

check and see if any of this discussion has changed that 

position to sideways thumb in determining whether or not 

the committee actually needs to take an additional 

consensus on this.

MS. BARRY: We too really appreciate 

the chart, and we think it will be helpful, but we just 

have other concerns that aren't going to be able to 

allow us to vote yes or sideways.

MS. JEFFRIES: So committee knowing 

that there is still the one dissent. I don't think 

protocol requires another consensus vote unless I'm 

going to hear a strong objection or if the Department 

would like an additional consensus check.

MS. HONG: It doesn't seem necessary 

at this point in time.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Alright. Hearing 

none, we are at 11:59, almost 12 o'clock. So why don't 

we go ahead and take our lunch break and we'll come back 

here promptly at 1:00 p.m..
65

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

Appendix

Department of Education

Office of Postsecondary Education

Zoom Chat Transcript

Affordability and Student Loans Committee

Session 3, Day 5, Morning, December 10, 2021

DISCLAIMER:

Note: The following is the output of transcribing from a 

recording. Although the transcription is largely accurate; 

in some cases, it is incomplete or inaccurate due to 

inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as 

an aid to understanding the proceedings at the meeting, but 

should not be treated as an authoritative record.

From Marjorie Dorimé-Williams, Ph.D. (she/her) to 

Everyone:

Internet problems. I’ll be on shortly.

From Stan (A) Ind. Students to Everyone:

Good morning, everyone. Last day! ���

From Raj - Advisor Econ & Data to Everyone:

I really enjoyed Columbia and was sad to leave. But 

my partner wanted us to get closer to family

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

https://twitter.com/higheredrachel/status/146932251534

0214281/photo/1

From Raj - Advisor Econ & Data to Everyone:

Sorry, that was meant to be private

From Jeri (P) Student Borrowers (she her, they) to 
66

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

Everyone:

we are glad you are happy Raj

From Jen(she/ella): (A) Student borrowers to Everyone:

lol

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to 

Everyone:

We're pros by now on Zoom :D

From Michaela Martin to Everyone:

yeah lmao constitutional right to reputation? I missed 

that line in that document

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

+1 to Josh

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

+1 to Joe

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone:

+1 joe

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

+1 to Jennifer on bravery of public commenters.

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to 

Everyone:

+1 Thank you to all the public commenters who came and 

allowed us to hear about their experiences and how we 

can all do better to help them.

From Bethany (P) - Disability (she/hers) to Everyone:

+1 re: public comment
67

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone:

+1 josh

From Bethany (P) - Disability (she/hers) to Everyone:

+1 to Josh's suggestion!

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to 

Everyone:

+1 Josh!!!!

From Jeri (P) Student Borrowers (she her, they) to 

Everyone:

+1 Josh's suggestion

From Justin (P) Servicemembers and Veterans to Everyone:

Emily is taking the table for a quick comment

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

What is the Department's intention for public 

notification of decisions on group adjudication? Will 

there be a public notice or will this be just a notice 

to schools and borrowers impacted?

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

+1 Emily

From Emily (A)- Servicemembers and Veterans to Everyone:

Justin is returning to the table

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

+1 Josh

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

+1 Josh
68

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

From Jen(she/ella): (A) Student borrowers to Everyone:

+ 1 Justin

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

+1 Justin

From Bethany (P) - Disability (she/hers) to Everyone:

+1 to Justin!

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Insts. (she/her) to Everyone:

+1 Josh

From misty sabouneh to Everyone:

+1 josh

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

+1 Josh

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone:

+1 joe

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

+1 Joe

From Jeri (P) Student Borrowers (she her, they) to 

Everyone:

+1 Joe

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

Just want to uplift Joe's comment. The state law 

standard is huge for state hi ed agencies.

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

We still have issue paper 9, correct, before we return 

back to past issues?
69

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

From Jessica Barry, Proprietary (P) to Everyone:

Carol will sub in for me for the next issue.

From Bethany (P) - Disability (she/hers) to Everyone:

+1 to Johs

From Bethany (P) - Disability (she/hers) to Everyone:

*Josh

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone:

+1 joe

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

+1 Joe

From Bethany (P) - Disability (she/hers) to Everyone:

+1 to Joe + Josh

From Justin (P) Servicemembers and Veterans to Everyone:

+1 Josh

From Jen(she/ella): (A) Student borrowers to Everyone:

+ 1 Josh

From Jeri (P) Student Borrowers (she her, they) to 

Everyone:

+1 Josh!!!!

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone:

+1 josh

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

+1 Josh. Very well done.
70

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

+1 Josh

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

+1 to Josh that the rule limits only arbitrations 

about DL and Borrower Defense.

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Insts. (she/her) to Everyone:

+1 David on previous administration

From Bethany (P) - Disability (she/hers) to Everyone:

+1 re: David

From Jeri (P) Student Borrowers (she her, they) to 

Everyone:

+1 re: David

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

+1 Josh

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to 

Everyone:

+1 Josh

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Insts. (she/her) to Everyone:

+1 Josh

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

I thought I was going and so lowered my hand too 

quickly

From Jeri (P) Student Borrowers (she her, they) to 

Everyone:

Jen will be coming in for Jeri

From Michaela [P] Ind. Students to Everyone:
71

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

+1

From Bethany (P) - Disability (she/hers) to Everyone:

+1 to Josh, Justin, and David

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Insts. (she/her) to Everyone:

+1 Josh, Justin, David

From Justin (P) Servicemembers and Veterans to Everyone:

+1 David

From Misty (P) Priv. Non Profit to Everyone:

+1

From Jeri (P) Student Borrowers (she her, they) to 

Everyone:

+1!!

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone:

+1 David

From Jeri (P) Student Borrowers (she her, they) to 

Everyone:

+! Jen!

From Michaela [P] Ind. Students to Everyone:

I hopethis is leading to going back to pell

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

Daniel should join FMCS

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

He has a bright future as a facilitator!

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:
72

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/10/21

LOL!

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

+1 Joe!

From Jeri (P) Student Borrowers (she her, they) to 

Everyone:

Jeri is back for Sbs

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

I was keeping track

From Michaela [P] Ind. Students to Everyone:

Heck yeah Daniel

From Jessica Barry, Proprietary (P) to Everyone:

I will sub back in for Carol.

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

+1 Heather

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

+1 David

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

+1 Jaye

From Will (A) FFEL Agencies to Everyone: 

+1 Jaye