MEMORANDUM

To: U.S. Department of Education and Negotiators

From: Adam Welle and Yael Shavit, State AG Negotiators

Date: March 16, 2022

Re: Proposed Regulations Concerning Certification Procedures and Application of State Laws

We are pleased to see that the Department of Education’s most recent version of Issue Paper 6 concerning 

certification includes a basic requirement that programs comply with consumer-protection laws applicable 

to higher education in the states where students reside (to be promulgated as 34 C.F.R. § 668.14(b)(32)). 

While this type of requirement should not be controversial, we have received comments as negotiators 

opposing this proposed provision on the ground that it would be burdensome for schools to ensure 

compliance with the laws of states in which they are enrolling students. These comments have asserted that

state reciprocity programs provide adequate consumer protections. 

While we’re troubled by several arguments opposing the Department’s proposal, we wish to express before 

we begin discussion of Issue Paper 6 our strong disagreement with the notion that institutions soliciting 

enrollment online are subject to sufficient consumer protections under reciprocity arrangements. To detail 

our concerns, I attach an August 2021 letter submitted by a bipartisan group of 25 state attorneys general

to the Board of Directors of the National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements. In that 

letter, the state attorneys general communicate our strong compliance concerns related to distance learning, 

the lack of standards under NC-SARA that would safeguard students from the elevated risk of fraud and 

mismanagement by online schools, and how NC-SARA’s policy preventing application of educationspecific laws in students’ home states is detrimental to our ability to police against fraud. I draw particular 

attention to the section of our letter imploring NC-SARA to create an effective baseline of consumer 

protections to prevent our realized concern that institutions flock to low-regulation states in a “race to the 

bottom” for consumer protection.

As another large bipartisan group of state attorneys general highlighted in a letter just this week, which I 

have also attached, these issues remain unresolved. Indeed, attorneys general and consumer advocates have 

raised these concerns for years, but NC-SARA has declined to adopt meaningful standards that would 

prevent some of the worst abuses that have been seen in the for-profit industry in recent years. We 

encourage the negotiators and the Department to consider the concerns of the state attorneys general and to 

support the inclusion of the proposed regulation, which would preserve states’ sovereign responsibility to 

protect their consumers while maintaining the states’ prerogative to enter reciprocity arrangements. 
Sent via E-mail

National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements

Board of Directors

c/o Dr. Lori Williams

3005 Center Green Drive; Suite 130

Boulder, Colorado 80301

August 2, 2021

Re: State Attorneys General Policy Change Recommendations to Improve NC-SARA 

Student Protections

Dear Dr. Williams and Members of the NC-SARA Board of Directors:

We, the Attorneys General of Maryland, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of 

Columbia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, 

Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Washington write to submit, at your invitation,

recommended changes to NC-SARA’s State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements Policy 

Manual to improve the consumer protections available to students attending NC-SARA 

participating institutions. We appreciate your commitment to continued dialogue with our offices 

and for joining the National Association of Attorneys General in hosting three meetings over the 

past few months with consumer protection attorneys from a large, bipartisan group of state 

Attorneys General offices. At those meetings, we outlined our experience enforcing our states’ 

unfair and deceptive acts and practices laws and asked questions about the consumer protection 

policies that NC-SARA has in place for the over 3 million students enrolled exclusively in 

distance education courses at the 2,276 institutions permitted to participate in NC-SARA. In light 

of these discussions, we believe that NC-SARA should adopt various policy changes to ensure 

adequate protections for students and to better serve the interests of the member states and 

territories.

In recent years, our offices have investigated and brought enforcement actions against 

multiple schools that were engaged in deceptive or unlawful practices. These investigations 

revealed widespread abuses in the for-profit college sector, including at some schools 

participating in NC-SARA. In January 2019, for example, forty-nine Attorneys General settled a 

years-long investigation into Career Education Corporation (now called Perdoceo Education 

Corporation), which operates NC-SARA-participating schools American Intercontinental 

University and Colorado Technical University. Other examples are the Colorado Attorney 

General’s Office’s judgment against the Center for Excellence in Higher Education, which 

BRIAN E. FROSH

Attorney General

STATE OF MARYLAND

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

ELIZABETH F. HARRIS

Chief Deputy Attorney General

CAROLYN QUATTROCKI

Deputy Attorney General
Page 2

operated Stevens-Henager College and Independence University, and the Kentucky Attorney 

General Office’s case against American National University (formerly National College).

From our experiences investigating these and other schools, we know that deceptive and

unlawful practices harm not only students, but also harm taxpayers who fund the expensive 

student loans that support such schools, impose burdens on state regulators, and drive students 

and revenue away from institutions that treat students fairly. The deceptive and illegal practices 

uncovered by our investigations also point to deeper administrative deficiencies that can cause 

the sudden and harmful school closures, as showcased by several recent collapses of large chains 

of schools. Cases against such institutions have been brought by bipartisan groups of Attorneys 

General, reflecting our offices’ non-partisan mission to enforce state law and protect our states’ 

residents from deceptive and abusive practices.

With these concerns in mind, we believe that NC-SARA’s current policies do not 

adequately guard against the unique risks that arise from distance learning. For instance, NCSARA’s policy prohibiting member states from enforcing education-specific consumer 

protection laws against out-of-state NC-SARA participating schools undermines our Offices’ and 

other state agencies’ ability to protect students in our states. It also creates a two-tiered system of 

protection, in which students attending NC-SARA-participating schools receive the benefit of 

fewer consumer protection laws than students attending schools based in our state or attending 

schools that do not participate in NC-SARA. This incentivizes NC-SARA participating schools 

to locate in states with weaker education-specific consumer protection laws, such as financial 

protections in the event of unanticipated closure, to avoid having to comply with more studentprotective laws. Our conversations with some of the representatives of state entities that enforce 

NC-SARA rules showed that they share this concern.

Your op-ed published in Inside Higher Ed asserts that states “must take ownership over 

creating effective systems and policies designed to assure distance education quality beyond the 

baseline standards imposed by NC-SARA,”

1

and many states have attempted to do so. NCSARA policies were originally designed to ease the administrative burden of licensing and 

approval in the various states. Those policies, which may have been well-intentioned in their 

inception, are allowing schools to avoid complying with education-specific consumer protection

laws in our states. We agree with your published statements that NC-SARA “should only serve 

to augment -- and never supersede or usurp -- states’ ultimate authority to regulate and conduct 

strong oversight of higher education institutions.”2 However, as noted above, NC-SARA’s 

policies do, in fact, usurp states’ authority to protect students enrolled in online courses at

participating schools based in other states. We also agree with NC-SARA leadership’s comments 

during our calls that baseline standards should prevent a “race to the bottom” and with your 

mission to “assure students are well served in a rapidly changing education landscape.”3In 

practice, however, NC-SARA’s current policies do not contain sufficient consumer protections

1 States and Quality Assurance in Online Education, Inside Higher Ed, available at 

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/07/20/covid-surge-distance-learning-demands-renewed-focus-qualityassurance-opinion

2

Id.

3 Mission and History, NC-SARA, available at https://nc-sara.org/mission-history
Page 3

to assure that students are well served, undermine states’ ability to protect their residents, and 

create the race to the bottom that NC-SARA seeks to prevent.

The following constitutes a list of concerns and requested changes to the NC-SARA 

Policy Manual, which are necessary to align NC-SARA’s policy with its stated goals of 

consumer protection.4

1. NC-SARA Should Implement Stronger Consumer Protection Rules.

a) NC-SARA should allow member states to enforce education-specific consumer 

protection laws, which are necessary to protect students in our states.

Our most urgent concern with NC-SARA is that it prohibits member states from

enforcing education-specific consumer protection laws against out-of-state schools offering 

distance education programs to residents of our states. This prohibition undermines states’ ability 

to protect students from predatory conduct. For instance, NC-SARA policy appears to prohibit 

states from enforcing laws that require schools to make disclosures to students about important 

outcome metrics before enrolling them. This creates a two-tiered system, where only some 

students get the benefits of our state laws, undermining our ability to protect all our students.

Although we understand the rationale for streamlining state licensing processes for 

schools offering programs in multiple states, there is no legitimate rationale for shielding NCSARA schools from substantive state consumer-protection laws in states where the school 

enrolls students. Sheltering schools in such a way runs contrary to NC-SARA’s stated mission 

and does the millions of students attending NC-SARA participating institutions a disservice. NCSARA should permit and encourage member states to enforce education-specific state consumer 

protection laws with respect to all schools enrolling residents of our states.

POLICY MANUAL CHANGE: Alter NC-SARA Policy Manual Section 2.5(l) to allow NCSARA member states to enforce all education-specific consumer protection laws. 

b) NC-SARA should implement minimum consumer protection standards for participating

schools.

NC-SARA has barely any minimum consumer-protection standards that apply to its 

participating schools. Without such standards, there are significant disparities between the 

requirements placed on participating schools, depending on the laws of the state in which they 

are physically located. NC-SARA should keep its promise in its annual report to “support[] 

quality assurance and consumer protections for students”

5

by demanding that schools earn the 

benefit of participating in NC-SARA by meeting a set of specific consumer protection standards.

4 We were disappointed to learn that NC-SARA recently adopted a policy to vote on changes to the Policy Manual

once a year instead of twice a year. This results in the delay of almost a year until the student protection 

recommendations in this letter could be adopted. We urge NC-SARA to consider these recommendations during its

November 2021 Board meeting and adopt critical student protection measures as soon as possible.

5 NC-SARA 2021 Annual Report, at 8, available at https://nc-sara.org/sites/default/files/files/2021-

07/NCSARA_AnnualReport.July2021.Final_.pdf
Page 4

POLICY MANUAL CHANGE: Add the following concepts to the Policy Manual and 

require schools to attest that they comply with all consumer protection requirements to 

be eligible to participate in NC-SARA:

• Prohibit specific unfair and deceptive conduct related to admissions and financial aid 

practices that we have identified in our cases against institutions of higher education 

or that are prohibited in state law.

• Require schools to provide all prospective students receiving any federal student aid 

with a personalized link to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s “Your 

Financial Path to Graduation” tool after the student is sent an award letter.

6

• Prohibit the withholding of a student’s transcript solely because of a debt or balance 

owed to the school.

7

• Restrict the use of lead generators, which we have found to use unfair and deceptive 

marketing practices,

8

by adopting minimum standards for their use.

• Impose specific requirements related to financial protections for all students in the 

event of an unanticipated closure.

• Require a minimum percent of total revenue be spent on student instruction.9

c) NC-SARA should clarify and enforce its current rule prohibiting the use of mandatory 

arbitration clauses.

During our meetings with NC-SARA leadership, we learned that NC-SARA generally 

prohibits schools from using forced arbitration clauses in enrollment agreements to shield 

themselves from lawsuits filed by students in distance education programs. However, in separate

conversations with some of NC-SARA’s state portal entities (“SPEs”) that enforce NC-SARA 

6 See Your Financial Path to Graduation, CFPB, available at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/paying-forcollege/your-financial-path-to-graduation/. Multiple recent bipartisan settlements used by our offices require the 

schools to send new students a personalized tool to explain the costs of higher education. See e.g., 49 AG settlement 

with Career Education Corporation, available at https://www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/press/2019/010319.pdf; 

40 AG settlement with Education Management Corporation, available at

https://www.iowaattorneygeneral.gov/newsroom/edmc-to-change-practices-forgive-loans-through-agreement-withmiller-and-state-attorneys-general

7 Minnesota and California currently prohibit schools from withholding a student’s transcript because the student is 

in arrears or in default on any institutional loan issued by the school, and other state legislatures are considering 

similar measures. See M.S.A. § 136A.828 and M.S.A. § 136A.65; Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.93 and Cal Ed Code § 

66022.

8 20 states settled with a lead generator related to the deceptive use of GIBill.com that directed veterans only to forprofit institutions. 2.5 M Settlement over ‘GIBill.com’, Inside Higher Ed., available at

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/06/28/attorneys-general-announce-settlement-profit-college-marketer

Our settlements with Perdoceo Education Corporation and Education Management Corporation also contained terms 

limiting the use of lead generators by requiring minimum standards for their use.

9 NC-SARA touts on its website that it “[r]educes costs and bureaucracy for states and institutions” and claims in its 

recent annual report that it “helped participating postsecondary institutions save a total of $402 million for initial

authorization and approximately $133 million annually.” During our meetings, NC-SARA leadership stated that 

schools pass this savings along to students, but no evidence has been presented to support this statement. Schools 

that have the privilege of participating in NC-SARA should be required to utilize the monetary savings realized from 

participation in a way that directly benefits students. One way this could be done is by setting a minimum amount of 

a school’s net tuition revenue per full-time student that must be spent on instruction. This concept is already law in 

Maine, which prohibits certain institutions from spending less than 50% of their total revenue on instruction and 

more than 15% of their revenue on advertising. See 20-A M.R.S.A. § 10706-A.
Page 5

rules for schools based in their states, we learned that the policy prohibiting most claims from 

being forced to arbitration has not been clearly communicated to the SPEs and is not being

universally implemented. This may be a result of the lack of clarity in the NC-SARA Policy 

Manual, which does not explain the areas where the use of forced arbitration is prohibited. As a 

result, students are likely unaware of or unable to exercise their right to litigate consumer 

protection, fraud, and breach of contract claims in court. In addition, many states are unaware 

that they should be enforcing the policy in this manner. NC-SARA should immediately inform 

the SPEs of the current interpretation of the policy, clarify the language in the Policy Manual, 

and provide examples of the types of claims that are not subject to mandatory arbitration clauses. 

The Policy Manual should also require schools that use forced arbitration clauses for its students 

who are not enrolled in a program whose state authorization is derived from the NC-SARA 

compact to disclose that NC-SARA policy prohibits the enforcement of such clauses for the

types of claims listed in the policy.

POLICY MANUAL CHANGE: In section 4.4(g), include a non-exhaustive list of 

examples of the types of student claims that are related to NC-SARA policy for which 

forced arbitration clauses may not be enforced and require schools that utilize forced 

arbitration of issues unrelated to NC-SARA policy to include, immediately after the 

forced arbitration clause, the full language of section 4.4(g) with a clear disclosure of the 

types of claims that may not be forced to arbitration.

2. NC-SARA Should Improve Protections for Students Attending Institutions with Issues 

Related to Program Quality, Financial Stability, and Consumer Protection.

a) NC-SARA should require participating schools to self-report investigations by 

government agencies to their NC-SARA home state.

Investigations by our offices or other government agencies are, in general, not publicly 

announced until they settle or result in litigation. If schools are not required to self-report 

government investigations, states will be unable to determine if they need to place conditions on 

the school’s continued participation in NC-SARA to protect students. Furthermore, institutions 

that have engaged in misconduct sometimes abruptly close before a government investigation 

concludes and is made public. Prompt self-reporting to the SPE of an investigation is needed to 

allow states to protect students before it is too late.

POLICY MANUAL CHANGE: Delete the term “publicly announced” in section 3.2(a)(4) 

and require the institution to immediately self-report to its home state any investigation 

by a government agency related to the institution’s academic quality, financial stability, 

or student consumer protection.

b) NC-SARA should give SPEs authority to consider government action taken against a 

school’s online program manager, corporate parent, or corporate affiliate.

Schools offering distance education courses often utilize an online program manager 

(“OPM”) to perform a wide range of services, including marketing, admissions, and financial 

aid. Furthermore, institutions sometimes use complex corporate structures even when its schools 
Page 6

or branch campuses are run by the same parent company. NC-SARA’s rules and student 

protections should be applied equally to all participating institutions, regardless of their corporate 

structure or whether they have a third-party that provides enrollment, financial aid, or other 

services to students. At present, NC-SARA’s policies do not clearly specify that conduct by a 

school’s corporate parent, affiliate, and student-serving service provider should be considered by 

the home state to ensure NC-SARA compliance. If an OPM, corporate parent, or corporate 

affiliate of an NC-SARA participating school has any issue related to program quality, financial 

stability, or consumer protection (e.g., it is being investigated, has been sued, has had a judgment 

entered against it, or has settled any consumer protection claims by a government agency), the 

school’s home state should treat that issue in the same manner as if it arose though the conduct of

the NC-SARA participating school.10 For instance, the judgment entered against StevensHenager College’s corporate parent and corporate affiliates related to the Colorado Attorney 

General’s Office’s consumer protection claims should have provided a basis for the school’s 

home state to take action to protect the thousands of students at that school and its branch 

campus of Independence University.

POLICY MANUAL CHANGE: The term “institution” should include the school’s 

corporate parent(s), corporate affiliate(s), and third-parties providing services to 

students, such as online program managers.

c) NC-SARA should give SPEs clear authority to place schools into provisional status after 

the resolution or settlement of government investigations or lawsuits.

Our offices frequently resolve investigations or litigation through settlements.11 In that 

process, we often detail the conduct that gave rise to the action. The settlements often result in 

substantial monetary payments or debt cancellation, as well as requirements that schools reform

their conduct. During our meetings, NC-SARA leadership indicated that SPEs may consider such 

settlements as a basis for placing an institution’s participation with NC-SARA in provisional 

status. However, in separate conversations with SPEs, we learned that this policy interpretation 

has not been consistently communicated to them. Some SPEs believe that they lack the authority 

to utilize provisional status to protect students after an investigation has concluded. This is a 

result of the Policy Manual’s narrow language regarding the instances when provisional status is 

permitted. NC-SARA should amend the Policy Manual to make it clear that SPEs may place 

schools on provisional status after a government agency’s investigation has resolved with a 

settlement.

POLICY MANUAL CHANGE: In the last sentence of section 3.2(a)(6) add the term “or 

settlements, stipulated judgment, or other similar resolution” after the term “Lawsuits 

by” to make clear that a settlement with a government agency is also considered to have 

resulted from an investigation and can be a basis for provisional status.

10 Of particular concern are OPMs, such as Zovio, Inc., that are being investigated, sued, had judgments entered 

against them, or have settled consumer protection claims (e.g., admissions and financial aid misrepresentations) 

related to conduct that occurred when the company owned or operated an institution, and the OPM is now providing

admissions and financial aid services to students at other institutions.

11 Our settlements are often styled as Assurances of Voluntary Compliance, Assurances of Discontinuance, or 

Consent Judgments.
Page 7

d) The conclusion of a government agency’s investigation or litigation should not prohibit 

SPEs from protecting students using provisional status.

NC-SARA leadership told us that if the circumstances listed in section 3.2(a) concerning 

provisional status are no longer present, section 3.2(f) requires the school to be removed from 

provisional status, but a state could invoke section 3.2(g) to protect students even if a school is 

not on provisional status. Our conversations with SPEs indicate that this is another area where 

there is not a consistent understanding that the Policy Manual provides them with this authority. 

Instead, it appears that section 3.2(f) and (g) provide no discretion to take action to protect 

students unless the circumstances giving rise to provisional status are still occurring. SPEs 

should have the authority to keep schools on provisional status and impose conditions on 

continued participation to protect students after, for instance, a government investigation or 

litigation has concluded. NC-SARA should revise the Policy Manual to clearly provide this 

authority. 

POLICY MANUAL CHANGE: Change the requirement in section 3.2(f) that the home 

state “shall” remove the Institution’s designation to “may” and clearly state that the 

home state may continue to utilize provisional status to place conditions on continued 

NC-SARA participation even after the school is no longer subject to the circumstances set 

forth in section 3.2(a). Also, in section 3.2(a)(5) delete the word “current.” Finally, in 

section 3.2(a)(4) and 3.2(a)(5), add the phrase “or was” after each occurrence of the 

word “is.”

e) Loss of federal recognition by a school’s sole accreditor should trigger immediate 

protections for students, including provisional status.

NC-SARA policy does not require or even seem to allow states to immediately impose 

provisional status on a participating school when its accreditor loses federal recognition. This 

limits states’ ability to protect current and prospective students at such a school by imposing 

conditions on the continued participation in NC-SARA while it has leverage to do so. If the 

school is unable to obtain accreditation from a federally recognized accrediting agency after 18 

months, its students will no longer be eligible for federal grants and loans and will likely close. 

NC-SARA should require any school to be put on provisional status with NC-SARA if its 

accreditor loses federal recognition. The case of ACICS brings this issue into focus for hundreds 

of current students. Approximately ten NC-SARA participating schools are accredited by 

ACICS, and the students at those schools deserve transparent, rapid, and effective action by their 

schools’ SPEs to ensure that they are protected if their schools are unable to find a new 

recognized accreditor within the time allotted by the Department of Education.

POLICY MANUAL CHANGE: Add language in section 3.2 requiring that the home state 

place a school on provisional status if its sole accreditor for any program loses federal 

recognition or if the school is otherwise placed on a Provisional Program Participating 

Agreement with the Department of Education. Also, the Policy Manual should list the 

conditions for continued participation in NC-SARA related to obtaining new 

accreditation that you expect SPEs to utilize.
Page 8

f) More specific guidance should be given to SPEs related to the conditions for continued 

NC-SARA participation that can or must be placed on schools that are on provisional 

status.

NC-SARA should set clear standards for the conditions that must be imposed on schools 

to continue to participate in NC-SARA while on provisional status to ensure that students are 

adequately protected, especially if a school is in any danger of closing. However, NC-SARA’s 

Policy Manual provides few specifics on what conditions can and must be imposed for schools 

on provisional status, except for the option to limit a school’s distance learning enrollments.

12

We are concerned that the lack of specificity in the Policy Manual leaves students without 

necessary protections and places SPEs in a difficult position. The Policy Manual should provide 

specific guidance to SPEs related to the conditions for continued NC-SARA participation that 

must be applied to schools on provisional status for issues of program quality, consumer 

protection, and particularly financial stability that might lead to an abrupt closure.

13 We would be 

happy to work with you to create this list, but it should include, at a minimum, financial 

protections and fulsome disclosures for all current students, teach-out agreements with multiple 

quality institutions, and a metric for how to apply a range of limitation on new enrollments.

Stevens-Henager College provides a stark example of how NC-SARA’s failure to set 

minimum standards for schools on provisional status results in students being left vulnerable to 

financial harm and exploitation during an abrupt closure. NC-SARA was aware that StevensHenager College lost its accreditation, suffered from financial instability, and notified employees 

about a mass layoff, all of which are the signs for a impending abrupt closure, which happened 

on August 1, 2021. However, no action was taken prior to the closure to require the school to 

obtain a bond or letter of credit to ensure full financial protection for students affected by the 

closure. No action was taken to require disclosure to students of all of their options, including a 

closed school discharge of federal loans, if a closure occurred. And no action was taken to ensure 

that students would not be subject to teach-out arrangements that, as the Department of 

Education has found, “make it appear that the students will only have the choice of transferring 

to [two] institutions in order to continue their education” and “which could position [the school]

12 During our calls with NC-SARA leadership, SPEs told us that limitations on enrollment are disfavored because of 

the detrimental effects they could have on an institution’s continued ability to operate, which could jeopardize the 

ability of currently enrolled students to complete their education. This approach appears to sacrifice the interests of

prospective students who may unknowingly be enrolling at an institution that a state knows is problematic. NCSARA should place a top priority on what steps are necessary to protect both current students (by demanding 

financial security such as a surety bond or letter of credit and by requiring teach-out agreements with quality 

institutions) and prospective students (by using some form of limitations on explosive growth) when an institution is 

on provisional status.

13 The Policy Manual requires schools to agree that, if the school closes, they will “provide a reasonable alternative 

for delivering instruction or reasonable financial compensation for the education the student did not receive.” See 

section 3.1(b)(6). However, NC-SARA does not require a school to obtain a surety bond, letter of credit, or other 

financial protection or immediately set up teach-out agreements with quality institutions when it is clearly 

financially unstable or loses its accreditation. The result of this loophole is that Stevens-Henager College is unlikely 

to provide financial compensation to any students and, based on the Department of Education’s July 29, 2021 letter 

referenced below, it does not appear willing to provide reasonable alternatives to its students that are communicated 

in an accurate and fair manner. 
Page 9

to profit from student transfers.”14 NC-SARA has the authority and the ability to require schools 

on provisional status to take immediate action to protect students. It is critical that such steps be 

taken to ensure that more students do not suffer the same fate as the thousands of students at 

Stevens-Henager College and its branch campus of Independence University.

POLICY MANUAL CHANGE: Add language to section 3.2(c) to list examples of 

additional oversight measures that may be used for a school on provisional status, 

including a requirement that the school provide the SPE with a bond, letter of credit, or 

other financial guarantee to protect all current students, disclosures to current and 

prospective students, and a range of limitations on new online student enrollments.

g) NC-SARA’s website should disclose the reasons a school is on provisional status and the 

conditions placed upon the school.

NC-SARA posts on its website whether an institution is on provisional status, but it does 

not provide why the institution is on provisional status or what conditions are placed on the 

school’s continued participation in NC-SARA. Students, student advocates, and our offices 

would benefit from knowing the reason for the school being placed on provisional status, 

particularly knowing whether the institution is facing an investigation, prosecution, or federal 

administrative review related to its program quality, financial stability, or consumer protection 

status. To help protect consumers, NC-SARA should post detailed information on its website 

about the reason a school is on provisional status and any conditions related to that status.

POLICY MANUAL CHANGE: Alter section 3.2(b), to read, in full: “NC-SARA will 

provide indication of the institution’s provisional status on the NC-SARA website, 

including the applicable reason for which the school has been placed on provisional 

status.”

h) NC-SARA should not arbitrarily limit the duration of provisional status.

It may be appropriate for an institution to remain in provisional status for more than one 

year or even for more than two years. However, NC-SARA policy limits provisional status to 

one year, with the possibility of a one-year extension with approval from the regional compact 

and from the NC-SARA president. Eliminating arbitrary limits on provisional status would 

ensure that student protections imposed in conjunction with provisional status remain in place as 

long as they are needed. For instance, Stevens-Henager College recently spent one year on 

provisional status but was removed from that status after the expiration of that year, despite the 

fact that the school had not resolved the accreditation issues that caused it to be placed on 

provisional status. A few months after Stevens-Henegar College was taken off provisional status, 

its accreditor revoked the school’s accreditation. NC-SARA’s one year limitation on provisional 

status may have prevented the school’s home state from keeping necessary student protections in 

place. Ongoing government investigations, serious issues identified by a lawsuit or settlement 

14 Michael Frola, Division Director, Department of Education, July 29, 2021 letter to Paul R. Gardner, Chief 

Executive Officer, Center for Excellence in Higher Education (CEHE), available at

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21030733/cehe-gardner-letter-7292021_redacted.pdf
Page 10

with a government agency, or a school’s need for additional time to find a new accreditor are all 

examples of circumstances where a limitation on provisional status may be problematic.

If NC-SARA enhances the policies related to provisional status to give clear guidance 

and set required conditions for continued participation, and makes these conditions public, then 

provisional status could provide significant protections to students. SPEs should not be 

prohibited from extending the duration of provisional status as long as they believe it is 

necessary to protect students at the school. Moreover, requiring a state to seek permission from 

NC-SARA’s leadership in order to extend provisional status involves a non-state entity in a state 

decision, undermining states’ authority to oversee the schools in their states. 

POLICY MANUAL CHANGE: Delete section 3.2(d) and (e) and replace with the 

requirement that the SPE must re-evaluate every year whether the conditions for 

provisional status are met and whether provisional status and any oversight measures 

are necessary.

i) NC-SARA should permit member states to take action to protect their residents from 

predatory institutions.

States should be permitted to protect their students from misconduct by schools operating 

in their states. When a school is on (or should be on) provisional status, then any state – not just 

the school’s home state – should be allowed to take steps to protect their residents if the school’s 

home state fails to take sufficient action. This affords states the opportunity to take additional, 

independent action should they deem a particular institution a danger to their residents, while 

also allowing for consistency by first giving the home state the chance to determine that the 

institution should be subject to certain conditions.

POLICY MANUAL CHANGE: Add a new subsection in section 3.2 that allows the SPE of 

any state to limit enrollment or place conditions on the continued enrollment of students 

from its state at a school where one of the factors for placing a school on provisional 

status has occurred.

j) NC-SARA should clarify its policies related to removing and denying schools from 

participating in NC-SARA and set clearer student-focused eligibility standards.

NC-SARA’s Policy Manual states that schools may be terminated from participation in 

NC-SARA or denied entry into NC-SARA if they fail to meet the eligibility requirements, but it 

does not clearly provide a basis for termination or denial for schools that are facing a program 

quality, financial stability, or consumer protection issue that would cause them to be placed on 

provisional status. In our meetings with NC-SARA leadership, we were told that states may deny 

a school’s participation in NC-SARA or terminate a currently participating school for issues that 

could trigger provisional status. But this is another area where the narrow language in the Policy 

Manual leads some SPEs to believe that they are not permitted to deny participation in NCSARA to any school that meets the eligibility criteria, even if, for example, it (or its online 

program manager) was currently being sued by an Attorney General’s Office for unfair and 

deceptive trade practices. The Policy Manual should make clear that states have the authority to 
Page 11

terminate a school from participating in NC-SARA or deny a school’s initial application to 

participate for any reason for which it could be placed on provisional status. Furthermore, NCSARA should include in its initial eligibility criteria a prohibition on any school that is currently 

under investigation or being sued by a government agency for a consumer protection violation.

This would protect students while that investigation or lawsuit is pending, provide greater 

consistency to SPEs, and set clear expectations for schools. Finally, the Policy Manual should 

clearly give SPEs the authority to remove a school from participating in NC-SARA either 

because it fails to comply with a condition placed on it while the school is in provisional status,

or because the home state believes that no conditions would be suitable to sufficiently protect 

students, in which case, the school may be terminated from participation in NC-SARA without 

first being placed on provisional status.

POLICY MANUAL CHANGES: Add language in sections 3.2(g) and 3.1(b) that allows a 

home state to remove a school from NC-SARA or deny participation in NC-SARA for any 

of the bases for provisional status set forth in section 3.2(a). 

Also, add as a criterion of initial eligibility in section 3.1(b) that a school may not be 

currently under investigation or the subject of litigation by a government agency related 

to program quality, financial stability, or consumer protection.

Also, add language in 3.2(g) to make clear that a state may remove the institution from 

NC-SARA participation for its failure to comply with the terms of provisional status or 

without placing the school on provisional status if the Home State believes that the 

school’s conduct that could have triggered provisional status is of such an egregious 

nature that no conditions would be suitable to sufficiently protect students.

3. NC-SARA’s Board Should Rectify its Lack of State Control, Dearth of Consumer 

Protection Members, and Failure to Transparently Lobby for Federal and State Policy.

a) Member States should control the NC-SARA Board.

NC-SARA’s Board develops all of NC-SARA’s policies, including setting basic 

consumer protection standards for NC-SARA schools. However, member states do not hold the 

majority of positions on the Board, and therefore lack control over the development of NCSARA’s policy. This likely contributes to NC-SARA’s consumer protection shortcomings and 

creates a risk that member states’ authority to police predatory schools could be further 

undermined by NC-SARA policy changes. To prevent this, NC-SARA should reserve the 

majority of the seats on its Board for member states so that NC-SARA’s members, not regulated 

entities or other third-parties, set NC-SARA’s policies.

POLICY MANUAL CHANGE: A majority of board member seats should be reserved for 

representatives of States. 
Page 12

b) State consumer protection agencies should have a reserved seat on the NC-SARA Board.

The NC-SARA Board should include at least one representative from a state consumer 

protection agency, such as state Attorney General offices. In 2020, a group of state Attorneys 

General nominated a representative to the NC-SARA Board, but NC-SARA rejected the 

nomination. State Attorneys General offices would bring extensive expertise to assist NC-SARA

in amplifying and supporting essential consumer protections for students, a goal which was 

stated in your recent annual report. Representation on the NC-SARA Board from our offices, as 

well as other consumer protection advocacy organizations, would help NC-SARA fulfill its 

consumer protection mission.

POLICY MANUAL CHANGE: At least one board seat should be reserved for a consumer 

protection attorney from an Attorney General’s Office. 

c) NC-SARA should be transparent and permit stakeholder feedback when advocating or 

commenting about federal or state policy.

In 2019, Marshall Hill filed comments with the Department of Education on behalf of 

NC-SARA asking the Department to alter a proposed rule15 related to distance education and to 

allow NC-SARA to prohibit states from enforcing non-general purpose consumer protection 

laws. Although, for the reasons discussed above, we disagree with the substance of Mr. Hill’s 

comments, we are also concerned about the process that NC-SARA used to determine whether 

and how to make this proposed policy change. To our knowledge, Mr. Hill did not send his letter

to NC-SARA’s state members or post the comment online with adequate time to permit feedback 

from member states and other stakeholders, nor did he present the comment and his rationale at 

an NC-SARA Board meeting, and a vote was not taken by NC-SARA’s board members to 

approve the testimony before submission. We believe that NC-SARA should create a policy 

defining the process for approval of advocacy, testimony, or comments on federal and state 

regulations and legislation to ensure that member states and other stakeholders are able to give 

feedback or object.

POLICY MANUAL CHANGE: Before NC-SARA takes a position on any federal or state 

regulation or statute, it should create a process by which it distributes a draft to the NCSARA Board and all state members and posts the draft on its website, invites comment 

from the Board, the states, and the public, and has a vote by its Board after the comments 

have been considered.

Thank you for your attention and your willingness to engage in a dialogue. We would 

welcome the opportunity to continue our conversation by further explaining the need for these 

policy changes and providing additional input on how they could be drafted, implemented, and 

enforced.

15 The proposed rule, which had been unanimously approved by a wide range of stakeholders, required NC-SARA to 

allow states to enforce all consumer protection laws.
Page 13

Sincerely,

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brian E. Frosh

Maryland Attorney General

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

William Tong

Connecticut Attorney General

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Karl A. Racine

District of Columbia Attorney General

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kwame Raoul

Illinois Attorney General

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Aaron M. Frey

Maine Attorney General

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dana Nessel

Michigan Attorney General

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Philip J. Weiser

Colorado Attorney General

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kathleen Jennings

Delaware Attorney General

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Clare Connors 

Hawai‘i Attorney General

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Tom Miller

Iowa Attorney General

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Maura Healey

Massachusetts Attorney General

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Keith Ellison

Minnesota Attorney General
Page 14

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Douglas J. Peterson

Nebraska Attorney General

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hector Balderas

New Mexico Attorney General

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Joshua H. Stein

North Carolina Attorney General

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Shapiro

Pennsylvania Attorney General

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Herbert H. Slatery III

Tennessee Attorney General

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mark R. Herring

Virginia Attorney General

_

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bob Ferguson

Washington State Attorney General

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Aaron D. Ford

Nevada Attorney General

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Letitia James

New York Attorney General

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ellen F. Rosenblum

Oregon Attorney General

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Peter Neronha

Rhode Island Attorney General

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thomas J. Donovan, Jr.

Vermont Attorney General

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Joshua L. Kaul

Wisconsin Attorney General
Page 15

cc: Clare McCann, Office of the Undersecretary, United States Department of Education 

Cynthia Jackson-Hammond, President, Council for Higher Education Accreditation 

Robert E. Anderson, President, State Higher Education Executive Officers Association
March 15, 2022 

Sent via E-mail 

National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements 

Board of Directors 

c/o Dr. Lori Williams 

3005 Center Green Drive; Suite 130 

Boulder, Colorado 80301 

Re: State Attorney General Recommendations Regarding NC-SARA Policy Modification 

Process 

 

Dear Dr. Williams and Members of the NC-SARA Board of Directors: 

We, the Attorneys General of Illinois, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, 

Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, 

New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, 

Vermont, and Washington, as well as the Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection, write to submit 

recommendations and insight regarding NC-SARA’s recent, proposed Policy Modification 

Process (the “Modification Process”).1

 We appreciate NC-SARA’s recognition of the importance 

of transparency and “collaborating with the full spectrum of stakeholders in the higher education 

community.”2 We strongly encourage NC-SARA to make the Modification Process as fair and 

transparent as possible and, therefore, write with some additional measures for your consideration. 

As you know, on August 2, 2021, twenty-five attorney general offices submitted policy 

recommendations directly to NC-SARA after three meetings between NC-SARA staff and 

consumer protection attorneys from state attorneys general offices. See Exhibit A. These were 

significant policy modifications meant to better protect students and serve the interests of member 

states. Attorneys General are not alone in raising such consumer protection concerns: as The 

Institute for College Access & Success has noted, “NC-SARA has few substantive or proactive 

consumer protection requirements beyond those already required by federal regulations, and none 

of the requirements found in many state consumer protection laws.”3

 Our suggestions were 

                                                            

1 Draft Policy Modification Process, NC-SARA, available at https://nc-sara.org/sites/default/files/files/2022-

02/Draft_PolicyModificationProcess_Public%20Comment.pdf. 

2 Mission and History, NC-SARA, available at https://nc-sara.org/mission-history. 3 Know the Facts: The Inaccuracies Surrounding NC-SARA, The Institute for College Access & Success, Nov. 10 

2021, available at: https://ticas.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Know-the-Facts.pdf. 
2 

informed by years of investigation and enforcement actions against schools engaged in deceptive 

or unlawful practices, including schools participating in NC-SARA like Career Education 

Corporation (now called Perdoceo Education Corporation). We hope that NC-SARA has seriously 

considered these important changes that we believe help align its practices with its stated mission.4

However, to date, we have not received a formal response from NC-SARA to those suggestions. 

In the Meeting Summary of the Fall 2021 Board Meeting, NC-SARA indicates that the states’ 

proposal was “tabled” and would be revisited after its policy modification proposal was planned 

and deliberated.5 

As public agencies, we know well the importance of transparency. It is a fundamental principal of 

government that citizens have a right to be informed of public business. Many of our states require 

meetings of state agencies to be open and transparent.6 In Illinois, for instance, the Open Meetings 

Act declares “[i]t is the public policy of this State that public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of 

the people’s business and that the people have a right to be informed as to the conduct of their 

business.”7

 At the federal level, under the Administrative Procedures Act, the Department of 

Education similarly undergoes a public-facing notice and comment period when making education 

policy changes.8 NC-SARA, while a private, nonprofit organization,9 nevertheless makes policies 

that have a profound impact on the higher education field in each of our respective states and that 

impact the states’ enforcement of their own laws. This outsized impact has only increased in recent 

years – the number of students nationwide enrolled exclusively in distance education nearly 

doubled from the fall of 2019 to the fall of 2020.10 In order to allow NC-SARA to better serve and 

inform the citizens of our states, we recommend NC-SARA take several steps to ensure fairness 

and transparency in its policy modification process. 

I. NC-SARA Should Publish All Policy Proposals and Receive Public Comment 

Regarding Such Proposals 

The Modification Process states that its guiding principles are “transparency; collaboration; 

consistency; and clear and open communication among regional compacts, states, institutions, NCSARA, and other stakeholders.” Modification Process, section b. The Modification Process also 

states that NC-SARA shall “maintain clarity and transparency regarding the status of such 

proposals throughout the entirety of the policy review cycle.” Id. at section f(1)(ii). Under the 

proposed Modification Process, however, NC-SARA staff maintain an effective veto power over 

all proposals and the inherent ability to conceal any proposals not recommended for approval. 

                                                            

4 See Mission and History, supra note 2. 5 Fall 2021 Board Meeting, Summary of Major Actions and Discussion, NC-SARA, Oct. 29, 2021, available at 

https://nc-sara.org/sites/default/files/files/2021-11/Fall_2021_NCSARA_Board_Meeting_Summary_Public%20Summary.11.30.21.FINAL_.pdf. 

6 See, for example: Section 1-225, Conn. Gen. Stat.; District of Columbia Open Meetings Act, DC Code §§ 2-571, et 

seq.; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1407 et seq.; N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:4-6 to -21; Illinois Open Meetings Act, 5 ILCS 120/1; 

Maryland Open Meetings Act, Md. Code Ann., Gen’l Prov. §§ 3-101 to 3-501. 

7

 Illinois Open Meetings Act, 5 ILCS 120/1. 

8

 The APA requires agencies to provide “interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through 

submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation.” 5 U.S.C. § 553(c). 9 About NC-SARA, NC-SARA, available at https://nc-sara.org/about-nc-sara. 10 Data Report Executive Summary, NC-SARA, available at https://nc-sara.org/2021-data-report-executive-summary. 
3 

Upon receiving a proposed policy modification, NC-SARA, or the applicable regional compact, 

will review the proposal and either recommend it for approval or not recommend it for approval.11

NC-SARA reviews the proposals on an inherently vague basis: “based on whether they are 

consistent with the purposes and governing principles of SARA.” Modification Process, section 

f(2)(iv). Only those proposals that NC-SARA staff approve will make their way to the NC-SARA 

Board for consideration. Further, only those proposals recommended for approval appear to be 

subject to the public comment period set forth in Section f(3)(ii) of the Modification Process. As 

such, policy proposals that NC-SARA staff do not recommend for approval appear to never again 

see the light of day – both the lack of recommendation and the reasons for that determination are 

left completely hidden. 

Given that obscurity, we strongly recommend that NC-SARA provide a method for the publication 

of all proposals it receives – both those that NC-SARA staff recommend for approval and those 

that NC-SARA staff do not recommend for approval – including not just the proposals themselves 

but also the reasons for either recommending or not recommending those proposals. Further, we 

recommend NC-SARA adopt a method for receiving public comment on all such proposals, 

whether or not they are recommended for approval. 

Such a system comports with NC-SARA’s mission and the guiding principles of the Modification 

Process. Further, this public comment system would benefit both NC-SARA and the public at 

large. First, by publishing NC-SARA’s recommendations and bases for those recommendations, 

stakeholders are better informed regarding NC-SARA’s concerns and policy objectives and, 

therefore, better able to provide better proposals to NC-SARA going forward. Further, such 

publication holds staff accountable for their recommendations and will help foster open and honest 

dialogue on all proposals. 

Second, by accepting public comment regarding all policy recommendations received, NC-SARA 

will be able to better grapple with issues it may not have otherwise identified. For instance, a policy 

may be proposed that NC-SARA would have rejected, but if it receives numerous public comments 

supporting such a proposal, NC-SARA would undoubtedly be more likely to consider the proposal 

and potentially take it to the NC-SARA Board. By receiving a broad diversity of opinions, NCSARA will be able to better adapt to the quickly-changing landscape of distance education and 

will be more accountable to the public. Stakeholders would also be able to provide additional input 

on any given proposal that could improve upon the proposed change, effectively saving NC-SARA 

staff time and effort. 

II. NC-SARA Should Clarify the Information Provided to Stakeholders Under 

Section G 

The Modification Process states that NC-SARA shall provide direct notices to those who submit 

policy proposals “that summarize any action taken in response to the proposed modification.” 

However, it is unclear what NC-SARA means by “action taken,” and whether such notices only 

are provided if a policy change is approved by the NC-SARA Board. We believe clarity on this 

point would help assure that NC-SARA provides such notices regarding a lack of action (i.e. 

proposals not approved by the Board or not recommended for approval by NC-SARA staff). 

                                                            

11 See Draft Policy Modification Process, Section f(2), supra note 1.
4 

Moreover, we believe NC-SARA should clarify what information is included in such notices, 

including whether any justification for the actions taken will be included. 

It is imperative that NC-SARA notify stakeholders regarding a lack of action. If NC-SARA adopts 

proposals, those modifications will be publicly available in the updated NC-SARA Policy Manual. 

However, if a proposal is not acted upon, stakeholders may sit in limbo as to whether their proposal 

is still under consideration or why NC-SARA took any steps that it did. NC-SARA should clarify 

what information will be provided in such notices and when, and we urge NC-SARA to provide 

detailed information regarding the bases for any action or inaction by staff and the Board. 

III. NC-SARA Should Adopt Important Changes to its Board: 

While the Modification Process does not touch specifically on the makeup or procedures of the 

NC-SARA Board, we believe important changes to the NC-SARA Board can impact the 

transparency and effectiveness of NC-SARA as well as impact the proposed Modification Process 

overall. 

a. States Should Control the NC-SARA Board 

As NC-SARA itself acknowledges, the State Authorization and Reciprocity Agreement is an 

“agreement among member states, districts and territories.”12 The policies adopted by NC-SARA 

can often have greater impact on states than many of the policies adopted by our own state 

agencies. These policies can replace state laws, including those instituted to protect consumers. 

The NC-SARA Board, however, holds the ultimate power to adopt policies setting such basic 

consumer protection standards for NC-SARA schools. As the sole members of SARA, states are 

woefully underrepresented on NC-SARA’s Board. 

We therefore resubmit the recommendation of our August 2, 2021 letter: member states should 

control NC-SARA’s Board. States have the clearest view of the consumer protection implications 

of NC-SARA policies and, therefore, are in the best position to control the impacts of those policies 

on important state laws. States’ enduring commitments to openness and transparency will also help 

address further policy concerns regarding NC-SARA proceedings and set a high standard for NCSARA to conduct itself by. 

b. NC-SARA Board Meetings Should Be Truly Public 

Finally, we encourage NC-SARA to ensure its board meetings are completely public in practice 

instead of just in name only. In the higher education field, open meetings are the norm, and many 

states have open meeting requirements. Illinois law, for example, provides that “the actions of 

public bodies be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.”13 The Department 

of Education’s negotiated rulemakings are likewise open to the public.14 NC-SARA touts that its 

                                                            

12 NC-SARA Homepage, NC-SARA, available at https://nc-sara.org/. 

13 5 ILCS 120/1. 

14 See The Negotiated Rulemaking Process for Title IV Regulations – Frequently Asked Questions, Department of 

Education, available at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/hea08/neg-reg-faq.html (“Members 

of the public may observe meetings of the negotiating committee”).
5 

meetings are public.15 However, despite this assertion, in reality these meetings are only partially 

in the public eye. As noted in the agenda to the Oct. 29, 2021 NC-SARA Board meeting, the Board 

meeting lasted 6 hours but only a single, 15-minute session was set aside as the “Public Portion of 

the Meeting.”16 Such deliberations are far from transparent. 

We believe that NC-SARA should conduct its own deliberations under the same principles of 

transparency as the Department of Education and our respective states, given the outsized impact 

its policies have on each of our states. Allowing full public view of such deliberations will allow 

stakeholders to better understand the actions taken – or not taken – by the NC-SARA Board and 

provide meaningful accountability for the Board members and NC-SARA staff. 

**** 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on NC-SARA’s policies and continue this important 

dialogue. We truly appreciate NC-SARA’s effort to provide additional transparency in its 

processes. We hope you will strongly consider the proposals contained here and raised in the states’ 

August 2, 2021 letter, and we look forward to hearing from you in detail regarding both. 

Sincerely, 

 

Kwame Raoul 

Illinois Attorney General 

 

 

Philip J. Weiser 

Colorado Attorney General 

 

William Tong 

Connecticut Attorney General 

 

Kathleen Jennings 

Delaware Attorney General 

 

Karl A. Racine 

District of Columbia Attorney General 

 

Stephen H. Levins 

Executive Director, Hawaii Office of 

Consumer Protection 

                                                            

15 See Meetings, NC-SARA, available at https://www.nc-sara.org/news-events/meetings (providing “upcoming and 

past public meeting notices.”).

16 National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements Board Meeting: Fall 2021 Agenda, NC-SARA, 

Oct. 29, 2021, available at https://nc-sara.org/sites/default/files/files/2021-10/NCSARA_Board_Meeting_Agenda_Fall_2021_Public_9.28.21.pdf. 
6 

 

Tom Miller 

Iowa Attorney General 

 

Aaron M. Frey 

Maine Attorney General 

 

Brian E. Frosh 

Maryland Attorney General 

 

Maura Healey 

Massachusetts Attorney General 

   

   

 

Dana Nessel 

Michigan Attorney General

 

Keith Ellison 

Minnesota Attorney General 

 

Douglas J. Peterson 

Nebraska Attorney General

 

Aaron D. Ford 

Nevada Attorney General 

 

Matthew J. Platkin 

Acting Attorney General of New Jersey 

 

Hector Balderas 

New Mexico Attorney General 

 

Letitia James 

New York Attorney General 

 

Josh Stein 

North Carolina Attorney General 

 

Ellen F. Rosenblum 

Oregon Attorney General 

 

Josh Shapiro 

Pennsylvania Attorney General 
7 

 

Peter F. Neronha 

Rhode Island Attorney General 

 

Herbert H. Slatery III 

Tennessee Attorney General 

 

Thomas J. Donovan, Jr.  

Vermont State Attorney General 

 

Bob Ferguson 

Washington State Attorney General