Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

1 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING

STUDENT DEBT RELIEF COMMITTEE

SESSION 1, DAY 1, MORNING

OCTOBER 10, 2023

On the 10th day of October, 2023, the following 

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

12:00 p.m. 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

2 

P R O C E E D I N G S

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Good morning and welcome, everyone. My name is Cindy, 

Commissioner Cindy Jeffries, and I'm the Federal 

mediator facilitator with Federal Mediation and 

Conciliation Service. It's my distinct pleasure to 

welcome you all to the United States Department of 

Education's negotiated rulemaking, through which the 

Student Loan Debt Relief Committee will prepare proposed 

regulations authorized under Title IV of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended. At this time, I would 

like to turn it over to Tamy Abernathy for some 

introductions and some opening comments. Tamy. Tamy, 

you're muted. 

MS. ABERNATHY: 

That is certainly not a good way to start, is it? Let's 

do that again. Good morning, negotiators, and thank you, 

Cindy. On behalf of the Department, I welcome you to the 

Student Debt Relief Negotiated Rulemaking of 2023. We'll 

have an opportunity later for more formal introductions. 

What a privilege it is to be spending the next two days 

with you doing the important work for our student loan 

borrowers. We have a good deal of logistics to cover 

this morning, so I will not delay further. I have the 

honor of introducing Undersecretary James Kvaal for his 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

3 

opening remarks. Undersecretary James Kvaal was 

confirmed by the US Senate as the Undersecretary of 

Education on September 14th, 2021. He leads the 

Department's work on higher education, student financial 

aid, and career and adult education. He works to build 

an inclusive higher education system that helps all 

students graduate and go on to better lives. His work 

has led to millions of borrowers receiving student loan 

forgiveness, more affordable repayment plans for future 

students, and stronger safeguards against future 

unaffordable loans. He has also led efforts to hold 

career college programs accountable for excessive debts 

and make community colleges tuition free. Please join me 

in welcoming the Undersecretary.

MR. KVAAL: 

Thank you, Tamy, and thanks so much for everything that 

you're doing to make this rulemaking a success. And to 

the negotiators here and the members of the general 

public, I want to say on behalf of the Biden-Harris 

Administration, Secretary Cardona and the entire 

Department welcome to the first day of negotiated 

rulemaking on student debt relief. Postsecondary 

education remains one of our country's most important 

pathways to a better life. Graduates of colleges, 

universities and trade schools generally enjoy higher 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

4 

earnings, lower rates of unemployment and poverty, and 

even other benefits like improved health and wellness. 

It's important to remember that affordable access to 

higher education benefits all Americans in the form of a 

stronger, more productive economy. However, student debt 

in this country has grown so large that it siphons off 

the benefits of college for many students. Some loans 

made to young adults stretch into retirement with no 

hope of being repaid. Debt burdens are shared by 

families and communities and discouraged careers in 

public service, entrepreneurship, they delay home 

ownership, cut into retirement savings, and make it 

harder for borrowers to save for their own children's 

college education. Some borrowers are left worse off

than if they had never attended college at all. 1 in 3 

borrowers never graduate and are left with debt, but no 

degree. And we know the burden of student debt is 

particularly acute for low-income borrowers and 

borrowers of color. These are the students we need to 

succeed in college and beyond if we want to grow the 

middle class and build broad-based prosperity. From its 

very first day in office, the Biden-Harris 

Administration has worked relentlessly to fix the broken 

student loan system. Through regulations and executive 

actions. We have reformed broken debt relief programs 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

5 

like public service loan forgiveness. To ensure 

borrowers get the relief they have earned. We've 

remedied past administrative failures that locked 

eligible borrowers out of relief and leveled the playing 

field for students who've been defrauded or taken 

advantage of. Combined, these efforts have led to a 

historic $127 billion in relief for nearly 3.6 million 

borrowers. And we're going to keep at it. We've also 

created the SAVE Plan. Saving on A Valuable Education, 

which is the most affordable, Income Driven Repayment 

Plan in history. It creates the first real student loan 

safety net by eliminating low-income borrowers’ monthly 

payments. Because student debt shouldn't come before the 

necessities. The SAVE Plan also protects borrowers from 

runaway student loan interest. That leaves people owing 

more than they borrowed in the first place. We're 

thrilled that in only a few weeks, more than 4 million 

borrowers enrolled. The Biden-Harris Administration is 

also working to prevent students from winding up with 

unaffordable debt in the first place. We've made the 

largest increase in the Pell Grant in decades, secured 

new investments in college completion, and championed 

free community college programs, an idea that is moving 

forward from Massachusetts to New Mexico. We've 

announced the most effective gainful employment rule in 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

6 

history, which will protect students from career and 

for-profit programs that leave graduates with low 

earnings, huge debts, and poor career prospects. And 

we're creating new transparency across higher education 

so that students know which programs pay off and which 

ones lead only to unaffordable debts. Earlier this 

summer, the Supreme Court struck down the Biden-Harris 

plan to provide up to $20,000 in student debt relief to 

borrowers recovering from the pandemic. We disagree with 

that decision, but we're moving forward. We immediately 

began this new regulatory process to bring student loan 

relief to as many borrowers as possible, as quickly as 

possible. Already, we've considered more than 26,000 

public comments and now with your help, our efforts to 

fix the broken student loan system will take another 

step forward. We're here today to discuss regulatory 

solutions that can help deliver additional relief to 

borrowers under the terms of the Higher Education Act or 

HEA. The HEA gives the Secretary of Education the 

authority to enforce pay, compromise, waive or release, 

any right, title, claim, lien or demand, including 

Federal Student Loans. Our current regulations lack 

specificity on how that authority is applied. We are 

particularly focused on the waiver authority. Creating 

clearer regulations will ensure the authority to waive 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

7 

student debt is used in a fair and lawful manner. We 

believe that doing so will strengthen the entire student 

loan system, help us tackle pervasive problems in the 

system and help ensure that postsecondary education is a 

path to opportunity for more students. I'm talking about 

the fact that borrowers experience hardships in the 

current loan system. And I'm talking about the fact that 

even prior to the pandemic era payment pause, the system 

saw more than a million borrowers defaulting each year, 

generating higher costs and triggering enforced 

collections. That's unacceptable. We also have borrowers 

who have made payments for years, but still owe far more 

than they initially borrowed. We have loans that follow 

young borrowers into middle age or even retirement. We 

still have borrowers unable to access the relief they're 

entitled to because of challenges with application 

requirements. And we're interested in identifying other 

borrowers experiencing forms of hardship that are not 

addressed by existing repayment or forgiveness options. 

The discussion starting today, give us a chance to 

explore these issues and debate potential solutions in 

greater detail. They will help us craft strong 

regulations that deliver critical relief to student loan 

borrowers. For those of you who aren't familiar with 

this particular Federal administrative procedure, the 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

8 

negotiated rulemaking process helps the Department get 

early feedback on our regulatory ideas. Before we draft 

regulations, we convene representatives of affected 

constituencies to discuss and debate ideas in a public 

forum. Our regulations are better when we're able to 

hear from a diverse range of viewpoints, engage in 

dialog, and consider different ideas. The negotiated 

rulemaking process will include the negotiators and also 

an opportunity for other members of the public to come. 

In fact, while we've stated that we will reserve 30 

minutes for public comment each day, we want to suggest 

for the committee's consideration that we expand that 

time to an hour to accommodate the tremendous public 

interest. In our first session today, Cindy will go over 

the protocols for conducting these conversations, and 

then we'll have a short presentation from Department 

staff about how we're thinking about student debt 

relief, which should help inform the discussion. We'll 

then move into the discussion questions posed in the 

issue paper. Our hope with this session is to share our 

ideas and receive feedback and new ideas from members of 

the negotiating committee. One more thing to keep in 

mind. These are complex issues, and when questions like 

operational feasibility or legal authority will arise, 

we may not always be able to answer them in real time, 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

9 

but we will do our best to carefully consider all of the 

ideas we hear, to do our best to respond in a timely 

manner, and to negotiate in good faith. Before I go, I 

want to say a heartfelt thank you. Our nonfederal 

negotiators volunteer their time. Federal rulemaking is 

not for the faint of heart, and your participation is 

critical every step of the way. Likewise, I want to 

thank the members of the public who will be 

participating and all the Department employees who have 

worked very hard behind the scenes to help us write the 

best regulations we can. I'll end on a note of optimism. 

Few, if any, institutions have as much potential to meet 

our country's most pressing challenges as our colleges 

and universities do. They open doors, break cycles of 

poverty, energize local economies, solve major 

challenges, build understanding, and create equitable 

opportunity. The work we do here to alleviate the 

student debt crisis will help us keep the promise of 

higher education alive. Not just for today's borrowers, 

but for all those to come. And with that, I'll turn it 

back over to Tamy. Thanks everybody.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

I'm going to turn it over to Cindy to do a few little

housekeeping things, and then we'll continue with our 

agenda.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

10

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay. Thank you. And thank you, Undersecretary Kvaal. 

It's nice to see you again and be working with this 

group. This is my third negotiated rulemaking with the 

Department. So, what I'd like to do now is introduce you 

officially to the Federal Negotiator, Tamy Abernathy. 

And we welcome her and look forward to working with you, 

Tamy. So I'll turn it over to you, Tamy. We'll do some 

additional introductions, including a formal 

introduction of yourself. Tamy.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Thank you again, Cindy. I also look forward to working 

with you in the committee. As mentioned, my name is Tamy 

Abernathy. I am the director of the Policy Coordination 

Group in the Office of Postsecondary Education. My team 

is responsible for working on the Federal Student Loan 

programs. I have worked in the Federal Student Loan 

industry. Excuse me. I've worked in the Federal Student 

Aid industry for over 35 years. I began as a college 

work study worker in the financial aid office. And if 

those of you remember college work study, you know that 

goes way back. I was one of those students who worked 

three jobs, received Pell Grants, other need-based aid 

and Federal Stafford Loans to help pay for my education. 

Upon graduation, I was hired full-time in a financial 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

11

aid office. Over the years, I've continued working in 

this industry in various roles. Most of my career has 

focused on Federal Student Loan Programs. This month, I 

celebrate both my 10th year at the Department and my 

third in OPE. I'm honored to be part of the negotiated 

rulemaking process and to serve alongside each of you in 

this important initiative that the Department is 

undertaking. I'm also grateful to have a number of 

colleagues at the Department who will be assisting in 

this effort, both behind the scenes and in front of the 

camera. At times, I will be joined by Ben Miller, a 

Deputy Undersecretary in our Office of the 

Undersecretary, who will be listening to the discussion 

of the alternatives and approaches, providing some 

framing of the questions and the issue paper. There may 

be a few other from the Department staff who join us to 

listen in or to present information. We look forward to 

working with you to further the mission of the 

Department by establishing new rules related to student 

loan debt relief. Thank you. At this time, I'll ask Ben 

Miller to share a few words with us. Ben.

MR. MILLER: 

Thank you, Tamy, and good morning, everybody. Thank you 

for having me here today. As Tamy said, I'm largely here 

to listen and observe, but I will be sharing thoughts 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

12

occasionally, including at the beginning, to help with 

some of our framing about how the Department is thinking 

about this issue. And, you know, just appreciate you all 

and all your work here. And I'm excited to listen and to 

participate with you all. Thank you.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Cindy, I believe we turn it back to you at this time for 

you to go ahead and continue with the introductions.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay. So I would- thank you both for that for your 

opening comments and your introductions to yourself. I'd 

like to give special recognition and thank you to all of 

the people behind the scenes that, frankly, there's just 

too many to mention. I wouldn't want to miss anyone. So 

I just want you to know that it really does take a 

village to make this virtual process possible. And all 

of those behind-the-scenes people are instrumental in 

helping us ensure our sessions are as seamless as 

possible. So we thank you for your dedication and 

assistance in everything that you do with this process. 

We have several non-voting participants from the 

Department's Office of General Counsel. Mr. Brian 

Siegel, who is not able to join us today. So, you will 

see him in future sessions. But we do have present today 

Soren Lagaard. Soren, would you like to say a few words?
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

13

MR. LAGAARD: 

Yes. Thank you so much, Cindy. Good morning, members of 

the committee and members of the public joining us. My 

name is Soren Lagaard and I am acting as the 

Department's legal counsel during our sessions together. 

As Cindy indicated, I may be joined by my colleague 

Brian Siegel tomorrow and in future sessions. I have 

worked at the Department's office of the General Counsel 

for eight years, and before this I worked for a state 

Board of Education, and before that I was a middle 

school English teacher. I participated as the 

Department's legal counsel last year in our negotiated 

rulemaking for the new prison education program as part 

of the restoration of Federal Pell Grant access for 

individuals who are confined or incarcerated. As legal 

counsel for the Department, my role is to provide advice 

as to the Department's legal authority regarding the 

topics we are considering here. My experience is that 

committee members may have a lot of questions related to 

policy data and, of course, legal issues. These are 

important questions for the committee to evaluate, but 

it is generally not possible for us to respond 

effectively to those questions until we have had a 

chance to consider them thoroughly. In most cases, we 

will hear your question, but we will need additional 

time to consider it. And my previous experience, I saw 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

14

that consensus is possible, and I hope the committee 

members will keep that in mind as a goal of our time 

together. I will now turn it over to my colleague Toby 

Merrill, the Deputy General Counsel for Postsecondary 

Education. Toby.

MS. MERRILL: 

Good morning. Thank you, Soren. I am happy to be 

joining this committee. And, like, Ben will be here to 

listen and to participate where I can. And I'm looking 

forward to working together on this important issue. 

Thanks.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thanks Soren and Toby. Looking forward to working with 

all of you as well. So moving on. I'd like to now 

introduce the esteemed members of our student loan debt 

relief committee. These negotiators have been nominated 

by the public and selected by the Department to 

represent 14 respective constituencies. For each 

constituency, we will invite the primary negotiator and 

alternate negotiator to briefly introduce themselves on 

behalf of their constituency group. This will also serve 

as our official roll call for this morning. So, moving 

right into it for the constituency of civil rights 

organization as the primary negotiator, we have Wisdom

Cole. Wisdom.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

15

MR. COLE: 

Good morning everybody. My name is Wisdom Cole. Proudly 

serve as national director for the NAACP Youth and 

College Division. Excited to be here today to represent 

our, over a million members, in our association. And 

thank you all for having me.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thank you, Wisdom. And alternate for the civil rights 

organizations is India Heckstall. India?

MS. HECKSTALL: 

Hi. Good morning everyone. Also happy to serve as a 

negotiator on this committee and excited for the role 

[inaudible] with Wisdom as a civil rights organization. 

I'm India Heckstall, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center 

for Law and Social Policy, CLASP, where a lot of my 

research has centered racial equity in higher education 

and workforce development policy issues.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thank you, India. Welcome to both of you. Next 

constituency is legal assistance organizations that 

represent students and/or borrowers. The primary is Kyra 

Taylor. Kyra.

MS. TAYLOR: 

Good morning everyone. My name is Kyra Taylor. I am an 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

16

attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. As part of 

my role, I work with legal aid attorneys and private 

attorneys on student loan issues across the country. I 

also represent low-income borrowers here in the Boston 

area. I'm also a coauthor to NCLTs treatise on Student 

Loan Law, and in addition, we also do national policy 

advocacy on behalf of low-income student loan borrowers. 

I'm very excited to be here and work on this committee 

on this incredibly important issue with all of you 

today.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thank you, Kyra. I apologize for mispronouncing your 

name. That is going to happen our first go around here. 

So please correct me so that I can make notes on making 

sure I pronounce them going forward. The alternate for 

the legal assistant organizations that represent 

students and/or borrowers is Scott Waterman. Scott.

MR. WATERMAN: 

Good morning everyone. My name is Scott Waterman. I am a 

chapter 13 trustee for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania. We assist debtors in completing chapter 13 

plans. These are cure plans. Our offices throughout the 

country distribute over $1 billion a year to 

accreditors, and student lenders are a big portion of 

that. So we're very interested in this issue and in 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

17

trying to fix the problem. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES

Thank you, Scott, I appreciate it. Next, we have state 

officials, including state higher education, executive 

officers, state authorizing agencies, and state 

regulators of institutions of higher education. The 

primary for this group is Lane Thompson. Lane.

MS. THOMPSON: 

Good morning everyone. My name is Lane Thompson. I use 

she/her and they/them pronouns. I'm the student loan 

ombuds for the state of Oregon. I work in the Division 

of Financial Regulation. Really looking forward to 

serving with you all.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thank you, Lane. And the alternate is vacant at this 

point and we will be- there is an agenda item later on 

about the that vacancy. Next we move on to state 

attorneys general. Our primary is Yael Shavit. Yael.

MS. SHAVIT: 

Hi, my name is Yael Shavit. I am the chief of the 

Consumer Protection Division at the Massachusetts 

Attorney General's Office. Our offices work with 

students across the country trying to help them with 

their student loans. We initiate investigations of 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

18

educational institutions and student loan servicers. And 

we are looking forward to helping achieve good outcomes 

for borrowers through this negotiated rulemaking. Thank 

you.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thanks, Yael. The alternate is Josh Devine. Missouri 

attorney General's office. Josh. Doesn't appear as 

though Josh has.

MR. FRANCZAK:

Cindy. I believe he had a conflict this morning. He's 

going to appear in court, so he may be not present in 

this stage.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay. Thank you. We will- so for today's session, Yael. 

you're on your own. Okay. And no fears, she's seasoned 

at this. So looking forward to it. Public institutions 

of higher education, including two-year and four-year 

institutions with primary is Melissa Kunes. Melissa.

MS. KUNES: 

Good morning to everyone and thank you, Cindy for your 

introduction. My name is Melissa Kunes. I am the 

assistant vice president for enrollment management and 

executive director for financial aid at Penn State 

University. I have been in higher education almost 39 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

19

years. I am here at the recommendation of the Higher 

Education Loan Coalition. And as Cindy said, I am 

representing the voices of all our public two and fouryear institutions and very much looking forward to this 

process. And thank you again for having me.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thank you, Melissa. The alternate is J.D. LaRock. J.D.?

MR. LAROCK: 

Good morning, everybody. It's a pleasure to be with you 

all. My name is J.D. LaRock. I chair the board of 

trustees at North Shore Community College in 

Massachusetts. We're a mid-sized community college about 

30 miles north of Boston. Pleasure to be with you. Look 

forward to working with you.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thank you. Okay, so next up are nonprofit institutions 

of higher education. And the primary is Angelika 

Williams.

MS. WILLIAMS: 

Good morning everyone. I'm Angelika Williams. I am the 

assistant vice provost for student financial services 

here at the University of San Francisco. I have been a 

practicing financial aid administrator for over 17 years 

and have the pleasure of working at different types of 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

20

institutions such as Hispanic Serving Institutions, 

HBCUs, and currently a Jesuit University. I have also 

been elected to serve on the National Financial Aid 

Association Board of Directors as a second-year rep at 

large, and I am also on the Executive Council for the 

State Financial Aid Association here in California as 

the Vice President of Federal Issues. I am extremely 

excited about being here today to contribute to the 

ongoing dialog surrounding student loan debt.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thank you, Angelika. The alternate for this group is 

Susan Teerink, but she is absent today, so we will move 

on to proprietary institutions. And the primary is 

Kathleen Dwyer. Kathleen.

MS. DWYER: 

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Kathleen Dwyer and I 

currently serve as Vice President of Operations and 

Regulatory Affairs for Galen College of Nursing. Galen 

is one of the largest educators of nurses in the 

country, and I began my career, like many of you, in the 

financial aid Department over 18 years ago, and I have, 

you know, served Galen for that length of time. In 

addition, I've served as a site visitor for multiple 

accreditation visiting teams to other institutions. And 

I'm just looking forward to representing the voice of 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

21

proprietary schools today. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES:

Thank you, Kathleen. And the alternate for that is Belen 

Gonzalez. You're on mute, dear.

MS. GONZALEZ:

Okay. Good morning everybody. My name is Belen Gonzalez 

and work as a compliance of the Mexican Institute. Have 

a 36 years experience in this industry. And it's my 

honor to be a part of this committee to have the 

opportunity to serve the students, the college, and the 

community. Thanks for the opportunity.

MS. JEFFRIES:

Thank you. And that takes us to the next constituency 

group, which is Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities, tribal colleges and universities and 

minority serving institutions, institutions of higher 

education eligible to receive Federal assistance under 

Title III, parts A and F, and Title V of the HEA. 

Primary for that is Sandra Boham. Sandra. Sandra may be 

with us and may be on mute. 

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Sandra may have an appointment this morning as well, 

Cindy, and not present at this time.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

22

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay, so we will move on. There is currently no 

representative in the vacancy- in the alternate slot, 

which will also be addressed later on in this agenda. 

Federal Family Education Loan, lenders servicers and or 

I'm sorry, guaranty agencies. Primarily for that is 

Scott Buchanan.

MR. BUCHANAN: 

Good morning and thanks for thanks for hosting this 

committee. I've been in the higher Department policy 

space for about 20 years now, and I'm currently an 

executive director of the Student Loan Servicing 

Alliance. And we're looking forward to the discussion to 

talk about the legal bar taxpayer and practical 

operational considerations, which we deal with every day 

that this discussion and proposed regulations might 

impact. So thanks for having us.

MS. JEFFRIES:

Thanks, Scott. And the alternate is Benjamin Lee.

MR. LEE: 

Good morning all. Honored to serve with all these 

talented folks. I'm associate counsel at Ascendium 

Education Solutions. We're a guarantee agency. Been in 

the student loan space for about nine years and still 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

23

have student loans in my own. So seeing it all the way 

around. I'm looking forward to it.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thanks, Benjamin. The next constituency group is student 

loan borrowers who attended programs of two-years or 

less. The primary is Ashley Pizzuti.

MS. PIZZUTI: 

Hello everyone. I am super grateful for this opportunity 

to be here. I attended a community college way back 

about 24 years ago, followed by attending a for-profit. 

I am an unnamed class member of Sweet versus Cardona, 

and also run several very large social media groups that 

represent all kinds of borrowers, primarily Borrower 

Defense borrowers. But that extends to all borrowers of 

all walks of life. And thank you again.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thanks, Ashley. And the alternate is David Ramirez.

MR. RAMIREZ: 

Good morning everyone. My name is David Ramirez. I'm a 

student at UCLA and graduated from Pasadena City College 

last year, where I served as student trustee on the 

Board of trustees for the college. I currently serve on 

the UC Student Association Board as Government Relations 

Chair, which is the representative body for all 230,000 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

24

undergraduate students at the University of California. 

I'm very excited to be here with you all.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thanks, David. Next up we have student loan borrowers 

who attended four-year programs. The primary is Sherri 

Gammage. Sher.

MS. GAMMAGE: 

Good morning and I am so honored to be here and serve 

with a talented group of people like yourselves. My name 

is Sherri Gammage, but I go by Sher Gammage. I'm a longterm adjunct faculty at Lesley University in the 

Graduate School of Education. I also am an adjunct 

faculty steward and sit on the higher education chapter 

of the Joint Executive Board of local SEIU 509. I 

started my journey into the student loan and community 

Colma Community College graduate, a four-year graduate. 

I attended private and professional schools. And I'm 

happy to work with this committee and look forward to 

the work we'll do together.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thank you, Sher. I will mention at this point that Sher 

has to leave today. She'll be with the committee till 

about 11 a.m. and she'll return after lunch. During that 

time, the alternate will be sitting at the table in her 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

25

place. And that alternate is Sherry Christa Butts.

MS. BUTTS: 

It's actually Sarah.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Sarah. I'm sorry. Thank you.

MS. BUTTS: 

That's okay. I'm honored to be here, you all. Sarah 

Butts. I am representing the interests and voice of 

four-year borrowers. I am myself a borrower. I attended 

both community college, undergraduate, graduate and 

entered a PhD program was a Pell Grant recipient, a 

participant in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness 

Program, and also am now a Parent PLUS borrower. I'm in 

my professional role, I am the Director of Public Policy 

nationally for the National Association of Social 

Workers where we represent the interests of around 

700,000 social workers in the country, along with our 

clients and communities. I'm honored to be here with you 

all.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thanks, Sarah. Ever had one of those moments where you 

read something but something else comes out of your 

mouth? I apologize about that. Next is student loan 

borrowers who attended graduate programs. Not sure on 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

26

this last name. So, Richard, bear with me. The primary 

is Richard Haase.

MR. HAASE: 

You got it. You got it. Okay. Good morning, everyone. 

I'm happy to be here. Thank you for allowing me to be a 

part of this. Like Soren, I'm a middle school English 

teacher as he once was. Like Tamy and Sarah just shared,

I've also been a part of work study, Pell, Stafford, and 

I attended SUNY schools in the state of New York and for 

23 years, was paying off that debt until the waiver 

period that extended eligibility under PSLF. After that 

waiver period was implemented as I'm also the president 

of our teachers association, representing 800 teachers 

and 500 power paraprofessionals on Long Island, we work 

to engage and mobilize our members around the 

application process and trying to help as many people as 

we could achieve their own loan forgiveness. And again, 

thank you for having me here. I look forward to being a 

part of our conversations.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thank you, Richard. And the alternate for the group is 

Dr. Jalil Bishop.

DR. BISHIP: 

Good morning everyone. Happy to be here. Again, my name 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

27

is Jalil Mustafa Bishop. I'm here today representing 

graduate borrowers. As a borrower myself, connected to 

family members, community members, many folks in my 

social space who have had to borrow student loans, both 

for undergrad and graduate students here to just 

represent the voices and experiences. Also, for really 

about a decade now have worked on student debt from both 

the activist perspective, making sure we're lifting up 

the voices of borrowers themselves, but also as a 

researcher who has released a lot of the research around 

the experiences of Black borrowers in particular. So 

happy to join you all today.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thank you. Next constituency is currently enrolled 

postsecondary education students and our primary is Jada 

Sanford. Jada.

MS. SANFORD:

Good morning everybody. My name is Jada Sanford. I 

currently work at Young Invincibles, which is a 

national, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that's 

dedicated to elevating the voices of young adults in the 

political process. I currently attend Stephen F Austin 

State University here in Texas, and I'm excited to 

represent currently enrolled postsecondary education 

students.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

28

MS. JEFFRIES:

Thank you, Jada. The alternate for the group is Jordan 

Nellums. Jordan?

MR. NELLUMS: 

Morning, everyone. My name is Jordan Nellums. I'm a 

current student, graduate student at the LBJ School of 

Public Affairs at the University of Texas. I, myself am 

a student loan borrower and a child of Parent PLUS loan 

borrowers. So I'm looking forward to representing 

currently enrolled postsecondary students and looking 

forward to working with you all.

MS. JEFFRIES:

Thank you, Jordan. The last constituency group that we 

will introduce is the US military service members, 

veterans or groups representing them. The primary is 

Michael Jones. Michael.

MR. JONES:

Hi everyone. Again, my name is Michael Jones. I am 

currently a student at Portland State University. I hold 

two-years of service in the United States Army. At PSU, 

I serve in the student Government where I'm holding a 

role as Senator, and I'm really looking forward to being 

here and having an open dialog around this very intense 

topic. So, thank you all so much.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

29

MS. JEFFRIES:

Thank you, Michael. And the alternate is Vincent 

Andrews. Vincent.

MR. ANDREWS: 

Hello everyone. I'm actually an Air Force veteran. I'm 

currently based in Texas in Fort Worth, Texas. I'm an 

instructor, creativity coach, but I'm also a doctoral 

student at Lesley University. And like everyone else, 

I've kind of had a lot of experience with the ins and 

outs of many of these programs, and I've obviously had 

my own student loan debt that I've tried to navigate, 

but I've been generally interested in these issues since 

my time in the military, which is why I became a life 

coach and was coaching veterans, for a big part of the 

time to help them navigate some of their benefits. But 

I'm really excited to be here and look forward to the 

conversations.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thank you, Vincent, I'd like to thank you both for your 

service to our country, as well as all anyone that is 

participating in this or not, across the country that 

have proudly served in the military services across the 

country. So next, just thank you all for introducing 

yourself and for your time, efforts, expertise and 

commitment to this process and the representation of 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

30

your constituencies. We are glad to have the opportunity 

to work with each one of you through this process. I'd 

like to take a moment now and introduce you all to your 

FMCS facilitation group. I, and through my colleagues 

who will introduce themselves momentarily, are 

commissioners/Federal mediators with the Federal 

Mediation and Conciliation Service. As I have been with 

FMCS for 13 years, I currently work out of the Orlando 

area. Previously was stationed in Albany, New York, grew 

up in the state of Michigan. Needed to get away from 

cold and snow so here I am in Orlando, Florida. I 

especially enjoy multi-party high stake negotiations and 

always appreciate the opportunity to work with subject 

matter experts in a variety of sectors, industries, and 

circumstances. I have been doing negotiated rulemaking 

for several years now, and this is my third one with the 

Department surrounding the Higher Education Act. I am 

joined by three fellow FMCS colleagues who I would like 

to invite to introduce themselves. And anything I may 

not have mentioned. I will say that one of our members 

is absent today, Commissioner Brady Roberts. He's not 

with us for this session as he's enjoying his honeymoon 

in Hawaii. He will be joining for the remainder of the 

sessions. Some of you who have worked with us before in 

these projects will certainly remember Brady. So with 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

31

that, I'm going to turn it over to Commissioner John 

Weathers. John, please introduce yourself.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Hello, everyone. My name is John Weathers, it's a 

pleasure to be here with you today. I am a field 

mediator with the Federal Mediation Conciliation Service 

and have been so for seven years. I currently reside in 

Colorado, sunny Colorado, and have been here for 

approximately one year. Previously I was working out of 

the Central Illinois field office for FMCS. This is my 

first specific negotiated rulemaking project, but I have 

been and am currently on a public policy review project. 

I'm very excited about this because I understand the 

impact that this is going to have and that there's a 

real sincere importance that is imbued in the work that 

we're going to be doing here today and over the next 

coming months. So, I'm very excited to be here and 

working with you all. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thanks, John. And next we have Commissioner Mike 

Franczak. Mike, please introduce yourself.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you, Cindy. Good morning. I'm Mike Franczak, FMCS 

facilitator team located in Cleveland. Mediator and 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

32

manager with FMCS for 22 years. I'm looking forward to 

our time with one another and working together. Thank 

you.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thanks, Mike. I believe that's all the introductions 

that I have. Did I miss anyone? Okay. For those of you 

who may not be familiar with FMCS, we are a small 

independent Federal agency of the executive branch of 

the United States Government. We have several statutory 

bodies of work; one being negotiated rulemaking. 

Specifically, the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act 

of 1990 and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 

authorizes FMCS to use its dispute resolution expertise 

to bring together the regulators and those impacted by 

their regulations in a collaborative process prior to 

the issuance of a new rule. What you can expect from us. 

We do function as a neutral third party, and we will be 

performing services and functions such as facilitate 

your discussions and consent taking for each of the 

policy proposals. We will assist the negotiating 

committee in identifying and overcoming barriers that 

arise in multi-party negotiations. We will work with the 

Committee as appropriate and breakout caucuses space 

during sessions and work with groups between sessions. 

We also solicit and distribute the documents and 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

33

information for the Department and yourselves. We 

capture that process and progress in the drafting of 

session summaries. We are here to assist you in every 

step of the way. While you are the subject matter 

experts and focused on the topics before the committee, 

we will drive the process and move the committee through 

each session navigating order and adherence to 

organization, protocols, agenda timeliness, strategies, 

and dynamics at and away from the table, all to assist 

you to be solution oriented and to build consensus on 

the proposals that will be before you. We want each of 

you to feel encouraged and empowered to reach out to us 

directly with questions, comments, and concerns 

throughout the entire process. You can do that either by 

email or giving us a phone call. Okay, you all received 

a letter that contained all that information early on 

when you accepted your nomination. So, moving on to 

logistics and protocols, we ask the following. Please 

adhere to the naming convention indicating P for 

primary, A for alternate, followed by your name, and 

lastly the constituency you are representing. While you 

are not speaking, please keep your audio muted. This 

will help us all cut down on background noise, 

distractions, and be able to identify the speaker more 

readily at any given time. If you are at the main 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

34

virtual table and have something to share, please raise 

your virtual hand by clicking the reaction icon at the 

bottom of your screen and select raise hand. We will 

generally call on people throughout the process in order 

in which their virtual hands appear on our screen. 

Should you have any technology related questions today 

during our session, we will identify each day of session 

in the chat name and email address of one of the FMCS 

facilitators that will be filling that role on that 

given day. Today that role will be filled by Mike 

Franczak. Mike, will you please put your name and email 

address in the chat so that the negotiators have easy 

access to that? A note on the chat feature. It will 

remain enabled during our sessions together. Please note 

that all messages sent out to the full group, those that 

are sent to everyone, are subject to an ongoing 

transcript. Each day, the public will have an 

opportunity to log in and observe our session via live 

streaming. The Department has posted a registration link 

on their website. I'm also going to ask Mike to place 

that link in the chat right now, because this is the 

same place where updates and shared documents will 

routinely be provided. Alright. Next, we're going to 

address the organizational protocols. I know that each 

of you previously received a copy of the protocols to 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

35

review. And we briefly discussed those protocols in your 

outreach sessions that we had with you. Based on some of 

those discussions and the questions asked within, I 

would like to address a few of the concepts covered in 

that document. Primary and alternate committee members. 

We recognize primary and alternate committee members 

work as a team representing their constituency. To that 

end, we value the input, expertise and representation 

that both bring to the table. To carry out our virtual 

process, we must note several important distinctions. 

Only the primary sitting at the- sits at the main table. 

Only the participants sitting at the main table will 

have their cameras on while discussion is taking place 

on policy proposals. All others, including alternates, 

will be asked to turn their cameras off. This is in an 

effort to preserve the limited virtual landscape and to 

easily delineate between those participating for the 

purpose of determining consensus, which are the primary 

negotiators. Alternate committee members will be invited 

to turn on their cameras when they come to the main 

table, and this can occur on several types of instances. 

In the absence of a primary negotiator, the alternate 

will participate at the main table for the purposes of 

consensus. The primary and alternate negotiator may 

decide that the alternate would take the primary place 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

36

at the main table, either for an entire certain topic, 

or to have an opportunity to briefly comment on a 

particular topic, segment subsection of a topic. The 

alternate would thus be on camera, and the primary would 

turn their cameras off for that portion. We ask for 

advanced notice of that in the chat. We would like to be 

able to announce that to the public so that our viewing 

in so that they can, you know, keep up with who's who, 

what's going on at the table, right? I hope everyone 

understands the virtual and logistical intent behind 

this practice. We will engage in consensus decision 

making to develop regulations. We will utilize good 

faith group problem solving to address the interests of 

the committee members with the intent of reaching 

unanimous agreement, otherwise described as consensus. 

It is not a majority vote, but rather an expression of 

agreement or dissent. And we will build consensus once 

there is no dissent by anyone on the negotiating 

committee. Thus, no member of or a minority group can be 

outvoted. Okay? That's why we use the full consensus 

situation. So, a few notes here. Per the protocols, 

members of the committee should not block or withhold 

consensus unless they have serious reservations about 

what is being proposed. Absent at the time of a 

consensus check will be the equivalent to not dissenting 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

37

and will therefore not prevent consensus from being 

reached. To take consensus checks, we utilize a visual 

three thumb approach. Our thumbs up is an expression of 

agreement by one who agrees with and in support of the 

proposal at hand. A sideways thumb, this is also an 

expression of agreement. It is in fact an indication 

that one does not feel as strongly favorable to the 

proposal but will support and agree with the proposal 

and not dissent. If everyone is up and or sideways, you 

have achieved consensus. If there are downward thumbs, 

this is an expression of dissent by one who will not 

support the proposal at hand. If one or more individuals 

are a thumbs down, those individuals are not in 

consensus and the dialog/work continues during our 

remaining scheduled time together, starting with the 

dissenter or dissenters being asked if there are 

additional concerns other than what was presented in the 

discussion prior to the consensus check, and asked to 

provide a change or changes to what was proposed that 

would get them to consensus. Okay, it will not suffice 

just to say I disagree. Okay? Finally, we will be 

seeking consensus separately on each policy proposal. 

Each policy proposal will be subject to its own distinct 

consensus building. And as a result, those where policy 

proposal consensus is not reached, will not hold back 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

38

those policy proposals for which consensus was achieved. 

Throughout the process, we take the committee's 

temperature for the purposes of seeing where we're at as 

a group and are we progressing. This will help us 

monitor several things. This will be done using the same 

three thumb approach. We will make it clear in any given 

instance whether we are taking the temperature or an 

official consensus check. Next, we're going to move to 

data information requests and sharing and questions. To 

streamline an effective and consistent process, we 

request that all materials be provided to FMCS, and we 

will distribute them to the full committee and 

Department. For data requests to the Department, please 

refer to the protocols for additional information. These 

will be invited at the time of addressing the topic for 

which the request pertains. Any information provided by 

the Department in response to a data request will be 

sent out to the entire committee. The Department desires 

to share information when they can. However, please 

understand there should be no expectation of a response 

being given during the live session. In those 

circumstances, we will ask you to place your question or 

request in the chat for the Department to follow up on. 

This is not an attempt to delay responses, but instead 

to provide the Department time to provide the most 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

39

accurate and meaningful response. We thank you in 

advance for your cooperation and understanding with 

that. When those items are placed in the chat, when that 

chat is pulled for transcript, there are Department 

people who go through those chats to pull out those 

questions that are requests. Any concept language that 

you may put in there to pull those out separately so 

that they can start working on those in between 

sessions. Next, we're going to move to breakout rooms 

and caucuses. Per the protocols, committee members may 

request a caucus for the purpose of consultation. To 

achieve this with our zoom gov platform the facilitators 

will move individuals into breakout rooms within the 

platform. While you were in those breakout rooms, they 

are secure and private virtual spaces where there will 

be no live streaming or recording. The main table 

discussions will be paused during a caucus, as will the 

live stream. For time management purposes, the 

facilitators will work with the committee members to 

ensure that they are used intentionally and 

strategically for specific periods of time. It is no 

secret that we have several important topics to address 

in our limited time together, and we want to ensure that 

we are using each of your time most productively. In 

terms of participation in the caucuses, only those 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

40

within the zoom gov platform will be able to access the 

breakout rooms through zoom. This means we will not be 

able to admit any additional individuals to the meeting 

for the purpose of meeting with you and your caucus. 

However, while you're in your breakout rooms, we 

encourage you to contact and consult with others as you 

deem appropriate and necessary. Feel encouraged to call 

them, use conference lines, speaker phones, other 

technology available, but we simply cannot and will not 

invite anyone into this zoom gov meeting outside of the 

named negotiators and the authorized participants. The 

only exception to that will be during the public comment 

time. Social media. It is addressed in the protocols, 

and we ask everyone to refrain from posting and 

commenting on social media during our sessions, because 

we want everyone fully engaged and participating when we 

are in session. Outside of our sessions, we appreciate 

that social media can be an effective tool for positive 

use, such as soliciting feedback from your respective 

constituencies. Therefore, consistent with the 

protocols, all members shall act in good faith in all 

aspects and negotiations and refrain from characterizing 

the views, motives, and interests of other members 

regarding negotiated rulemaking. Finally, it has been 

communicated to each of you that your agreement to serve 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

41

as a negotiator indicated your willingness to follow the 

protocols which you received a copy of. We are going to 

ask you at this time to approve the organizational 

protocols as provided. This will be our first 

opportunity to use our thumbs and achieve agreement. I'm 

going to call for the consensus. Well let me pause right 

here and ask a procedural question from the Department. 

Undersecretary Kvaal proposed that public comment be 

changed to 60 minutes versus 30. Your protocols don't 

actually list a duration. They just say that there will 

be public comment at the end of every session. Okay? Is 

it the Department's intent to have the 60-minute

duration added to the proposals as an amendment?

MS. ABERNATHY:

Cindy, may I interject for one second?

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Sure can.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

We want to make sure that that 60-minute duration 

starts with the second session in November. Because we 

already have everything set for this session. There's no 

way for us to expand that time.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay. So, might I suggest that the committee that we 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

42

take consensus on the protocols as written, and then we 

will take a consensus from the committee on starting the 

60-minute public comment period at the second session in 

November as an amendment. Is that okay, any objections 

to that? Okay, so let's move forward first with our 

consensus on the protocols as written currently. Could 

you please raise your thumb and leave them up for a few 

minutes so that we can or a few seconds, I'm not talking 

ten minutes here, but we need to be able to be sure that 

we capture everyone's thumb position on this. Okay? So 

go ahead and show us your thumbs on the protocols as 

written, adopting them. Okay. I'm not seeing any 

dissent. Mike or John? Okay, so the protocols are 

formally adopted as written. Let's move on to a 

consensus from the committee on whether or not they want 

to approve expanding the public comment period at the 

end of each session, beginning with the November 

sessions to 60 minutes. Can I see your thumbs, please? 

Okay, I do see, Belen, I can't see your thumb. Can you 

raise it higher? Is that up? I still can't see it.

MS. GONZALEZ: 

Yes.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay. Alright. We do have dissent here. Which means you 

have not reached consensus. We can open that for 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

43

discussion. Kathleen, would you like to share your 

concerns with that expansion?

MS. DWYER: 

Sure. I just- I assume the Department has already called 

to the table all of the people that they would like to 

hear from, and it sounds like you have a procedure for 

having a 30-minute commentary period. I just didn't 

understand why we would need to expand that. So that's 

the reason for the dissent.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Does the Department want to respond to that, or would 

you like me to reply?

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Let me take a stab at that.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Kathleen, I'd like to point out two separate things. We 

will be looking at adding alternate members to the 

table, which is separate from our public comment at the 

end of the day. So that public comment at the end of the 

day is to allow our public time to sign up for time to 

give us their opinion based on the discussions of today, 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

44

or to make general comments related to student debt 

relief committee action. It's kind of separate. And I 

don't know if maybe we didn't explain that well enough. 

So hopefully if you have any additional questions, 

please ask them. We can try to clarify that a little bit 

more for you.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

And that process. Thank you, Tamy. That process that is 

utilized for the public comment, those who want to speak 

during public comment time have to register to do so and 

obtain one of the available time slots. Those are threeminute time slots. And so, in 30 minutes, we generally 

can get ten people in if all goes well. Okay. We have in 

previous rulemakings had many more people wanting to 

comment than what the 30 minutes could accommodate. I 

just wanted to explain the process as a separate process 

in how it's done. Ashley, you have your hand up.

MS. PIZZUTI: 

Yes. So with the- I'm very familiar with the negotiated 

rules committee and actually was one of the public 

speakers in the 2021. We have a very excellent panel of 

experts sitting here making these rules. And the public 

comment gives people, borrowers mostly, the chance to 

have their voice be heard and take that into 

consideration when we're making decisions for them.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

45

MS. JEFFRIES:

Thank you, Ashley. Anyone else want to comment? Kyra?

MS. TAYLOR:

Thanks, Cindy. I would just add to what Ashley just 

said. There is a wide array of borrowers within the 

student loan system, and I think it is especially 

important to hear the variety of perspectives on student 

loan relief as we're moving through these programs, 

especially so that different borrowers can share their 

personal experiences with their student loan debt as we 

move forward. So we strongly support extending the 

public comment period so that more borrowers are given 

the opportunity to share their perspectives and to share 

how their student loan debt has impacted their lives.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay. Thank you. Next, I have Yael.

MS. SHAVIT: 

Thanks. So in addition to just agreeing with what Kyra 

and Ashley said, want to note that as someone who 

participated in a prior rulemaking session. I think it's 

common for borrowers who have the opportunity to speak 

in the public comment phase to raise issues that are 

then meaningful in the discussions that follow. So to 

that end, I think it's not only important to them to 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

46

give them an opportunity to be heard but it's also a 

perspective that's very valuable to the committee. And 

I've seen that in action, participating in past 

rulemaking.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thank you. Anyone else. Scott Buchanan.

MR. BUCHANAN:

Yes. And didn't the Department already hold a hearing or 

town hall on this matter? I think, you know, prior to 

this session, and certainly I think would be useful to 

provide any information or transcript or link to those 

hearing comments as well, since those have already been 

collected from the public in that form as well.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Cindy, would you like me to answer that?

MS. JEFFRIES:

Yes, please.

MS. KUNES: 

Scott, thank you. We did hold a public hearing and we 

did have over 26,000 comments. That information is 

public it is available on our website for those that 

would like to see that I also believe that it was on 

YouTube and that is available as well. I think for the 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

47

purposes of this discussion it is important for all of 

us to know that our borrowers and our constituents out 

there want to tell us things that will form and help 

form these rules as we go forward. This is in no way 

trying to pressure Kathleen to change her mind, but we 

just want to give you the information and allow you a 

chance to come back and ask us any additional questions 

that might help clarify this for you, so that we can go 

ahead and continue on with our agenda.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thank you, Tamy. So Wisdom is up next, and then I think 

we'll call a halt to the discussion and double check 

where we're at in consensus. Wisdom?

MR. COLE: Yeah, I think it is important to [inaudible] a 

time for borrowers to comment, particularly in November 

as we've entered into repayment. And so the reality for 

borrowers has actually changed over this period of time 

from now to November. And so it's important for them to 

be able to comment on their experiences in real time as 

we further this discussion.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thank you. I will make note that, as I did previously, 

that Sarah Butts is now in at the table as chair. 

Gammage has left the meeting for a short period of time. 

So, Sarah, welcome. I will say this if unless you're 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

48

serving in your primary place if you could turn your 

camera off so it's easier to see the consensus. Okay. 

Alright. So with that being said, let's go ahead and see 

where we are consensus wise at this point and either way 

we will move forward. So if I could see a show of 

thumbs, I would appreciate it. Okay. Alright. It looks 

like we have consensus. Kathleen, thank you for 

listening to what the committee had to say and 

indicating that, you know, you can live with it, you 

know, the expansion. We do appreciate that. So you have 

reached consensus on two items now. Congratulations. So 

we will reflect on these adoptions in the records, okay, 

as your first consensus action items. So, that brings us 

to Tamy. That's all I have on logistics. Unless there's 

something my team feels I missed or Tamy, you feel I 

missed?

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Not at this point. I don't think we've missed anything.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Alright.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Anybody else before we move to the next part of our 

agenda? Okay. Well thank you, Cindy. Thank you, 

negotiators for introducing yourselves and letting us 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

49

learn a little bit more about you and where you're 

coming from. I think it's really important, as we enter 

into these negotiations, that we really learn from each 

other and enjoy the conversation. And we, you know, we 

really want to hear from you. So apparently none of you 

are shy, which is a good thing. And the Department, of 

course is not shy as well. So we do look forward to 

working with you along this. We are going to move now to 

discuss the nomination vacancies that are on the 

committee. On September 29th, we posted on our website 

that we were still seeking additional nominations for 

two alternates, for alternates for two constituencies. 

We provided that deadline of October 5th, 2023. We were 

seeking state officials, including state higher 

education executive officers, state authorizing agencies 

and state regulators of institutions of higher 

education. The second group, we were looking for was

Historically Black Colleges and Universities, tribal 

colleges and universities, and minority serving 

institutions, institutions that are eligible to receive 

Federal assistance under our Title III parts a and f in 

Title V of the Higher Education Act. For the additional 

nominations received by the deadline, the Department is 

nominating two additional negotiators to fill these 

vacant positions. The Department will put forth each 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

50

nominee and will ask for consensus from the committee. 

These nominees have been contacted and are willing and 

able to participate on the committee should they be 

approved, and I might add that they are willing and able 

to join us immediately upon receiving the information 

they need to access the links. The protocols to add a 

member to the committee requires consensus from you. The 

Department would like to nominate Amber Gallup to fill 

the vacant position of alternate for the state 

officials, including state higher education executive 

officers, state authorizing agencies and state 

regulators of institutions of higher education. She is 

currently employed at the New Mexico Higher Education 

Department and a PhD student at the University of New 

Mexico. Apparently, she has been at this position since 

2021. She's previously employed at the Unified Solutions 

Tribal Community Development Group from 2017 to 2019 and

serves on the National Association of State Directors of 

Adult Education since 2022. She was nominated by the New 

Mexico Higher Education Department. Cindy, I'd like to 

open the floor for discussion, then move with a 

consensus check for this nominee, please.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay. Thank you, Tamy. So the floor is now open for 

discussion. Anyone liking- would like to ask questions 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

51

or comments? Please raise your hand. Lane.

MS. THOMPSON: 

Yeah. Just want to say that I really appreciate Amber’s

willingness and availability to serve. I think her 

background makes her a great option for the state 

officials alternate.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thank you, Lane. Any other comments? Questions? Scott 

Buchanan.

MR. BUCHANAN: 

Yeah, just wanted to clarify for the next couple of 

nominees, these are folks that the Department is 

recommending affirmatively that they would like to serve 

in these seats, and if the nominations had been received 

prior to the cutoff period, would have put them forward 

as nominees. Is that correct?

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Yes, sir. That is correct.

MR. BUCHANAN: 

Great, thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay. Seeing no other hands, we will move to consensus 

on Amber Gallup filling the alternate position for state 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

52

officials, including higher education executive 

officers, state authorizing agencies, state regulators 

of institutions of higher education. May I please see 

your thumbs? Okay. Consensus has been reached. Thank you 

very much. We will make note of that in the minutes and 

once we deal with the next nominee for the group, I'm 

going to ask one of my team members to contact the two 

individuals, have a brief discussion with them, and then 

they will be able to join into the meeting, provide them 

the link and join into the meeting. Tamy back to you.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Thank you, Cindy, and thank you, committee members. The 

Department would like to nominate Carol Peterson to fill 

the vacant position of alternate for Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities, tribal colleges and 

universities, and minority serving institutions and 

institutions of higher education eligible to receive 

Federal assistance under title III, parts a and f, and 

title V of the Higher Education Act. She is currently a 

manager of Enrollment and Financial Aid Process for 

Langston University's Prison Education program, through 

the Department's Second Chance Pell Experimental Sites 

Initiative. She has done so since 2016. She was 

nominated by the Vera Institute. Cindy, I'd like to open 

the floor for discussion and then move forward with the 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

53

consensus check for nominee.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay. Thank you. Floor is open for discussion, 

questions, comments. Seeing no hands, we will move on 

directly to consensus on the nomination of Carol 

Peterson to fill the vacant position of alternate for 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities, tribal 

colleges and universities, and minority serving 

institutions and institutions of higher education 

eligible to receive Federal assistance under Title III, 

parts a and f and Title V of the HEA. May I please see 

the committee's thumbs? Okay, seeing no dissent. The 

motion has- the nomination has been approved. So, Mike 

or John, one of you, please. Mike, you're going to do 

that. Please reach out to the two ladies. Do that brief 

outreach with them. Give them the link to join the 

meeting, and we will move forward. Kyra, you have your 

hand up.

MS. TAYLOR: 

Yes, I would like to move to create additional seats. 

And so I'd like to- is this the appropriate time to do 

so?

MS. JEFFRIES: 

The Department this would be, you know, it looks like 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

54

there's concurrence. This would be the time to do that. 

If there are motions to add additional constituency 

groups.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Yes, Cindy, if the negotiators would want to add an 

additional constituency group, we ask that they explain 

why they believe that group is needed and why it is not, 

and why it is, you know, not currently represented 

already at the table. And then Cindy, after they, you 

know, after each one, if we get an explanation, if you 

would just kind of, you know, take the pulse and we can 

go from there.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

You want a temperature check?

MS. ABERNATHY: 

I'm sorry. I should not have said take the pulse, 

because that's what that means in our world. So let me 

reiterate. We'll go back to asking for additional 

discussion.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay. Great. Okay. Thank you. Alright. So the floor is 

open for nominations for additional constituency groups 

added to the committee.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

55

MS. TAYLOR: 

And can I start us off, Cindy?

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Sure can.

MS. TAYLOR: 

Wonderful. So there are two critical constituencies that 

are currently missing from the table, as currently 

assembled consumer advocates and disabled borrowers. 

Both seats have been at past negotiated rulemakings, and 

they are also essential here. First, I'd like to move 

for a consumer advocate seat. Consumer advocates 

represent an array of types of borrowers throughout 

their student loan journey. So they see the whole 

process, and they have a macro view of how the student 

loan system works as a whole within the higher education 

system. Consumer advocates also connect different 

constituency groups in the student loan space and often 

work with grassroots organizations, Government agencies, 

borrowers themselves, researchers, and more. In 

addition, they're able to see the whole person, not just 

their student loan situation. Fundamentally, student 

loans are a consumer product, and consumer advocates are 

invaluable to craft a solution that remedies the 

critical problems that have arisen in that product. For 

this seat, I'd like to nominate Jessica Ranucci from New 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

56

York Legal Assistance Group. She is ready and able today 

to join as soon as she is provided consensus. NYLAG 

provides both legal and financial counseling services to 

over 1200 individuals per year. The borrowers they work 

with are as diverse as the population of New York City 

itself. Jessica would be an asset to this committee, as 

she has a wealth of student loan law, legal expertise, 

and has worked with numerous student loan borrowers to 

apply for statutory discharges and Income Driven 

Repayment Plans. She has also done substantial work 

helping borrowers scammed by student loan relief 

companies. Prospective that's not currently reflected 

here. In addition, she's in regular communication with 

organizations across New York State who provide free 

student loan counseling through the EDCAP network, a 

first of its kind statewide network to provide free 

assistance to student loan borrowers. In addition, I 

would like to move to create a seat for disabled student 

loan borrowers. Approximately 7 million.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Kyra, may I interrupt you for one second? We'd like to 

take these one at a time, please, if that's okay.

MS. TAYLOR: 

Sure.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

57

MS. ABERNATHY: 

And would you please repeat the name of the person that 

you're putting forward as a primary? And do you have an 

alternate?

MS. TAYLOR: 

Her name is Jessica Ranucci, and she works for New York 

Legal Assistance Group. I do not have an alternate at 

this time.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Okay. Cindy, I'll turn it over to you for discussion. 

And we would like to confirm with the rest of the 

committee. We need to make sure if there are any other 

constituency groups that want to be added, that we are 

aware of that before we start- before we take a 

consensus check. So we know that Kyra has put forth two. 

Are there any other committee members that are wanting 

to request us to add additional constituency groups to 

the table? I'm going to take that as a no.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

I'm not seeing any hands, Tamy.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Okay. We can move for discussion, Cindy.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

58

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay. So let's open the floor for discussion on adding 

the constituency group of Consumer Advocates seat and 

the nomination of Jessica Ranucci as the primary and 

there is no alternate recommendation at this point. 

Yael.

MS. SHAVIT: 

Thank you. I just want to note this is a constituency 

that is very important to represent that's been 

represented in past rulemakings. I think, by virtue of 

the breadth of issues that student loan borrowers face 

and that people who are working with them, consumer 

advocates get to see this is a very useful perspective. 

Having read the first issue paper, I think that the 

experiences of this constituency and NYLAGs perspective 

as well will be helpful in talking about a number of the 

issues the Department has flagged as meaningful for the 

discussion in this first session that's going to be 

informing the remainder of this negotiation. So I 

strongly support the addition of this constituency, 

which, again, would like to emphasize would be 

consistent with the Department's approach taken in past 

rulemakings and support this particular nominee.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thank you, Yael. Next up is Richard.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

59

MR. HAASE: 

Yeah, I agree. I think aside from the fact that 

consistency in who is present on these panels has some 

value, I do think that a consumer advocate does have a 

unique ability to represent the breadth and depth of the 

experience. You know, from what we borrow, why we borrow 

it, the value of what we borrow and how it intersects 

with what people make down the road. So I also support 

the addition of constituency.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay. Thank you for those comments. Scott Buchanan.

MR. BUCHANAN: 

Yeah. I was just wondering if for the committee, if we 

could be provided biographies or CVs of the nominees for 

each of these. Just so we're aware of these folks. All 

the other prior sort of nominees have been vetted by the 

Department and were recommendations. So it would just be 

useful, I think, to see some background in case we're 

not familiar with the individuals.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

A point of clarification on this, Scott. Are you asking 

for that prior to taking consensus or for general 

purposes?
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

60

MR. BUCHANAN: 

I think it would be useful to have, you know, if we're 

going to take a vote on someone to know who they are.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Are those, - Kyra, do you know if those bios are 

available if her bio is available somewhere?

MS. TAYLOR: 

I believe so. I would need to talk with them, so I might 

need a break to be able to get those materials to the 

committee. That would be breaking with past protocol, 

though. However, in the past, when additional seats have 

been proposed to the table, the committee has voted even 

without those materials.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

We are happy to allow for time for that bio to be 

circulated. I'm not sure how logistically that would 

work, but Kyra, if you would reach out to Jessica and 

ask her to provide you with that, and then we could get 

that to the committee for their review. In the meantime, 

we have several other hands up, so we'll let those other 

hands further the discussion for this constituency 

group. Then what we could do is we could go into the 

discussion of the next constituency group, but we will 

vote on them separately.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

61

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thank you. Lane?

MS. THOMPSON: 

Yeah. Two quick thoughts on this. One is that I also 

strongly support the addition of this constituency and 

part of the reason I do is because I think we could 

benefit from additional attorneys. This is a legal 

question that we're looking at, and as many legal minds 

as we can have on it would be awesome. My second point 

is just that we did confirm those alternates without 

reviewing their resumes. So just kind of want to throw 

in that I think we could probably confirm these folks 

without reviewing the resumes as well. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thank you. Kathleen?

MS. DWYER: 

Thank you. I just- it was mentioned that typically both 

of the two groups that we've been discussing have been 

included at the table previously. So I didn't know if 

anyone could answer why they weren't considered as part 

of the current nominations to the committee?

MS. ABERNATHY: 

When we put forth the constituency groups in good faith 

effort, we tried to capture all of those civil rights 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

62

group legal organizations and we thought we got it 

right. But hearing from you, we are willing to entertain 

adding two new constituency groups.

MS. DWYER: 

Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay. Tamy, do you want to move to this, well Kyra's 

tied up. Maybe we should take a short break here.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Why don't we go ahead and discuss the other constituency 

group. And find out if or what anything is needed there 

and then we can take a few minutes break and then we'll 

come back and we'll vote because we do have other things 

that we really want to start making sure that we get 

through for the rest of the day. Will that work?

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Kyra, can you give us an explanation of the second 

constituency group addition people with disabilities and 

who you would be nominating to fill the primary and 

alternate if you have someone for that one.

MS. TAYLOR: 

Sure. So I'd also like to move to create a seat for a 

disabled student loan borrowers. As said before, there 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

63

are approximately 7 million people age 25 and older that 

hold a bachelor's degree or higher and report having a 

disability. Unfortunately, that number is underinclusive because less than half of disabled 

undergraduate students will be able to complete their 

program, and so as a result, they may have debt but no 

degree. Disabled people disproportionately earn less 

than their non-disabled peers but pay a significant 

portion of their income to obtain medical care and 

obtain accommodations that make life and work possible. 

Given these realities, disabled borrowers are 

significantly more likely to default on their student 

loans than their non-disabled peers. While some disabled 

borrowers may obtain a total and permanent disability 

discharge, many are ineligible for that discharge 

because they continue to work. The Department created a 

seat for disabled borrowers when amending its statutory 

discharge programs and should do the same here. Their 

absence from this table will negatively affect the 

solutions that we're able to provide. Because disabled 

borrowers have unique concerns, limitations and 

perspectives that should be reflected here. For this 

seat, I'd like to nominate John Whitelaw, the Advocacy 

Director at Community Legal Aid in Wilmington, Delaware. 

John has advocated on behalf of disabled people for 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

64

decades, and often helps them navigate the Social 

Security and Medicaid benefits systems. John has also 

helped disabled student loan borrowers develop loan 

repayment strategies. He works with an array of clients 

with physical, cognitive, and emotional disabilities and 

can share valuable perspectives on making student loan 

relief more accessible to borrowers with different 

capabilities. He also can speak to the unique hardship 

disabled borrowers experience when trying to navigate 

the student loan repayment system.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

We'll open the floor for discussion. Jada.

MS. SANFORD: 

I want to say that I strongly support the addition of 

this constituency. I think disabled individuals have 

been historically left out of the conversation and not 

at the table, and think, this shouldn't be a time where 

that's the case again.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Anyone else? Kyra, could you do us a favor and drop in 

the chat the two constituency groups and the names of 

the people?

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Cindy would also like to mention that both of the 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

65

individuals that Kyra has put forward have served as 

negotiators in past rulemakings. And if there is no 

additional discussion, what we would like to do is have 

the committee vote on adding these two new constituency 

groups, taking a break, getting information for, Kyra if 

you could get information on both of the ones that 

you've put forward, get it circulated to the group. But 

we'll go ahead after our short break and take a vote or 

take consensus. Excuse me.

MS. TAYLOR: 

And I'm so sorry to do this, Tamy, but I was also 

wondering my alternate would also like to propose a 

constituency group to add, and so if there's time, I'd 

like to provide him the opportunity to do so as well.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Sure. Are there any other constituency groups that 

people are wanting to add?

MS. JEFFRIES: 

So this will be the final call for addition of groups. 

Alright? Scott Buchanan, you have your hand up.

MR. BUCHANAN: 

Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. I thought we- the Department had 

already asked for the complete list of new constituency 

groups?
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

66

MS. JEFFRIES

They did and unfortunately, I don't know if Scott 

Waterman raised his hand and we didn't see him.

MR. WATERMAN: 

I did.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

As an alternate. So, and Kara didn't- was busy with 

this. So, if it's alright with the committee, we'll 

allow the one last.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Cindy, the Department is fine with him proposing another 

constituency group.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay. Alright. So, Kyra, would you please? Scott, 

where'd you go?

MR. WATERMAN: 

I'm back on. Okay, one group that appears to be missing 

is council that represent middle income borrowers, 

people who are working but struggling to pay their 

student loans. And there are two individuals who I think 

would be really helpful because they work in the 

trenches on how to deal with these student loans. The 

first is Ed Boltz. Ed Boltz is from North Carolina. He 

is the former president of the National Association of 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

67

Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, and he deals on a daily 

basis the problems of having borrowers negotiate and 

also deal with the process on how to discharge or to 

reduce their student loan obligations. The second, his 

alternate, is another attorney who represents borrowers 

who is intimately familiar with the regs, and his name 

is Josh Cohen. He's an attorney from Vermont who 

specializes in student loans and borrowing issues. I 

think both would be really helpful for their perspective 

if we're going to be creating new rules, new regs, and 

how they will impact the reality on the ground. So those 

are my two recommendations.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay. I will open the floor for discussion.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Cindy, we would also need bios on those two individuals, 

please.

MR. WATERMAN: 

I'm happy to provide bios.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Scott, if you could add that to the chat now, that would 

be great so that people could take a look at it.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

68

MR. WATERMAN: 

Having trouble inputting the bios but give me time.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

I think you're on mute.

MR. WATERMAN: 

I appear to be unable to cut and paste a bio onto the 

chat.

MS. SHAVIT: 

Cindy, if he emails it to you guys, could you do it?

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Cindy, we are unable to hear you.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Scott, it's Mike Franczak. Feel free to send it to my 

email, which was included earlier. M Franczak 

mfranczak@fmcs.gov. It was at the very beginning of 

today's session. It's also there in the chat. Send it to 

me and I'll upload that as quickly as I can.

MR. WATERMAN: 

Alright, I'll try.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

69

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Michael while Cindy is working on her issues, would we 

be able to go to Kathleen? She has her hand up. We can 

open up discussion.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Sure. Kathleen, please feel free.

MS. DWYER: 

I had a question to the other negotiators about the 

distinction between these two different classes of 

borrowers that we say are not represented. I understood 

disabled borrowers consumer advocates and then now this 

third category, people who represent middle income 

borrowers. Is there overlap between the consumer 

advocates and those who represent middle income 

borrowers? Are these really two distinct categories or 

is this really one and we're talking about four 

potential people representing one particular negotiating 

group?

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Can you hear me now? 

MR. WATERMAN: 

So, Cindy, here's where we left off. Kathleen Dwyer had 

asked if there was any overlap between the consumer 

advocate constituency group that we were discussing, 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

70

adding as well as what now someone else has proposed 

around a middle-income borrower. So I guess the question 

is for the two folks who had offered those as 

constituency groups, if perhaps they could share a 

little bit more in terms of what those specifically 

represent, so that we could begin to answer if there's 

any overlap around the two groups.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay. Kyra, you have your hand up.

MS. TAYLOR: 

Thanks, Cindy. So I think there are important 

distinctions between these groups of borrowers. So 

consumer advocates are able to see the whole system writ 

large and are dealing with a variety of different types 

of borrowers in different types of situations. They're 

able to take a macro view. They are also more diverse 

than the types of work that they do in terms of student 

loans as well. I would amend perhaps Scott's definition 

of the seat that he's proposed. These are bankruptcy 

attorneys that represent borrowers in bankruptcy 

specifically. However, they are private attorneys. And 

so they are often representing folks who can pay for 

their services, which is also inherently a distinct 

population from the populations that are currently 

represented on this committee. I think it is important 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

71

that we have the full variety of student loan borrowers 

reflected on this committee in terms of crafting 

solutions that are as accessible and are fair to as many 

people as possible.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Scott Buchanan.

MR. BUCHANAN: 

So just to clarify then so is the third constituency 

bankruptcy attorneys?

MR. WATERMAN: 

Well they do bankruptcy, but both Josh and Ed work 

beyond bankruptcy too. Too often when you're a private 

practicing attorney dealing with student loans, you have 

to be involved in the bankruptcy system if you're going 

to try and address student loans.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Tamy.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

What if we went ahead and looked at the consumer 

advocacy group and the disabled group and then we 

proposed perhaps adding an alternate of one of the 

members that Scott proposed, perhaps Ed? What do you 

guys think about that?
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

72

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Discussion?

MS. TAYLOR: 

I think both. Oh sorry, I didn't raise my hand. But in 

lieu of other hands, I think the representation of both 

consumer advocates and disabled borrowers at this table 

are especially essential that both of those 

constituencies are essential to crafting an effective 

solution to the student loan crisis that we're facing. 

However, if that is the proposal that the Department is 

most comfortable with, we would be willing to go with 

it.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Let me reframe that. We will take a consensus on all 

three of them. But we would like to put out there for 

discussion that we understand consumer advocacy and the 

disabled borrowers. We're a bit concerned about 

additional overlap with adding yet a third constituency 

group, but if others have thoughts that they would like 

to share, we would really like to hear from them.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Richard.

MR. HAASE: 

Yeah, point of clarification. It sounds like you're 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

73

recommending and if I understand the policies that were 

laid out correctly, that we have through our 

negotiations, the opportunity to bring forward 

additional outside testimony, and it sounds like you're 

suggesting Tamy correct me if I'm wrong, that the 

addition of a bankruptcy lawyer not be added as another 

constituency group, but that 1 or 2 of these people be 

considered for outside testimony during the course of 

our conversations. Is that what you're suggesting?

MS. ABERNATHY: 

We are not suggesting that at the moment. What we are 

trying to do is engage in conversation about what are 

your thoughts on adding two new constituency groups, 

which are the consumer advocacy group and the disabled 

group. It still has to go to the committee for a vote. 

So it's not necessarily our recommendation, it's 

discussion right now. Does that help answer? He went off 

screen, so I can't see if it helped answer his question.

MR. HAASE: 

Yeah, I was asking specifically if that was what you 

were putting out for discussion regarding the third 

category that the bankruptcy attorney. It does sound 

like we are looking to go to a vote on the first two 

recommendations before we get to that question, is that 

correct?
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

74

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Yes, sir.

MR. HAASE: 

Okay, thanks.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thank you. I thought I saw another hand up. There, Yael.

MS. SHAVIT: 

It was me. Don't want to be duplicative and think that 

Tamy just added clarification that may render this 

unnecessary. The one point I do want to make is think 

that there is really no overlap in the context of the 

consumer advocacy representative. I think, if anything, 

adding that constituency and ensuring that the person 

who's in that seat is actually consumer advocate would 

provide a much broader perspective than is presently on 

the committee. And as far as representing the on the 

ground what students are experiencing, especially the 

hardships that the Department called for information 

about that can span a wide variety of issues so that's 

just, you know, one thought there as to the questions 

about overlap.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Thank you for clarifying. Cindy, as soon as we can wrap 

up discussion, we're ready to take consensus on the 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

75

consumer advocacy group and the disabled borrower group. 

And then we would like to take a break. We are going to 

need additional time to discuss the third group.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay. Alright. We'll take one last comment as Scott 

Buchanan hand is up.

MR. BUCHANAN: 

Oh, yes. I just want to clarify one thing. I thought you 

meant what you might be suggesting is with the first two 

constituency groups that potentially this gentleman Ed 

Boltz be added as the alternate in the consumer advocate 

group to be inclusive of that perspective. Is that, I 

thought?

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Yes, sir, that is the discussion that we're having. Yes, 

sir.

MR. BUCHANAN: 

Okay, great. Thank you.

MS. TAYLOR: 

And then I'm so sorry. I just want to clarify with that 

added clarification. Thank you so much, Scott, that we 

would be in support of that proposal.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

76

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Alright. So at this point, I think we'll move to the

consensus to regarding adding the consumer advocacy 

group, if I understand this correctly, that would be 

inclusive of Jennifer or I'm sorry, Jessica Ranucci as 

primary and Ed Boltz as alternate or do you just want to 

do the group right now?

MS. ABERNATHY: 

I think it would be best if we just did the group right 

now, because we did tell the committee we'd give them a 

chance to look at the bios. Thank you, Cindy. Thanks for 

clarifying.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Yep. So I will take a showing a thumbs on whether or not 

the committee is going to approve adding an additional 

constituency group on consumer advocacy. May I see your 

thumbs, please? I'm seeing no dissents. It has been 

approved by the committee to add the consumer advocacy 

group. Moving on from there, we'll take consensus now on 

the adding another constituency group for borrowers with 

disabilities. Is that correct? Is that how you wanted to 

title it? Okay, so may I see your thumbs on that? Not 

seeing any dissent, that the committee has approved the 

addition of that constituency group as well. So at this 

point it is 11:45. We are scheduled for lunch. Tamy, do 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

77

you want to just go ahead and take the break in lunch?

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Yes, I do. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

So why don't we go ahead and we'll break now this will 

be inclusive of your time for your lunch period and to 

get these bios out and review them. So promptly at 1:00 

when we start back in, we will immediately take 

consensus on the nominees to fill those groups, and then 

we will move on from there. Okay?

MS. ABERNATHY:

Thank you, Cindy.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Yep. So, you are free to go. Have a wonderful lunch. Did 

we get those bios out? Yes, he did. Mike's got them in 

the chat for you to be able to [inaudible] andMR. FRANCZAK: 

Ed Boltz is on the way.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

I know him, I believe. I think, Yael, he's been on one 

of these before, right? I don't know. The name sounds 

familiar for some reason anyway. Alright, so we'll get
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

78

Ed Boltz as you can check back in the chat and enjoy 

your lunch. Please be back by a quarter to one so that 

we can get situated and set and be ready to start 

sharply at one.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

79

Zoom Chat Transcript

Student Loan Debt Relief Committee - Session 1, Day 1, 

Morning, October 10, 2023

*Chat was copied as presented, as a result minor typos or 

grammatical errors may be present. 

From (P) Michael Jones (he/him/his) Veterans to 

Everyone:

yes

From Michael Franczak-FMCS to Everyone:

Mike Franczak: mfranczak@fmcs.gov 

From Michael Franczak-FMCS to Everyone:

Day 1 – Tuesday, October 10: 

https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetupjoin/19%3ameeting_NTQzZTliYTYtMDBiYS00ZjRlLTg4OGEtZGRjODMwY

TQxY2Fl%40thread.v2/0?context=%7B%22Tid%22%3A%22bd5d4514-

84de-4928-a9fd-6ae10bbad677%22%2C%22Oid%22%3A%22f3839170-

4899-41f5-b324-

b6bf60c67342%22%2C%22IsBroadcastMeeting%22%3Atrue%2C%22role

%22%3A%22a%22%7D&btype=a&role=a 

From P-Ashley Pizzuti-Student Loan Borrowers-2YrsorLess 

to Everyone:

Will this be recorded and put on YouTube like in years 

past?

From Valerie Lefor, Department of Education to Everyone:

Yes, we will plan to post the recordings on YouTube

From P-Sher Gammage-4 Year to Everyone:

Sarah Butts will now take over as primary negotiator 

representing 4 year borrowers. I will return for the 

afternoon session

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Student Loan BorrowersGraduate Prog to Everyone:
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/10/23

80

Can we share these nominees’ names in the chat?

From (P) Jada Sanford - Currently Enrolled to Everyone:

^^^^

From Tamy Abernathy - Policy Coordination Group Director, 

ED to Everyone:

Amber Gallup and Carol Peterson

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Student Loan BorrowersGraduate Prog to Everyone:

Thank you

From P-Yael Shavit-State AGs to Everyone:

I strongly support the addition of this constituency 

and this particular nominee.

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

Consumer Advocates— Jessica Ranucci, Disabled 

Borrowers— John Whitelaw

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Student Loan BorrowersGraduate Prog to Everyone:

I do not see any bios in the chat

(ED Note: Bios are available on the Department of 

Education’s 2023-2024 Neg Reg website)