Committee IV Institutional Eligibility Issues

First Meeting
February 3-5, 1999
Washington, DC

The first meeting of Committee IV commenced as scheduled at approximately 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 3, 1999 and adjourned on Friday, February 5, 1999, at approximately 12:00 p.m. The meeting was held at the Doubletree Hotel Park Terrace. All members of the Committee were present. The meeting was facilitated by Greg Bourne and Greg Sobel.

The facilitators and spokespersons were introduced and brief oral descriptions of the member organizations were provided. The facilitators referenced the meeting held on January 11, 1999 to establish protocols for the regulatory negotiation process. They asked for questions and comments on the protocols but none were offered. The facilitators then reviewed the format for the regulatory negotiation process, including two meetings as "workshops" followed by three negotiation sessions, with the entire process ending by late May.

Next, the objectives of the meeting were described as threefold: 1) review the statutory provisions to be addressed by Committee IV, 2) assign the appropriate action level for each provision, and 3) provide the Department with sufficient information to begin the process of writing a draft negotiating text. It was understood that the agenda for this meeting would primarily involve discussions of those issues listed in the attachment to the Department of Education's December 29, 1998, "Dear Colleague" letter.

The format proposed for the discussions was to move through the list of issues allowing all members to present their views, with the understanding that the Department may probe those views to assist in its preparation of a draft negotiating text. Members would also express their views on how the issues should be categorized using the following template:

1. no regulation required
2. regulation required, but no negotiation necessary
3. regulation required, to be negotiated to take effect by July 1, 2000, or
4. regulation required, to be negotiated to take effect by July 1, 2001.

Members were encouraged to prepare draft provisions for the Department's consideration before the February meeting, and to otherwise communicate their perspectives both with the Department and among each other.

The facilitators asked if there were any nominations for additional organizations to be added to the Committee. A request was made to add an additional group to the Committee, the Coalition of Higher Education Assistance Organizations (COHEAO). The facilitators then asked the Committee to identify concerns or criteria for making its decision. The one criterion proposed was that, given the large size of the Committee, any new groups should add value to the mix of organizations already present. A COHEAO representative and Committee members discussed what new or different perspectives COHEAO could bring to the process. After the discussion, the question was called and the Committee members were asked if any objected to COHEAO being added. One Committee member dissented citing the large size of the Committee and the perceived imbalance between institutions and student advocacy organizations. As such, COHEAO was not added to the Committee.

The discussion then focused on Subcommittees. Unlike the other three negotiating Committees, Committee IV had two Subcommittees proposed as part of its protocols: one to deal with issues of accreditation and the other with campus crime reporting. While the Committee concurred with the need for the former, they questioned the need for the latter because of universal interest of Committee members in campus crime reporting issues. Rather than forming a Subcommittee, the Committee decided to keep those issues before the entire Committee.

The Accreditation Subcommittee met twice: first at 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, February 4, and then again at 8:00 a.m. on Friday, February 5. They reported progress back to the whole Committee on both occasions as they dealt with clarifying issues and membership. During discussions on provisions pertaining to Branches, the need for another Subcommittee was raised. The Committee gave this issue to the Accreditation Subcommittee for further consideration with the caveat that Legal Aid representatives be given the opportunity to help formulate recommendations.

During the discussion of campus crime reporting issues, another issue emerged for which the Committee created another Subcommittee. This group will deal with the issues of privileged information. The Privileged Information Subcommittee met on Friday, February 5 from 12:00 p.m. until about 2:00. They emerged with some draft recommendations that will be refined and then presented to the entire Committee at its next meeting.

The Committee completed its preliminary discussion of all the issues as well as the process of categorizing each of the provisions. As a result, the Committee decided that the next meeting could move into the negotiating phase of the process. However, it will spend the first day focused on the issues, and reports, of the two Subcommittees. The Department committed to preparing preliminary language for as many provisions as possible before the next meeting, asking that the Committee keep in mind the short time available before the next meeting and the accelerated schedule.

The next meeting of the full Committee will convene February 26, 1999 at 9:00 a.m., and adjourn on February 27, 1999 by 5:00 p.m. The Accreditation Subcommittee will meet from 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on February 25th, and may reconvene during the afternoon of February 26th. The meetings will again be held at the Doubletree Hotel Park Terrace.

The agenda for February 26th is to hear a report from the Accreditation Subcommittee and discuss accreditation and related issues from 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 noon. From 1:30 until 5:00 the Committee will receive a report from the Privileged Information Subcommittee and focus discussions on campus crime reporting.

On February 27th, the Committee will begin reviewing and discussing the negotiating text prepared by the Department, and exploring any other issues for which more information is needed at this stage of the drafting process.

[ Return to Information Related to the Four Negotiated Rulemaking Committees ]

	Printable view Share this page