the beginning. So we received eight issues -- papers -- with multiple questions on each of those. It -- I believe the -- my understanding is that we would have to have 100-percent consensus on all of the issues completely in order for anything to be agreed upon. So my question is, is that realistic ever in a negotiation and -- and can we -- and/or can we decide as a group to do them by issue? Where we have consensus on one issue but maybe not on another issue and so on and so forth? So that we can break it up into chunks that -- so you're not feeling like it's all or nothing. Mr. Ramirez: Yes, I will tell you -- I will let Greg comment on this as well, but I will tell you that we we have gotten agreements on -- on all issues in other regulatory negotiations, so it can be done. And as far as process goes, what we were planning on doing was going and trying to get as many pieces of these items agreed to, but then it would have to be an overall consensus vote. But I will leave it to Greg as far as the answer on the all or nothing aspect. Mr. Martin: You're correct, Javier, that -- that consensus does need to be reached on everything. I would point out that by consensus we don't mean 100-percent agreement on -- that everybody absolutely -- this is the way everybody would have it if they had their -- if they have their way with it. So it is -- it is a process of some give and take. Traditionally we've reached consensus on about half of our packages. Is it realistic to expect consensus? Well -- and I won't address that. I think it's always realistic to -- to hope for that outcome at the -- at the beginning and hope that we can come to some some agreement. But again, the whole consensus process does involve a give and take that we will hopefully be able to -- to have happen here. Mr. Ramirez: And that -- that idea of the
continuum, right? So you're not -- it's not necessarily that it's your absolute ideal agreement, but it's somewhere along there where you could live with, again, that lowest level of support is that -- that you could live with and support. And that's the important piece -- that support. So as long as you could say I get it, I understand it, along that continuum I am everywhere but -- the don't agree and will block. Okay. So hopefully we can find some spot along that continuum that makes people happy. Ms. Sarge: Sandy again. I think that the reason why I ask that is because -- and again, I am just trying to make sure I understand the rules -- that should consensus not be had -- accountants tend to be worst-case scenario people. So just -- you know, what's the worst-case scenario? The worst-case scenario is we don't reach consensus. So then of things we may have agreed on in -- in issue would go back to the Department to decide in its entirety. Right? So -- so if we agree on one thing -- one of those issue papers -- let's say we agree on seven of eight, and -- but that eighth one is a doozy. So there's no consensus had, then everything goes back to the Department for finalization? Mr. Ramirez: I will let Greg answer that one. (Simultaneous speaking.) Mr. Martin: That is correct. Yes -- entire -- consensus does have to be reached. If consensus is not reached on everything, then it is the Department's prerogative to -- to regulate. I would point out, though, that we would not -- if that were the case, we would not be dismissive of the -- of -- of what was said and what was agreed upon and where people did meet -- reach consensus. percent
them an opportunity to talk and see if they have an idea of who would prefer to be the negotiator versus the alternate and see if they can come up with something and make a recommendation to you all that we could vote on. Daniel? Mr. Elkins: We would just like to know -- I couldn't see who put their thumb down, and then their reason why. Mr. Ramirez: Okay. Participant: Sure, I -- the reason I -- I did that -- when I consider the institutions that they represent, both Joan and Thelma have considerable experience with gainful employment reporting and have -- and -- and whereas the other gentleman's institution has only doctorate graduates, and therefore hasn't really been involved in the intricacies and details and minutia of managing gainful employment. And therefore I felt that -- if we're -- when we're looking at candidates to contribute significantly to this process, that either one of the other two candidates have experience, have done it, and would -- should provide good -- good help. Participant: Chris, did you have something that you wanted to share? Mr. Madaio: Yes, you. Chris Madaio. I guess, you know, first -- and you know, I hate to go back on the three people again, I mean is it possible not to have two alternates? It seems like they're three qualified people. Dr. Pierre, I mean, is involved with the school itself as compared to a financial aid officer. I think he is extremely qualified. You know, we have three good people. It like -- you know, it's very difficult to -- you know, because of consensus to have one individual, you know, control the process, it feels like. I am a little disappointed by, I guess, the process we just took. I might have voted differently, you know, if -- I guess -- know it could have ended like that. Perhaps I'd like to -- I know I maybe can't change
sophistication in another. We're inconsistent. Again, students are sophisticated enough and know what they want to be able to take the money that the Department lends them or gives them through aid and do whatever they want with it, and by gosh or by golly, no one at a school should tell them what they want to do with that. But at the -- on the other hand -- so, therefore, they're sophisticated enough to know what to do with 57 and a half thousand dollars in undergraduate debt, maximum, but on the -- at the same time, they're not sophisticated enough to know how to read disclosures and to do research, which I would argue, almost, at this point, kindergartners are better at it than many of my generation, because of what they learn in triangulating data now in schools. So, that's one point, I would caution us. Like, we can't argue on one hand that they're sophisticated, on the other hand they're not. One way or the other. The second is to John's neophyte perspective -- and thank you, I'm right there with you. If we're going to be deciding on a higher level -- while it's -- I understand and I get what everybody's saying about the statutes, I do think it's still a relevant conversation to have, because we need to understand where the perspectives are, so that those us in the room, those of us hearing the and those of us who are going to be tweeting and re-tweeting about this, know that we probably need to go out and discuss this with our Congress members. And at FSA last week have known me for five years, who have spoken up. And nine times out of ten, they're going, you know that's statutory, Sandy, right? And I'm like, dang. And it's not regulatory, right? So, my issue is those are still relevant and important questions. And then, finally, to the point of, gainful employment is in the statutes. However, these rules