Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governor Approval Ineligibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Negotiators debate governor approval, ineligibility triggers and path to reinstate programs under workforce Pell
Summary
Participants pressed the Department on how governors would approve programs, the 12‑month certification requirement, how and when programs lose eligibility, and how substantially similar programs might regain eligibility after a default or voluntary discontinuation.
WASHINGTON — A central flashpoint at the negotiated‑rulemaking session was how governors will approve workforce Pell programs, when a program becomes ineligible, and what steps an institution must take to regain eligibility.
Dave Musser of the Department of Education outlined a proposed governor certification process in new regulatory language (proposed §690.93). The text would require governors to document the state’s methodology for identifying high‑skill, high‑wage occupations, conduct that review at least once every two years, and provide a signed statement that the program meets state approval requirements and has done so for the 12 months immediately preceding certification.
Musser said governors may rely on other agencies to carry out parts of the review, but the regulatory text would reference only the governor; the Department plans to explain interagency roles in subregulatory guidance.
On ineligibility, the Department proposed three loss triggers: (1) a program becomes ineligible at the payment period following a governor’s withdrawal of approval; (2) a program becomes ineligible at the payment period after the Secretary determines the institution failed to meet completion and placement requirements; and (3) a program becomes ineligible at the beginning of the award year following the release of value‑added earnings data if it fails that test.
The draft would bar a ‘‘substantially similar’’ program from regaining eligibility until at least two years after the loss or voluntary discontinuation, unless the governor reapproves the program and the institution submits documentation — including an attestation that published tuition will remain at or below the applicable value‑added earnings measure and a request for a recalculation to apply to the next award year.
Several participants urged additional transparency and procedural protections. Preston (taxpayers constituency) urged requiring governors to publish approvals and to include clearer disclosure of the data used in approvals. Michael recommended that the Department account for governors’ internal appeal processes when timing Secretary action. State representatives and employers expressed concern that broad four‑digit SOC or ZIP aggregations could improperly exclude programs that serve local or cyclical labor markets and asked for narrower geographic or occupational granularity.
The Department said it would consider proposals overnight and reiterated a 07:30 a.m. deadline for written submissions to be considered in the next day’s drafting. No formal decisions were recorded; negotiators returned comments and proposals for further drafting.
