We're excited today to have, Kelly Watkins, who serves as the director of federal affairs for the governor's office, of federal funds and strategic initiatives. And do we have Tyler on as well, Kelly? Yes. Oh, sorry, Tyler. You're right there too. Apologies. And Tyler, Jackal, the chief, governor's office of federal funds and strategic initiatives. So we really appreciate an update. We've been obviously getting lots of questions and reading the paper and trying to track everything that's happening and know that this is a big part of your everyday life,
and are thrilled that you've joined us to be able to walk us through what's happening, what we need to be aware of, for in our role as CCHE commissioners and what's in front of our institutions here in Colorado. So who am I handing this over to? I would be happy to just start. Can you guys hear me okay? I was hearing that I was a little bit quiet previously. Now we can. Okay. Great. Hi, everybody. Nice to see you. We figured we would provide some various updates on a number of federal related federal related issues that have been coming up. Tyler's gonna talk a bit about,
some of the sort of legal updates, some of the litigation that we're party to. I figured I could provide some information about reconciliation that's happening. This just this past week, there was a number of committees that did their markups, and, one of the most sort of extensive ones, I guess, I would say, was within the educational workforce committee that I wanted to share some updates there and then can provide a little bit of information about some of the executive orders, that are that came out this week and one in or I guess one in particular really that that we understand is causing concern rightfully with universities.
And, and then we can open up to any questions, anything else that that you all would be helpful to you or, that you might wanna ask about. So I will just pass it over to Tyler now, so give us just a second because we're in the same room. So we have to juggle the the sound. So hang on one second. Well, thank you all. Very, happy to be here. I guess not very happy to talk about the the topics that we are, but, that's just, I guess, a part of our job at this point. And just to give you a little bit of background, so we as a state, I mean, especially, very much working through the attorney general's office, have been a party of many lawsuits now,
and they kind of fall into, I'd say, two larger buckets. And this really started off from day one, which day one was us really, getting an EO that says we were gonna cancel, large buckets of funds across, across the board and then getting a memo from OMB saying pretty much we're gonna pause all federal funds, to everywhere. And so that really started, litigation, around kind of what we call the federal freezes. And there's a main case that Colorado was a party to. It's called it's the State of Colorado v.
Trump, and it designates a lot of departments. And that one has really been, I think, what we call it, kind of the mothership of how we've been working on a lot of the pauses or things that appear to be pauses moving forward. So that really started with a preliminary injunction that says, no, you cannot pause, based upon this memo, and really has, built out in different ways with a working relationship with with DOJ to say, hey. What you're calling a termination or what you're calling a manual review of grants right
now is really just a pause in another name. So that's where, things related to everything from dollars, for FEMA reimbursement have been, kind of continuing to be litigated overall as a part of it. With that being said, it continues to build in different directions. So I think I say that because that's a kind of across the board type litigation that has been occurring. There's been different elements that have come up on the state side as well as the institutes of higher education. And, the state of Colorado has been a party and working,
I know, with a lot of the institutes of higher education, not necessarily as much the governor's office because, it's been more of a direct relationship of the AG's office with, both either the national associations or the institutes themselves, as a part of it. And that's everything from, kind of grant terminations that are directly, being seen at some of the universities and colleges as well as, kind of, I would say, not well rationed or reasoned, changes to indirect cost rates that are being trying to implement it by a couple
departments, everything from Department of Defense, to, kind of NIH grants. And those are being both litigated with the state of Colorado and a lot of the national associations that are occurring. But where we step in quite a bit is especially when, specific grants have been terminated, so that's where we are working extensively with, the Attorney General's Office to see what, remedies are available and how we can work on the back end, in different ways. I mean, I think as probably all of you know,
federal funds play a critical role at universities, institutes of higher education of all kinds, and, play a huge role across the state. So, to just be able to backfill that would be something beyond our current budget abilities. So we are currently working as much as we can to figure out ways to maintain those programs going and, challenge where the facts and the situations make sense. So, I give you those to highlight. I mean, we can always try and provide you with resources on, an overview of all the different specific,
litigation that's out there because, as you get these executive orders coming out, Colorado will be a party to many kind of challenges to it, or we may be a beneficiary of others bringing challenges. So one, just to highlight, is, there was an EO that says you cannot, in many different forms, do, DEI activities. Well, that went to court in in, to the city of Baltimore bringing that, so it was a a national injunction that was placed upon different elements of that, which is where we see lots of language coming out that says,
kind of you can limit, DEI activities that are currently illegal, when it comes to the anti discrimination laws that exist on the books, which is different from what the EO says. So that's why we follow and track those types of litigation as well because they do affect us in bidding. And I'm I I don't have the latest count, but, I mean, as of the last couple weeks, I mean, we were we were, I think, over 200 lawsuits against the administration. And just to put that in perspectives, you were barely in double digits, for the last administration and,
even the Obama administration before that. So it is a time where you're seeing a lot of challenges and a lot of kind of expansion of powers, that are kind of coming together in different points of that. So So that's, I think, just the broader landscape. I mean, I think we'd probably spend your whole time today, going through all of the different litigations, so we can probably, provide you with that, information differently. Yep. Hi, Lou. That'd be great if you have that in some kinda, you know, format, Word doc, Excel. She if you could send that to all the commissioners,
that would be, greatly appreciated. And I think you probably hear me through, Kelly's computer. Well, we probably won't share the internal pieces we have, but we'll share there's a lot of public tracking that goes on it, and they're actually much better because you can sort it by issues and, the different parts. So we can share that. That'd be great. Thank you. Great. And I just thank you, Tyler. I I also just wanna highlight that, you know, the AG's office, I believe earlier this week was the hundredth day of the of the Trump presidency. And on the same day, the AG office,
announced that they were filing their fifteenth lawsuit. And so we are the governor's office and all of our executive branch agencies work extensively with the AGO to both sort of prepare for and bolster, as well as sort of identify opportunities for litigation. So any of these like, we're working very, very closely, with the AG's team on all of that. And one thing I'll just mention, sorry, just to make it less complicated, is, the AG's office, just so you have it, a lot of it is internal guidance, but they actually did public guidance related to DEI, that, we'll we can share a link on that,
can be shared a little bit widely. Really talking through the state of the law on that issue and, giving recommendations, not just to institutes of higher education or others, but to kind of businesses writ large. So as those come up, those will be helpful as well from there. Great. Alright. Moving on a bit. And I will just, sort of lay the groundwork here around sort of the the budget and, EO stuff that I'm gonna share. You know, I assume that you all are tracking these things closely, and so I'm probably gonna be restating things that a lot of you already know.
But just figured that, you know, in the in the interest of, sharing what we're tracking on, you know, some of these federal congressional pieces as well as what the the Trump administration is doing, just that I would sort of go over kind of what we're seeing. So, in terms of reconciliation, the, house committees, a number of them met this week, right after their two week recess. And so, there's a lot more, information here than I will sort of dig into, but in particular, the Education and Workforce Committee did meet, and they proposed a number of changes sorry, the the House Education and Workforce did meet.
They proposed a number of changes, with sort of broad themes, I would say, of reducing flexibility of a number of the student federal loan programs and increasing the likelihood and amount of for which that the federal government is going to be paid back. And so among those changes, are some things like student loan borrowing, capping what students are able to take out, eliminating subsidized loans, making some additional changes, including reducing eligibility for the general Pell grants, eliminating some of the Biden era programs like save plan, pay as you earn plan,
grad plus loan plan, as well as sort of adding additional restrictions around the Parent PLUS loan program. So just a number of different things in terms of, like, options and availabilities for students, around federal loans. But another piece that would be of particular interest to the institutions of higher education is that it they're proposing to institute some debt slash risk sharing, by institutions for these, student loans so that the IHEs would have to reimburse the government for a share of their students' unpaid federal loans and penalize them for students' late or missed payments.
And so, obviously, that's something that, you know, would be a potential large burden and and risk for the universities, and so, can provide some additional information there afterwards amongst the sort of packet of things that we would look to send over. But, that's something that we're certainly gonna be watching as it potentially moves through the process. The status of these changes, essentially, the the committees are reporting out their sections of, what their the the budget reconciliation resolution set out instructions for different committees about levels of cuts or spending increases that they were supposed to achieve.
And then now they're reporting out the policies that would that they're proposing to to correspond to those levels of cuts or spending increases. And so all of that will end up getting packaged into, you know, a bill that then is considered by the full house then going over to the senate, and potential sort of back and forth as they discuss changes. And so there's still a ways to go, but, the house is generally still trying to, they've announced that their intent is to get a the full reconciliation bill out of the house by Memorial Day,
which would then go over to the senate and start to be considered there for potential changes. And so we're starting to see some indications that that, you know, that that timeline may not be exactly what how things pan out. The, Energy and Commerce Committee, for example, was expected to meet next week, but is getting pushed pushed out another week now, as well as the ways and means committee, which handles tax cuts. So, to be determined, they have continued to sort of move things forward, but, we'll we'll see how that actual timeline plays out and then what happens, you know, both on the floor and in the negotiations in the negotiations with the senate.
So I will leave that piece there. And then lastly, just wanted to flag in particular, there was an executive order there this week that specifically referenced a program, that would be relevant to you all. So the the EO was called Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens. And one of the things that it highlights is that, the DOJ is directed to identify and stop programs, or enforcement of state and local laws, regulations, policies, and practices that, favor, immigrants over any group of American citizens that are unlawful.
And so and it points specifically specifically to state laws that provide in state higher education tuition for undocumented immigrants or or, I'm sorry, for immigrants in general, just basically noncitizens. And so, you know, our asset program here in the state is one that has had bipartisan support, in the past and, you know, is part of our general commitment to Colorado for all. So we are taking a look at it. I don't have anything in particular to report at this point. But at this point, you know, the asset program is in state law, and, and so we're gonna be sort of looking closely at what the possible impact of the CO could be.
So I will wrap up my my piece there and just sort of broadly open it up to any questions that you all have or things that, that are, you know, that you would like to make sure that we're aware of as we're keeping tabs on these different, federal impacts and figuring out how we can try to respond. If you don't, and I'm going to start and then commissioners please raise your hands and I'll try and help facilitate with those who and advisors and anyone who has questions please feel free to chime in. The first question I have, Kelly, is you you talked about, possible changes to Pell eligibility definitions.
I'm wondering if you have any details about what those are? Sure. And I I will just say a lot of this information is from what was sort of put out prior to the committee hearing. So if there were some tweaks that were made in the language prior to, them actually reporting that out, that won't necessarily be captured here and would happy be happy to follow-up with the actual text. But some of the pieces that that we saw in the proposal were that students would have to take at least seven seven and a half credits to qualify for a Pell grant, which could be impactful in particular for community college students, as well as fifteen credit hours a semester to max out their Pell,
which is currently at 12 credits a semester. And so this could certainly, have impacts on limiting the eligibility for current Or part time students. Students that otherwise, would be currently eligible. Another thing I will just flag is that they're, making some proposals around workforce Pell. It would expand eligibility for Pell Grants, starting next summer, so not this summer, but a year from now, to students that are enrolled in short term, high quality workforce aligned programs. And and it would allow for non title four providers to use the program as well. And so, there's, you know, I think the devil will be in details of how of what that might mean,
but but just sort of flagging that on the one hand, they're making some changes to, you know, traditional Pell over here, but then they're also making some potential expansions in the workforce piece. We'll shift for a minute. I have more questions, but I'll go. Commissioner Tucker? Yeah. I'm just, excuse me, Kelly. I'm just following up on the, one of the last things you mentioned about, institutions potentially having to take on some, debt and potential risk from students. Do you have any more information on that? Is that if the student doesn't complete, their program, or does it have anything to do with completion,
matriculation, things like that through the program that the institution would take on that risk? I would say first and foremost that this is a pretty complex area, and so I'd wanna make sure I don't, you know, get something wrong. I'm happy to provide the text, which would provide some more details. But, there's it basically, the the sort of summary pieces that I have about this were that it would, create risk sharing provisions by a complex formula that's applied to each program offered by a title four eligible institution, to determine whether funds needed to be repaid and then consider the earnings of program
completers compared to program costs. Factoring in, yeah, it's just a pretty complex formula for how they're trying to calculate what that might mean. But it it does seem that they are looking to create penalties to schools for late or missed payments that could ultimately, depending on sort of the extent of it, culminate in a college losing access to the federal student loan program altogether. And so it it does seem based on sort of our initial read here, like, it's more targeted at later missed payments, but with potentially sort of large consequences, especially as they are reducing,
you know, some of the flexibilities around this program. So, again, I'm happy to follow-up with some more details, but that's sort of the gist of what we're seeing at this point. So consequences for institutions if students don't pay. Yes. Which could change who they enroll. Right. Yep. And also, potentially, how funding would work because I I could see institutions taking on the potential loan side of things, you know. I don't know. You can't make someone pay. Well whether they complete the program or not. And students have unpaid library clients still.
So, you know, how do you how do you how does the institution follow-up on that? Yep. I mean, I I think broadly, sort of, you know, it's being tied to how are we saving the federal government money. And so they're looking for additional ways to get other entities on the hook for if students are struggling to repay or just failing to. Other commissioners have a question or can I jump in again? I don't see another hand raised. I I guess I have a question. Tyler, you kind of mentioned it before about the governor's role, and the governor's office role,
and that a lot of institutions are working directly with the HE. I guess what I'm wondering, and I know we have advisor Angh Naradhan who works for CDE and see a lot of different types of communications coming from the Department of Ed. And I know it's because it's not a part of a governor's agency. But I'm just wondering, like, are all institutions getting similar, like, communications about even the things like the dear colleague letter changes, DEI practice, any of that? Are they getting communication? Is that from the AG's office or is it that they're searching it out on
their own? Just knowing we have institutions of different size with different capacity, just wondering how they're getting information even of the things that are currently being litigated. Let me pass it over to you. Okay. Hang on one second. Well, I think, one, I I think I'm also hearing a need. I think one is, just kind of more, being able to provide this information across the board. I think when it comes to, kind of where we've been for the last couple months, we've really started with, this being pushed on us and needing to examine kinda how to deal with those situations. And so I know Department of Ed,
and some of those has has been able to do that with some of their districts when it's been some critical ask coming down from DOE on different ends on that area. I do think it's something, that, we could probably provide more on. I think we're we're kind of getting past this phase of, kind of the what is going on, and how can we examine the legal parameters of what is possible to now knowing a little bit of what those look like and being able to assist where it's needed and and not as your to your point,
not all institutions are gonna need it in the same different way. And so how do we provide that? So also more than willing to try and figure out ways that we can communicate and make sure people are aware, when it comes to some of the more kind of critical, here is your legal advice. I think what we, from a governor's office, will have to be careful there. But from a knowing what's going on and knowing what, the state is continuing to do, I think that's an area where we can provide more proactive, kind of communication. Commissioner Marker?
Thank you. And apologies because I'm not 100% sure how even to ask this question. But in Monday's executive order that threatened, in state tuition for students that do not have documentation, What are you seeing are the immediate implications for that? Like, is funding frozen? Are people ineligible for in state tuition when the fall semester or their next semester bill is due? Like, how is this affecting, like, the tomorrow and then to the extent you have any visibility into anything beyond tomorrow?
Would love your thoughts. Yeah. And I guess, and Tyler will have thoughts on this as well. But, you know, we have some traps that we need to run to discuss this with AG's office, etcetera. So can't sort of provide, like, super definitive guidance right here on this call. But broadly speaking, you know, like, it it takes some time to review the impact of these decisions. This is not the same as, like, a federal grant that is now frozen, for example, that that we run into issues where they control, you know, dollars coming out of the treasury and and can just turn off a funding stream.
This is, a state level program that may be impacted by this, federal executive order, but, we just encourage that while we're doing, you know, some legal analysis and just looking at the state program that we have, and possible impacts from the EO that people not sort of rush to make initial, you know, not jump to conclusions about what the future of this program may be or changes that that may be coming. It's it's sort of too early at this point to determine what the impact of the EO might be and how the state might might respond. And so at this point, you know, we're still in status quo and,
just sort of stay tuned for additional details there. But just, you know, be cautious in sort of jumping to assumptions about what how how it might damage a program. I'll pass it over to you. And I guess sorry. That that's why we had to be careful on different parts. EOs are not law, so I just wanna be very clear on that. Where they have the effect is where they're interpreting law or working within the law as a part of it. And so this one, as you read them, they will always say as allowable under law. And we are seeing on the immigration side,
this is not completely new. I mean, I think they identified sanctuary cities in in the first day, and how they went about it is they did bring, a couple lawsuits, one against, the city of Chicago as a part of it. So none of this is self actuating in different ways, so we don't know exactly what next steps would be. I mean, they provide in the EO that they will challenge state laws to the degree that they, believe it is in violation of an existing law. So at this time, there's nothing to say that our law is actually in violation of any kind of
federal statute to those degree, so that's something we'll continue to examine and look at. But, these EOs in particular, while some of it is new in the details, is not new in what they have, foreshadowed for different parts of it. And it's setting up action in the future, whether it be, the DOJ releasing further reports or taking different action, but it does not mean that, they have just invalidated anything, that exists in our state. Thank you. Appreciate that. Given that we have seen federal investigations of institutions,
around some DEI programs and others, is there and why no Colorado institution is on that list as of yet? Wondering has there been community or institution community conversations with the department or anything about how they're changing any practices around application enrollment, any any changes in their behavior that is coming to the department that we know of? That's probably more for departments to help them or Tyler, if you know. I mean, yeah, I I think I would I would defer to our department staff on communications to
that. I mean, I think from within the state, I mean, that's something that we're continuing to analyze and I think if you look at kind of the, especially AG's guidance that was made public, that's also helping to shape how, we we want to make sure that, collectively across the state we're taking action. But I'll defer to our colleagues on specific department. Thanks, Tyler. Yeah. I can share that, you know, Angie is staying in close contact with the CEOs as they face some of these. UCCS did actually have, one of these.
They were on a list about, one of their doctoral programs and a particular partnership they had which was a focus of expanding the number of people of color that go into the PhD program. Oh, that's great. Yeah. And so, we have seen instances of it and I know that, like, Angie has been in contact and some of this is it continues to evolve, right, because those were based on actions that have now been, an injunction has been put in place in court and so it is it is just a fluid situation but I do know that Angie is staying in close contact
with the CEOs around some of those types of things. We are not providing guidance on what they should do with their admissions but rather serving as a resource on what type of support or assistance they might need as they are weighing their options, you know as independent institutions or independent systems. And then one other one about the accreditation EO that went through that can be changed. My understanding is through regulation and not law. Is that correct? Is there any conversation about how would that change anything in Colorado with our institutions if there were to be new accreditors listed or new colleges or universities that might
be interested in doing work in Colorado? Yeah, I mean absolutely. I mean if there are additional accreditors that are recognized then that opens up those opportunities for other institutions. You know a great example of this was, in the early 2010s the accrediting body that recognized all of the area technical colleges lost their recognition from the US Department of Education and in light of that a couple of different accrediting bodies came in, to fill that void because state accreditation was insufficient in order for area technical college
students to receive title four aid and so things like that have happened historically. This is obviously different, because, you know, that particular EO, calls out once again some things regarding DEI and the things that, institutions, you know, if you listen to what the accrediting bodies have said, institutions are the ones that have really pushed and asked for those to be in assurances and so that's where some of the disconnect is, but the process in terms of having other accrediting bodies be recognized is not something that is abnormal. It doesn't happen often,
but there is precedent for that occurring in the past. Mister Tucker? Yeah. So, Tyler, you mentioned at the the start that there were there are programs that, are funded federally. And right now, some of that that money may be on hold or or in various states. I guess, how how is the state prioritizing those programs? Because you're saying right now they're running, but at some point, you know, the money is cut off long enough, it will start to be impacted. So I guess, how are those being prioritized? I guess there's a a couple of things that I'm hearing in your question.
So I think there's prioritization in how we bring litigation. And so I think it's kind of the means by which it can be done. One is, what we saw from the beginning were kind of categorical freezes. So, like, literally, we are just not gonna reimburse you for anything that's going on. What I think has evolved over the last couple months has been more, targeted grant, terminations. And so that is kind of how we're trying to address, kind of where the legal circumstances and the legal arguments,
around, kind of challenging the terminations, are kind of most ripe and most appropriate. So I think when it comes to how do we look at I think a larger question that you're looking at is if those funds, if we're not successful in bringing able to get funds from, the federal government down, how do we look at that? And I think that's an ongoing, more difficult conversation, especially given that, right now, as as you probably all know, having on seen the budget process that we went through, we don't have, a surplus of dollars to bring to the table.
And so that's something we'll have to continue to evaluate, especially as kind of the update that Kelly gave, and sorry to be the bad news bears here, but, essentially, if we're seeing deeper cuts to programs like Medicaid or SNAP, that we'll have to consider overall as a part of it. So to that, I don't have a particular way to say these are the programs that can or or will be prioritized. I think it's one of those that right now we're looking at, how do we, kind of challenge actions that I think we believe to be,
not proper, both in how they were done nor, in line with statutory intent as passed through Congress. Thank you. Commissioners, advisors, any more questions? Okay. Kelly, Tyler, thank you so much for joining us today. It was very helpful. Appreciate the resources that you've shared in chat, as well. Helpful to have those documents to be able to help track things. Appreciate all the work you're doing. Thanks for being here today. Thank you. Thank you all, and please don't hesitate to let us know if you're hearing something and ways that we can engage. I can't promise that we can be everywhere,
but we wanna do as much as we can to, protect our state as as much as possible. And, Jen, I'll follow-up with you with a copy of these resources as well so you can distribute them by email. I appreciate that, Kelly. Thank you so much. Thanks all. Bye. Thanks all. Okay. We have one other well, actually, there's two other quick things that I wanted to talk about before we move to our break and before commission meeting. First is when we, approved our calendar for meetings for, the full year. We we did something a little different.
Remember, we added meetings for every single month knowing that we were doing work on the formula review work, things like that. I do wanna just state though that we traditionally have not done a meeting in August following our retreat because the retreat is a several day lift and we have taken the month of August off. And I wanted to, see if commissioners were going to be open to removing August from our calendar. We will have to do it at actually a vote at the meeting, since it was a publicly voted on,
thing. But I just wanted to see, are folks comfortable with that? Does anyone have a concern about, taking August off? I don't have any concern, and you're welcome to put it on the consent agenda. Perfect. I will make that motion. And do I need a motion to put it on the consent agenda? Which is what we will do. So, just a point of clarification on that. So, we're talking about the commission meeting, not not our various subcommittees and things like that? Correct. It's up to you all if you would like to cancel yours. I'm assuming if we're not meeting that month, you would like that break as well.
I'm not sure if you all have meetings in August currently scheduled, but it's the commission meeting. We don't actually vote on FPA or SSWA dates. Yeah. No. That's fine. And right now, we're only it looks through June on the funding formula, so we'll have to discuss dates to that as well. But, yeah, I have no problem with the commission meeting in August. Okay. Perfect. Next I wanted to talk to you a little bit about the retreat, and also our June meeting. You know, per statute, it actually says that the Commission should be having conversations with institution leaders.
We do that kind of sporadically sometimes through the retreats, and different meetings. But I wanted to, in line a lot with our our both our, formula working group meetings, also the implications of what's happening federally. Thought it would be a good time to check-in with our institution leads, leaders and see if they would be willing to come in front of the commission. So we did an invitation to them, and we we originally asked them to pick from three dates including this one. This is end of school year difficult time to get on people's calendars. But we have several institution leaders who would like to join us in June.
So I will be doing that, putting that on the agenda for June. We think it should be part of the regular meeting, and fully publicized. And it will be an in person meeting for those who can join in person. But if still the opportunity to join remotely, I think that it's it will be four or five institution leaders who will be with us in June. So that will be the bulk of our June meeting, is that discussion. And then there's five or six who picked, our retreat date, and will be joining us there, either in person or remotely. And our hope is that we can we can actually get all of the institution
leaders, at some point in our calendar, this year to come in front of us and talk to us about what's happening on our campuses, their strategic visions, and also what we can be doing as a commission to support their work. So just wanted to put that on your radar. And then wanted to ask, if you we had talked about, you know, we'd like to to visit institutions that are that are sometimes not in our Denver Metro Area or our front range location for our retreat. And so we I would like to have a conversation with you all about doing
that at out of state, for our July retreat. And so wanted your thoughts about that. Commissioner Harbor, did you have a question? Can't hear you. First of all, I love your idea of a commission bus tour of the state outside of the metro area. I'm all for that, by the way. No, that's great. And I love hearing that you've invited the, you know, the CEOs or the leaders, presidents, whatever. I thought on our discussion on the federal side, and I'll just make a couple quick comments. I thought you were going to have the, you know,
our guests, and then we would have some kind of general discussion. So I missed that. I didn't realize we would jump into other stuff. But, I would be really interested, to hear from the leaders of our institutions of higher education, number one, about what's going on, how it's impacting their campuses, their budgeting, admissions, and maybe most importantly, I think it would be great if we could ask them, what would you like the commission to consider doing? Yeah. I think that is that is the goal of having them come in front of
us. So it is is understanding what's happening currently, what they need from us, what we can do to be helpful, and then also about all of our other work. Yes. So, yeah. So, I just I'm really glad to hear that you invited everybody. And I mean, obviously, this is moving so quickly that things could be dramatically different in July. Well, thank you. No, that's great, Jen. I mean, Madam Chair. That's fine. We're on work session. Jen's great. Is are there any other concerns about doing it in out of state? Any other questions about the approach of bringing,
our institution leaders, together with us? I am all for out of state and bringing our institution leaders. I would just appeal that we have a true diversity of those institutions instead of the usual mega suspects and get geographic and ideological diversity of perspective for that conversation. Yeah. And and we really want really want them all to come. And so it it isn't just invitations to top three, big three, all of those things. Yes. Completely agree. Is there anything I would love Doctor.
Johnson? Yeah. I was just gonna add, about what Barrick was just sharing. We, some calendars are proving a little challenging for the CEOs and so we may be at the mercy of their, summer plans a little bit. So I just wanted to share that we're trying to get representation and be as flexible as possible, but some of it is a little bit tricky with calendars. And we might have some that need to join us in September. So, it it's going to be a kind of an evolving process that we eventually want to have conversations with all of them. Yes. I would love if we can have, you know,
a fifteen minute brainstorm conversation about other things you want to make sure that we're covering at the retreat as we're doing that planning. We obviously know that there will be a large portion, that we would like to Commissioner Tucker and I have an opportunity to to bring all of the commission up to speed on all the conversations we've had regarding formula review, in July, and kind of where we are. So there will be a portion specifically to that, and then the conversations with some institution leaders. But wondering, are there other, large topics that you wanna have?
Maybe it's the continuation, commissioner Harper, of the federal implications, what we've heard, and what our role should be. Commissioner Abramson, what were you gonna add? I would love if we can read in some conversation on the economic development front, and hear from whether it's director Lieberman or others and some of what's going on with Quantum, and some of the big areas of focus from the administration where we're seeing growth that we may wanna have conversations about backwards mapping into career paths. Yeah. Great. Mister Walker Harvey? Yeah. I have two ideas. Yeah.
One, after my conversation with Michael, like, how we're using the MBT data, I think that could be a really interesting discussion. And then this one might be a little more controversial, but I think just in light of kind of everything that's been happening recently, I guess, like, the overall, like, role and purpose of the commission and, like, how we are working with the department and, like, how you know, there's so many amazing people on the commission. So, like, how are we utilizing that in the way that's the most useful?
It's great. I'm sorry. I'm taking notes and not looking up. Commissioner Tucker. Or why why don't you guys just all come off mute and then chime in? I'm taking notes. I I don't know if I mentioned this before, but, something where we talk about the, resiliency in the education system. So how can programs do more combined programs and think partnership programs and things like that. And then also, integrating in the the private entities, so the not the the workforce, I mean, we call it that, but again, looking for potential alternative sources of funding and things like that that might be needed
to support higher education, in an environment where there's not a lot of federal funding. Commissioner Hardwick, Commissioner Costenbauer. I'll defer to, Commissioner Costenbauer. Thank you. I'm really interested in hearing how the placement rate's going and and how the institutions are in if they're being impacted, and if employers are still showing up or if they're different. I and also if there's any any innovative programs. Like, I visited CSU a while back, and they have a new dean of liberal arts who's, they're instituting a really interesting employer program.
So I'd I'd be interested in that. And then any deep dive, I'd really like to hear from some directors of diversity programs and really hear from them versus just the president, about what's going on, what their thinking is, and even some students if they're available. Yep. I'll just wrap around, Jen. I know we have the, the Colorado trustee network, but potentially maybe hearing from some of the trustees, you know, and how they're they're seeing things, you know, from their their their vantage points. So, Jen,
in that vein, and again, emphasizing, I think, what Cassandra was saying, it would really be great to, when you look at how much time you allocate to the CEOs, especially if they're multiple, I would encourage you to really be generous with how much time you allocate to them so that we can really hear from them. I think this whole concept that you have is really critical and something we really haven't done, which is we're kind of they're kind of like our clients in a certain respect. I mean, we're here to a certain extent to serve them,
to help them. It'd be interesting to know, you know, what are we doing that helps them? It'd be interesting to know what are we doing that doesn't help them? But most of all, I'd be most interested in hearing their thoughts about where we could provide leadership. And they may have expectations that are unreasonable, they may have expectations that are very reasonable, and they may have, you know, be interesting as we talk over time to them to see if there's some key themes where, you know, they feel we could really make a difference.
And one last point is I always saw the commission as kind of a coordinating entity, you know, because, you know, we are covering the state. I know that the idea of coordinating several 100 institutions of higher education is like herding cats. But it seems like that's a role we could do a much better job of, if we wanted to provide that kind of leadership. So, I'm really eager to hear what they have to say and what commissioners have to say. And per Teresa's comment and Eric's,
you know, bringing in you know, maybe bringing in other people as well. So anyway, I'm looking forward to, you know, this kind of new effort that you're making. Others. One other thing, if if there's input, I know that we have been trying to be intentional too about, our work session time together. And I I will be giving an update when when you mentioned commissioner Harbor, the CTN work. There was a very interesting compelling conversation with CTN in April. Commissioner Costenbauer and I were both on the call that was specifically about examining ROI
and workforce alignment and some of, you know, raising the, delivering value in higher education. And there were two presentations as part of that, that I thought were really helpful. One was from the Lumina Foundation and one was from Julie Stone at Gary Community Ventures. I would like to ask Julie possibly to come to our, meeting in June for the work session and saying because we know that we want to do institution leaders as part of the regular meeting. And just didn't know if if folks were comfortable with that. Commissioner Costanbaert, I know you've heard the presentation once,
but I thought it was a valuable perspective and a different view than I had seen things done in the past. Are there are folks comfortable with that? Are there other people that we should include in that, in June? Got it. Saw a couple thumbs up. Other thoughts? Yeah. It was great. It was great. And I I think if we can allow enough time to talk with her and ask questions and really maybe start forming some things versus, you know, just think about it and go away. But what does it mean for us as a commission? Okay. I I it was very insightful.
Okay. Eric? Yeah. Jen, I was just I echo Teresa's comment. I would hope that we can spend the bulk of the time on the conversation. I don't mean to sound like the grumpy old man, but if we can get presentations in advance, I had the chance to view those. They're thick. There there's a lot of really great info. I would hate for us to spend twenty five minutes being presented to and have five minutes for conversation. Right. So if there's any preread, I I would plead with my colleagues to to do that so the time when we're together with them in June could be a a a meaningful discussion with them.
Yeah. And I really was just going to invite Julie and not Lumina. I feel bad. The Lumina presentation was great, but it it's not all Colorado context. And so I was thinking of really just inviting Julie and having a conversation with her presentation. And then seeing that we have that valuable time to have a conversation together, I think, would be really helpful. You might consider testing, that principle in our main meetings. I mean, we get some great presentations, and a lot of the time is spent having people read those presentations verbatim to
us. And then we have a very limited amount of time. And I think, you know, Barrick's point, which he's kind of, you know, twisting the knife a little bit and he's totally justified, is, Hey, if you're a commissioner, the least you can do is read the materials that are sent to you in advance and be prepared to discuss them. And, you know, if we do that, you would open up a tremendous amount of time, for give and take and to question the presenters as opposed to the often limited amount of time we have. So maybe that's something, you know, you could, you know, try out, Jen, and Yeah,
absolutely. See both groups. Great. We'll go with the flipped classroom for the screen. There we go. Okay. Anything else about either our June meeting or our retreat that you want to weigh in on now? Please don't feel like this is the end of your opportunity. If you get a great idea about what we should be doing together at the retreat, please let me know. And we will, be working on that agenda and make sure that it is out to people well in advance, and so we can prepare for that. Commissioner Tucker, did you have a question? Yeah. Are the dates the same for the the retreat,
the ninth through the July 11? Okay. Perfect. With an expectation of that first day being just a like, not just, but, like, starting at dinner time and then the final day going lunch ish, is that, like, the general time frame? Yeah. That's been pretty traditional. Doctor Johnson, what were you gonna say? I was just gonna add in that, if if there's interest, we could do a couple of years ago, as folks were traveling out to Grand Junction, we coordinated a stop at C and C. So we could do something similar if people were interested as you're traveling down to
maybe see, you know, Trinidad, State Junior College, or something like that. So that's always an option. It would just be you all letting us know if there's interest in that, and we could build it into, the travel time. Build it. And I'm sorry if I missed this. Is that the location for the retreat, Ground Junction? I'm sorry. That was two years ago. I apologize. We're looking at Adam State. Oh, great. So, Jen, one other thing in terms of that schedule. If you have CEOs that could only meet on Wednesday, I don't think it would be a burden to commissioners to show up a couple hours earlier.
And And stop. To interact with them, as opposed to a stop. Yep. That's a great point. Doctor Johnson? Just gonna share that we offered to them on July 10, but we could extend that, obviously, to the CEOs if you also choose. If you wanted to offer the tenth, the ninth with a different timing or the eleventh, you will just let us know what you prefer, and we can extend that further to the CEOs. That'd be great. Give them give them as much flexibility as we can. Okay. Any other questions for work session? If not, we will have you turn off your cameras.
Please stay online, and we will see you back here at 01:00. Thank you. Be be aware of all of your precious time on this Friday morning or afternoon. This afternoon. I'd like to welcome everyone to today's May CCHE business meeting. Before we get started with today's agenda, we have a few housekeeping measures. I'd like to ask Erin to review the protocols for the meeting before we get started. This is a virtual meeting, so here's a reminder of the protocols. If you are not a commissioner, adviser, or presenter, please stop your video. This makes it easier for the public and commissioners to see and hear members of
the commission and its advisers. To maintain order and decorum, we will ask that members of the public please request via the chat if they'd like to address the Commission. Please wait until the chair calls on you to speak at the specified time during the meeting. As is usual during the Commission meeting, commissioners, advisors, and staff will be freely engaging in dialogue, and we ask that members of the public wait to be called upon before speaking. Thank you. Erin, do you mind taking attendance, please? Hey. Chair Walmart? Here. K. Vice chair Gonzales is excused. Commissioner Abramson?
Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Barkin? She's here. She's here. She's not quite on screen yet, but I will text her. Got it. Commissioner Harper? Here. Commissioner Hughes. Here. Commissioner Costenbauer. Here. Commissioner Tim Lou Odey. Commissioner Tucker? Here. Commissioner Walker Harvey? Yeah. And I'll be on camera in just a couple minutes. Got it. Commissioner Wilson is excused as is executive director Piccione. Senator Marchman. They're on the floor. I think all senators and reps will not be on today. K. Adviser Domingo. Adviser,
Vyfhaus, Zach? I'm here. Advisor Pickett May? Here. Advisor Leitner is excused. Advisor Zuperka? Here. And adviser Angard? Here. Thank you. Okay. Wonderful. We will move on now to the approval of the minutes for the 04/04/2025 commission meeting. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Moved by commissioner Harper. Is there a second? Second. Third. Wow. That was exciting. I I heard, commissioner Kostenbauer first. Are there any objections to the motion to approve the minutes? Seeing none, those are approved unanimously. Thank you. We will now move on to reports.
I want to thank everybody for the conversation, during the work session regarding the federal update. I did in between, our work session and the start of this meeting did have a conversation once again thanking the governor's team, for coming and joining us. We, talked briefly and we are working to, see what we can do to have that be a regular update, moving forward. We know that there is so much happening at the federal level, and want to figure out how to increase communications about these issues. So, we are working to see if we can get them for June, and then somewhat ongoing,
as we move forward. In the last month, I wanted to thank, doctor or adviser Pickett May. Thank you so much for including me in the Colorado faculty advisory council meeting. Had the opportunity to give a brief update on CCHE and our priorities, and then was able to stay on and hear the advisers updates, from their institutions. And apologies for my delay in getting right on, but it was great to be, with your group and appreciated the invitation. I also talked about it briefly during the work session, the CTN meeting on April 17,
with presentations from Chauncey Lennon of the Lumina Foundation and Julie Stone of Garrett Community Ventures. The conversation focused on ROI and delivering value in higher education. To Commissioner Costabara was also on, the meeting. And the presentation that, specifically from Julie Stone, we found very compelling. I did wanna let you know that I've already sent her an invitation to see if she can join us for the June work session. And so our hope is that all of you will be able to be, briefed on that conversation. I also just want to highlight for, the group that also in the work session we discussed,
we're moving the August 7 meeting from our calendar of scheduled TCHE meetings, given the numerous days that we'll be together in July for the retreat. So So when we do get to the consent agenda, we'd love a motion to to add that decision to remove that meeting to the consent calendar, before we approve that. And then later in the conversation, we'll all be giving some updates on the formula review working group. So we'll leave that for there. So seeing that we don't have our vice chair with us today, we'll move on to the commission standing committee meetings.
Commissioner Abrahamson, would you like to give us an update on SSWA? Sure. We have spent, really since October talking through different post secondary pathways. The committee has really been wanting to understand what's the full picture of every post secondary pathway. We recently had a a panel of some folks who have gone through some different apprenticeship programs, including the construction trades as well as education. We're wrapping those up. And then our next meeting or two, we'll be starting to lay out as we head into our retreat in July, the vision for the committee of how we want to, be a a an ally to raising the profile of all of those.
I think one of the biggest things we heard from earners and learners who participated in these other programs and pathways, was a lack of awareness. The biggest thing when we asked what they wish, they wish they had known more about them sooner. So we're gonna spend some time talking about what we can do to elevate the profile of all of those and to make sure they continue to be aligned with what's happening on the economic development and workforce development side. So we'll be running some things to the the retreat in July, and then picking things up from there. Wonderful. Commissioner Tucker, an update on FPA? Yeah. During the FPA,
session, we had a lot of items. We had a pretty full agenda this, particular go around, and a lot of that has, is showing up on the commission consent, agreement. So couple of great discussions on some cash funded items that, Kennedy well, that Kennedy has put a package for for our consent, voted for in the FDA. Interesting item was a discussion over the use of Western Colorado Western Colorado University acquisition transfer, and we found out after the meeting, which is why it's not here on the consent agenda, that we didn't have to do anything with it from a commission standpoint.
So, that was that was good. That good exploration by the, FPA team. We've got a couple items coming from, the foster ed and the power ed program. So looking forward to hearing about those. Well, again, those are consent, so we've already heard them. But we will hear about the reciprocity agreement. We we had some discussion on that, and there was just more work that needed to be done on that. And so that's why it's an action item today. And so with that, that's what we discussed at the last FDA. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Tucker. Any other commissioners have reports or updates they'd like to share with the commission?
Okay. I see none. Any advisers have any reports or updates they'd like to share? Advisor Pickett May. Hi. I just wanted to share that, I very much enjoyed being an adviser to the council, but, our commission, Wayne Artis from Pikes Peak State College will be taking over in July. So I just want to let you all know that. And he has been on the commission before, so he should bring a lot of good, background and information. Thank you. He certainly won't be as good as you've been, though. That's right. And adviser Pickup, you'll be with us in June, so we'll have an opportunity to fully thank you and say goodbye in June?
Okay. Any other advisers have updates? Okay. Seeing none. Doctor Johnson, would you like to give the department a report? Absolutely. Thank you so much, chair Womer. To start off, as many of you know, doctor Piccione is on bereavement leave due to the loss of her mother. She sends her sincere, thanks and gratitude to the commission for your condolences and the flowers that you sent to her. She's had a a really, a difficult week and is finding peace in this, next phase. So she wanted to make sure I pass that along to you all.
As was mentioned in the work session, we are working closely with the governor's office and the attorney general's office regarding federal action. We'll, you know, hopefully be having more information coming out soon, but this was a great step to have them come and talk with you. So, we are gonna continue to, work closely with them. Wanted to provide a couple of updates for the department. In early April, the Office of Educational Equity, was officially expanded and is now the Office of Educational Equity, Workforce, and Social Mobility. And this transformation reflected, our department's,
intentional focus on aligning educational equity with workforce readiness and social mobility to better serve Colorado learners. This is under the leadership of Doctor. Jillian McKnight Tutine, Doctor. G, who is our Chief Educational Officer. The division has now grown from a team of one to a unified team of five, bringing together staff that were previously in different divisions across the department whose portfolios really align with workforce and industry engagement and the expansion enhances our ability to,
build equitable pathways and strengthen the partnerships that exist, to increase opportunity and mobility for all Coloradans. And so the newly structured team is Doctor. G, leading the team, Fayette Aguillard, who is a special programs assistant special projects assistant, sorry, Beverly Jones, director of industry partnerships, Renee Welch, director of career connected learning and workforce development, and Ryan Gedney, who is the talent pipeline report analyst. So really excited about this expansion and being very intentional of embedding both equity and
workforce together. I would like to also share gratitude, for the department staff for their efforts this legislative session. End of the session and people have been doing a lot, between responding to fiscal notes requests, developing and revising policy items, stakeholding, engaging with legislators. It has required some long days and indeed into some long evenings in some instances for folks who are, have been at the Capitol to testify. And it's looking like it's going to be a very productive year for higher education.
I do want to have special recognition called to Rachel Fisher, our legislative liaison, for her tireless efforts at the Capitol. There has been substantial movement right at the end of session, and she has represented the needs of higher education in the state beautifully. And then finally, while we are wrapping up the legislative session, we are also starting the process of the policy development for the next legislative session and for the twenty six-twenty seven budget. And I want to share that it is looking to be a very tight budget
process for twenty six-twenty seven and that's under the current circumstances. Should reconciliation at the federal level occur, or a recession, it will be much more difficult. So we are turning our attention now as we finish this session to start planning for what might be in the, the coming year. So that is the department report. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any requests for comment, in the chat? I don't see any, Erin. There are none. Okay. Wonderful. Okay. We will now move on to discussion items. And so I would like to turn it over to Michael Vante,
to give us an SLDS update. Great. Thank you, Char Walmart. Commissioners, advisors, doctor Johnson, great to be with you all today. For the record, Michael Vante with the department. My pleasure to give you an update on some of the statewide longitudinal data system work that is ongoing, with, so many of our agency partners and also the Office of Information Technology. I do have a short presentation, again, just to kind of, help, with with some of the conversation. And as I sometimes like to do, I am gonna put some links in the chat there. Nothing that you haven't seen already, but just, again, to help guide, and and provide some perspectives on that.
So bear with me just a second. I'm going to do that, and, hopefully, you can see my screen. Alright. I am not able to see the chat. So if there is anything in the chat, please, stop me. I'm happy to entertain any of those questions. So, again, why don't you just provide an update of of the work, that has been going on so far. Again, under the leadership of the office of inform information technology, various agencies have been coming together to be able to discuss the development of the Colorado State Biodontextual data system or or SLTS. I know advisor On Guard and and others have been part of those conversations too.
So great thanks to everyone, who has contributed to to all of that work. Also, great thanks to all of the staff at OIT who have been, really, working hard, to be able to put all of this together and and move things along. So great thanks to all of them. I did wanna just provide, a little bit more information about some of the mission, vision, values that have been developed over the course, of the past several months, been approved by the governing board, of the SLDS, which is called out in statute, and then also the two advisory groups, the sustainability advisory group and the build and implementation advisory group.
All three of those entities, help in various ways to be able to move this work forward. I am our representative, the CDHE representative on all three of those, so I get the the pleasure of, being in all of those conversations. And so being able to really think about, the the work of those groups and funneling into this goal of of truly developing this, this SLDS. So, again, the vision really being able to have that high quality trusted integrated information, to confidently make data informed decisions for individuals and communities to thrive, and the mission really being focusing on the secure connection of data across agencies and
time to serve as a source of of of understandable information to support decision makers in in so much of what we're doing, especially along that education and workforce continuum. All of the SLDS meetings are open to the public and streamed online, so all of those are available, as well at the OIT website. So some of the values that have come up in a lot of the SLDS conversations is really wanting to be responsive to the needs of individuals and communities as we knit to get data together in well governed responsible ways and making sure that this work goes beyond just the infrastructure of knitting data together.
It really is grounded in these values of trust, privacy, community engagement, equity impact, and a growth mindset. Again, I won't read all of this verbatim, but, just being able to kind of let you all know that these are the values that that, the the members of the SLDS groups have have identified as what we want to bring to these conversations and and the work of the SLDS going forward in in a variety of different ways. Also, some operating principles that we, are are working on and and wanting to adhere to as all of this, comes together, timeliness, efficiency, innovation,
flexibility, and a user focus. So really being able to use these, again, operating principles as we think about the development of systems, the setting of policies, being able to help inform, how what all of that work means and looks like. I'll give a little bit of an update, in terms of the work that LIT has been doing thus far, really being able to identify use cases, for the SLDS. I'll get to that in in in just a second, and then also being able to, set up and and release an RFP process. So they've released an RFP process to help identify a vendor partner, to help develop the SLDS system.
That RFP process was open. I believe it is now closed, and they are reviewing responses. And so that work will continue over the coming weeks and months, to be able to identify which vendor will best meet all of those needs. I want to touch on some of the reporting requirements that are called out currently related to the SLDS. And so these were in, House Bill twenty four thirteen sixty four. And again, I have the statutes, the CRS citation there if you would like to kind of look at that specifically. And so OIT and the SLDS is directed that on April 5 currently that on
April 15, 2026 and each April 15 thereafter, submitting a report, to be able to identify, these different these key aspects of the education and workforce continuum. Really being able to look at the enrollment of high school graduates and what that looks like, in terms of the k 12 space into post secondary, programs and workforce readiness programs. What does it look like as they graduate high school, go into post secondary, be retained in post secondary, complete, and then also looking at those one,
five, and ten year wage outcomes. And so these are this is what's currently in statute related to the specific reporting requirements for the SLBS. You might notice that this mirrors, significantly or in significant ways to some of the reporting that CDHE currently does on the progress and success of recent high school graduates in Colorado and then also the ROI report in looking at, wage outcomes. In some ways, what this would do is kind of bring that work under the SLDS and link them together because currently, those are two separate reports,
different populations of of of individuals, whereas, theoretically, in this report, we will be following individuals through time and being able to to really see those outcomes and what that means and looks like for them. I'll also just talk on the use cases because I think this is also helpful. In addition to to the reporting requirements, again, the the entities, the governing boards, the the the governing board, the advisory groups have identified these use cases and really being able to lift up the impact of certain programs on all of those, momentum points within an individual's journey through k 12 into post secondary into workforce or
from k 12 directly to workforce. What does that mean and look like? And so being able to identify as many programs as we can to be able to say, how can the SLDS look at these programs and the data that are available to assess the impact of these programs on those those momentum points for an individual? Some of the the programs that we've identified thus far have been PTAC, registered apprenticeships, CTE, concurrent enrollment, cozy programs, early college, the core initiative, the ascent program, and also some of the WIOA related programs. This is certainly not an exhaustive list,
and and, additionally, some of these may, come and go depending on data availability. I think one of the things that we did is being able to cast a wide net of the different programs we would like to to, identify and be able to talk about. And then there's the conversation of what data are actually available at that programmatic level and the individual level to be able to weave that into the SLDS and tell that full story. So the advisory groups will continue to wrestle with that and be able to understand what data are available. And so being able to kind of, either build out or trim these these,
programs as we think about success in a program, completion of a program, the interaction of different programs together, and then, of course, equitable access to those programs. Michael, may I ask a question? Just to clarify a question. So the this language around use cases is really saying, what are we gonna start building the system to do? Correct? So, like, obviously, you need to start with the legislative reporting that's required. So that will be the first build. And then these use cases are these the four that you've identified here,
these ones that roll in over time to be able to expand the capacity of what the SLDS can report. Is that an accurate way to say it? I I appreciate that question. I think the goal, and I'm well, maybe also defer to some of my other colleagues who are in some of those SLDS conversations. I believe the goal is to be able to have these use cases be part of that phase one. So in some way, shape, or form, having at least some of this work and and this space be in that first report due in 2026. But you're correct. There are various phases to this work. Because as we think about SLDS as we think about the legislative reporting requirements,
we think about these use cases. We also think about ways to create, more analytic capacity or access for researchers or maybe some sort of secure data enclave within the SLDS for researchers researchers researchers to access. We also think about how do we maybe provide these rich insights and maybe even some of the the aggregate level data to an individual to help make specific decisions. So those are more phases two, three, four, five, as we think about, again, working with OIT to continue to build out that functionality.
But in terms of the reporting requirements and some of these use cases, I do feel like, it's it's it's our goal to have as much of those in phase one as possible. Wonderful. Commissioner Abramson, do you have a question? I well, one, I just wanted to flag Jess' comment in the chat, but, also, I wanted to see, Danielle, if we could pull you in on this since you've been doing so much work around this in the intersection of CDE and CDHE and the necessity to name these use cases to even have the legal right to access the data. Absolutely. Yep. And the the idea would be that anything that is included in these use cases
from the CDE perspective would be the same things that we are collecting and connecting for, our accountability system for the postsecondary workforce readiness indicator in that update, that's a part of house bill twenty five twelve seventy eight, as well as for, the post secondary workforce refinancing, that's happening through house bill twenty five three fifteen. And so though you see programs listed here, we've had a lot of conversation in the sustainability work group in particular about what those outcomes are that are attached to these programs, because, like, a program name could change or be modified or even,
like, with Ascent might not necessarily be around for the next one hundred years. But the idea of, like, students earning college credit while they're in high school, the idea of students, earning industry recognized credentials and participating in quality work based learning. Those things, are true throughout all of these as well as for the WIOA and title one items as well, because many of those are shared reporting outcomes. So I think with thinking about the outcomes, and then making sure we know what program it's associated with, but really it's those big three outcomes that are the most important part to then connect to what happens with those students later on.
Adviser Pickett May? Yeah. I just wanted to ask a question. I know this would be eventually, but, with something like the foster care or the other programs like that, would they be included as, I'm not sure, program you would be evaluating through this system? Yeah. Adviser, thank you very much for that. It it's a great question. And and, you know, as an example of some of the the conversations that we've had, you know, we did identify foster ed and empower ed as programs that we would love to be able to know the impact of in terms of all of these things. And, again, we had to kind of prioritize with the resources and the timing and the data
available and all of the all of those different things. We also one of the conversations we had in identifying use cases wrestled with different programs that provide kind of a programmatic element to a student or certain supports, wraparound supports, or some sort of maybe course as opposed to maybe programs that are just financial in nature. So being able to kind of, try to thread that needle a little bit of those programs that are maybe just paying the the cost of attendance. Well, again, wonderful. It's it's really just meeting those costs rather than having a specific programmatic element.
So again, I in in the prioritization process and also the data availability process, again, we've we've kind of landed on these. We haven't lost those by any means. They are on our living list and and being able to kind of continue to build out, as we as we have more data available and being able to to weave all of these things together. I'll also say just to kind of build off of adviser on guard's, comment in terms of kind of data that's available, Maybe not so much on use cases because that those are specific, but I will say in terms of the reporting requirements, again, a lot of the data that is needed to meet these very specific reporting requirements
in some way, shape, or form is already being shared across agencies. So we have our data sharing agreement with CDE. We also have a data sharing agreement with CDLE related to kind of high school completer data and wage data, respectfully, and respectively. And so in some ways, you know, this data sharing to meet the reporting requirements is already being shared by agencies. It would just be done by the SLDS and being able to kind of have that flow. Again, there are other data elements, especially as it relates to kind of these use cases and programs that maybe aren't
currently being shared. And so that's something to continue to work through and work out. I'll get to some data sharing actually next in terms of some of that phone, what that would mean and look like. Sorry. Commissioner Tucker? Yeah. Hey, Michael. This may be a a future future thing, but, what will be the potential for this data and probably other data sources, and the ability to use any artificial intelligence systems to help with pattern recognition and and whatnot? Christian Tucker, very much appreciate that question. I think that is, definitely something that we are all navigating in terms of the the the,
correct use of AI and what that all means and looks like. Since a lot of this will be built out at within OIT, of course, adhering to OIT guidelines for for all agencies, but specifically kind of this OIT environment, that will, definitely take center stage. I also think we wanna be very careful about if we were to use AI on some of these things, AI having direct access to individual level data. And so I think those are different protections that we would definitely keep in mind, before we we do anything like that. And, again, very much defer to OIT and their,
their expertise on on what would be possible. But, you know, but being able to use, AI in responsible ways aligned with state policy is is something that we can continue to work on with OIT. Thank you. Go ahead. Do you have more slides? I do. Yes. Okay. So then, this is a little bit busy. I'm going to click through all of this and hopefully I get all of these. So this is just kind of, govern the the governance aspect of this. So, you know, we've we've talked about the reporting requirements. We've talked about some of the different programs and data. How does governance work in all of this and how data are shared? Again, I won't maybe read this verbatim,
but this just gives you a sense of what that structure could look like. Again, this is still being developed and still being put together. But, really, again, OIT being the main place where the SLVS lives, and then each agency being able to this that's they definitely call that in the legislation, but maybe other agencies in the future signing on to that MOU with OIT, related to the SLDS. Really just being able to establish the context for for how OIT receives and maintains data, establishes standard terms and and guidelines around governance policies around using those data and the
MOU being flexible in terms of of, the changes and how things evolve over time. And then each agency being able to have a data sharing agreement with OIT. That is that mechanism by which we share data, with DSLDS, sets forth those terms and conditions and the laws that govern so much of the data that we are are stewards of, and then also being able to specifically call out those data fields that we would be sharing with with the SLDS, to to meet those reporting requirements and the use cases that we've identified. Also, being able to have data use licenses.
So when maybe a researcher is identified as doing some work or or a project or something that that would enable, use of the SLDS data, kind of that mechanism as well to be able to govern that relationship of what that would mean and look like too. So, again, I know a lot on this screen, and, again, still still kind of being developed with our our colleagues at OIT and all of the different agencies. I'll also say that the attorney general's office has been very involved in these conversations as well, both, from the OIT perspective, but also each each agency perspective and being able to provide some of those insights
and, and and feedback and guidance and navigation and wisdom as well. So just a few, upcoming milestones and activities for the next few months. Right now, the governing board and the advisory groups are working with OIT to finalize that MOU and being able to have some of those draft DSAs, in terms of at least templates and kind of the general framework of what this will mean and look like. And so that's that work has been going on the past several months. During May, I think OIT is hoping to have some of those MOUs and d s c DSAs more approved,
to be able to set up that, that structure for how the SLDS would, make decisions, govern data, how we would share data, and and how and those data would be linked for all of the different purposes going forward. And then also being able it towards the end of summer to to be in a place where maybe even, the vendor partners are identified depending on, OIT's process there and and the RFP, and then being able to kind of move that through as best as possible. So, again, the next few months through the summer is going to be very active with OIT on these different fronts and being able to set all of that up again for,
reports in 2026. I will mention, one thing I'll mention is, OIT did run a bill this year. I don't have the bill number handy, so I apologize on that. But it did change the due date of the report from April to September. And so it just gives a little bit more time, still in 2026 and then every September thereafter. Just a little bit more time to kind of work through these things and what that means. And looks like I believe that bill has passed the house and the senate. So I think that is moving along on that front. And then, again, I'll share these slides. I'm happy to share these slides out further.
And these are just additional resources that that you all have seen before, in terms of of this space and some of the things that we've been all working on together. So with that, I will stop sharing. I'm also catching up on the chat a little bit. I think all of that is I think we've talked about most of these things. So happy to entertain any more questions. Also very happy to talk in more detail at any time, in terms about kind of the status going forward. And and, chair Wilmer, as you've said, just especially during these meetings, providing some, ongoing updates. Commissioners, advisers, any other questions for Michael?
Okay. Seeing none. Thank you so much for your time today. And do we have, Rachel Fisher on? Hi. Yes. You're almost done. Almost done. Welcome. We can't wait to hear the update. Thank you so much, chair Walmart, and for, fellow commissioners. This is my last update during session. I apologize that I'm not on camera. I am at the Capitol. We're having a very exciting day, but these are the 2025 legislative session updates. Next slide. So we have three priority bills.
The first bill, HB twenty five ten thirty eight post secondary credit transfer website, that bill did pass on consent this morning on thirds in the senate, and we added 12 cosponsors. So this bill should be heading to governor Paulson's desk here soon. Huge shout out to commissioner, Abramson and, chair Walmart for your all support, as well as I think that there were a couple of other commissioners who, supported getting us across the across the threshold with that one. So thank you. Then we have,
HB twenty five eleven eighty six, which is work based learning experiences in higher ed. This bill did make it on consent this morning in the senate appropriations committee and then, passed on consent in seconds in the senate today. So we're hoping that, it will be on third's consent tomorrow. For those of you who haven't heard, we think that well, we do know that the house is definitely coming in, tomorrow and Sunday, and then I believe the senate has also confirmed that they are coming in tomorrow
as well. And then, s b twenty five three nineteen, this is the thirteen forty, technical changes bill. It now has an official bill name, which is the modification higher education expenses income tax incentive. This bill did make it on consent, yesterday and then went on consent on Thursday, passed to the senate, and, we added five post sponsors to that bill. And it should be transmitted to the sun to the house, here shortly as well. So, some exciting news for our priority bills as we're wrapping up session.
Then we are tracking 16 other bills that are being considered. One of them is eleven ninety two, which is the financial literacy graduation requirement. This bill is actually calendared for Monday, so it will be heard in senate education, in a couple of days here. Then we have, senate bill one twenty, which is nuclear workforce development education program. I know, adviser senator Marchman had talked about it as it is her bill, and that one is in house appropriations. Then we have a few of the JVC bills,
including three fifteen, the postsecondary and workforce readiness program. This one is predominant is I mean, it all lives in CVE, but they did have a few pieces about a cent in there. So DHE, we are tracking it, and it is on the house floor, I believe, this morning. And then we have the Auraria Higher Education Center Appropriations, which we're following. That is on senate floor work. And then as I mentioned before, three nineteen, that is the thirteen forty technical changes. That was just voted out of thirds this morning, so we should see some movement there soon.
And then there are a handful of additional bills that, have been sent to governor Polis. Some new ones from the ones that I told you about last time include ten eighty seven, which is the confidential the confidentiality requirements and health support. I believe I had mentioned two ninety, but just in case I did, that is the protection against deceptive pricing practices. And then a couple of new ones, including one fifty four, the access to educator pathways, and one ninety four, the Sunset Dental Practice Act. And then, just as a generic, joint budget committee JVC update,
all of these bills that are listed have been signed, by governor Polis and have moved through the proper motion. So our budget is getting firmed up. As I mentioned, there are a couple of additional bills that are still being considered, including the, thirteen forty technical cleanup. But, we should be all finalized by Wednesday here. So some exciting the movement has been happening. And then, just to thank you all so much for for your time this session. I think I'm back again at your next meeting for the the implementation roundup.
But, thank you all so much for your your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Advisors, commissioners, any questions? Rachel, I know that you weren't on at the very beginning, but, doctor Johnson gave you a big shout out. I wanna thank you, for all of your hard work this legislative session and for, the communication that you've had with commissioners, as we move through this process. So appreciate you being there. Sorry about working this weekend. I actually will be down later this afternoon, so I'm sure I'll see you this weekend as well. But appreciate everything, and can't come fast enough.
So thank you for all of your work. Thank you all so much. I'll see you soon. Bye. Bye. Okay. The next discussion item, just wanna give an update on the formula review process. As you might remember from our last meeting, we did cancel, the meeting in March. And so we are a touch behind in our formula review working group, and are making some modifications to our schedule, and with the possibility of of adding a meeting or two this fall. But for the currently scheduled meetings,
I just wanna highlight a couple of things. We will be making a modification to our meeting in May, to deconflict with some commencements that are happening. So currently, that meeting was scheduled for May 16. There are multiple institutions that have commend commencements on that Friday. So we are moving our meeting to May 15, so on Thursday from 12:30 to two. And because we are slightly behind and we're having really good conversations, especially in breakouts, we made the decision to, modify our June meeting, and I know communications is still going out to,
all of our participants about that, but we are going to be looking to convene in person, on June 17 for for at least four hours, to be able to have some real robust conversations as a group together in person. But I did want to highlight that the robust conversations that we had, at our meeting. I'm sorry. I can't even remember the day. When was our day? Back in April. Apologies. I can't remember the day. Repeat. Thank you. A couple things that I wanted to highlight were the topics of conversation as you as you know that those are recorded. It's difficult because you can't see the recording of every single breakout room,
but the presentation is all posted online and had some very interesting conversations specifically about how we, calculate and recognize the performance of our institutions serving, both transfer students and part time students. So just as a reminder, almost half, 45% of Colorado post secondary students transfer at least once, during their education. And when we look at, our performance funding formula, only about 52, 53% of the metrics that are included recognize transfer students.
So we had some robust conversations about how should we be including transfer students in performance, are there considerations to be making? I don't we did not land on any silver bullet or saying, yes, this yes, this is the correct way. But some very robust conversations about how to better, account for transfer students in the formula. We also had a long conversation about over half, 55% of Colorado post, secondary students attend part time. And how are we recognizing our part time students in the formula?
Again, only about 55% of the metrics include part time students. So, lots of conversations about, are, you know, is graduation the correct metric, a 100 to a 150% of time? Should it be credits to degree? Should we be looking at progression metrics? And how are we recognizing a part time student's, like, experience with our institutions? So those are some of the conversations that we've had to date. We are looking forward to our next meeting, with the hope that we can have kind of a more of a, a kind of a deep dive into the formula that we are using now and
and the changes over time with changes in performance and what are we seeing really change in the allocation model. So those are some of the conversations that we'll be having, at our, May meeting and then looking forward to that longer, June conversation. As always, Commissioner Tucker and I are the representatives from CCHE, but if you are interested in attending and sitting in, or getting updates from us, in between meetings, please let us know. We're happy to fill you in on that process. And then just as a reminder again, what we discussed in the work session is that our hope is that when we're
together at the retreat in July, which we'll be following this much longer formula review meeting, that will have more of an opportunity to fill you in on the progress of this committee to date, and really be able to talk to you, in-depth about all of the conversations kind of over the arc of this formula review working group and have an opportunity for all commissioners to be able to weigh in at that time. Are there any questions about that process? Commissioner Harbour? You're on mute. Sorry. Commissioner Harbor, you're on mute. Too lazy to click the button, so I,
no, what I was saying is that, you know, I really think it's important to, take a look. And I'm not sure when the funding formula, strikes me as really important. When we were at, a few years ago, Western and, in their joint program with CU, you know, that brought forward real questions about, you know, who gets credit, how is it shared. So, you know, I assume you're looking at all that. And same with the issue of, you know, do all transfers, you know, get treated the same or not? So, and the idea of time to degree credit you mentioned,
you know, versus the credit itself, degree incentives, I mean, I assume, you know, you guys are looking at all of that. And how it'll be really interesting when the commission talks about it to hear kind of how do you strike, you know, those balances? What factors should you emphasize? What factors do we need to de emphasize? And what factors can institutions control? Because some factors are out of their control. So I think that'll be I assume we get to hear all the,
great, thoughts you come back with and then also, give us a chance to give you input. Doctor. That is absolutely the goal. It is a commission process, so look forward to those conversations. Did I see another commissioner have a hand up earlier? Okay. Anything else on the funding formula before we move on? Okay. Then we are going to move to the consent agenda. And as we discussed in the work session, can I get a motion to add to the consent agenda, the change, in the commission schedule to remove August 7 commission meeting from our published agenda?
That motion is removed. Thank you, Commissioner Harper. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Walker Harvey. Okay. So now we are moving on to the cons approval of the consent agenda, which would be items A through F in the published agenda, with the addition of the, change in date. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? So moved. Thank you, Commissioner Abrahamson. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Tucker. Any opposition to the motion? Okay. Seeing none, the commission, the consent calendar is adopted. Thank you so much. And now we have one action item,
which is approval of revisions to the reciprocal tuition agreement. And I'm so sorry. I don't see on my agenda. I need to find out. Who is joining us? Diana. Hi. Are you ready to present? Perfect. Thank you so much. Let me go ahead and share my screen with you all. Sorry. Will I move things around here? It's always tricky with Zoom. I would like you guys to see the changes the proposed changes. Is everybody seeing that? Not quite. Oh, there you go. Okay. Perfect. Is there a way to make it slightly larger?
I'm so sorry. Yes. Yeah. Go full screen. Oh. Oh, goodness. That might be too big. Is that That's good. Is that good? Mhmm. Okay. So we are looking specifically at part d section four. So I'm gonna move this up a little bit because these are the predominant three changes, or the three elements rather. But, anyhow, good afternoon, commissioners, advisers. Let me formally start. Start. My name is Diana Castaneda. I'm a budget and policy analyst at the department for those of you that don't know me. So in essence, this agenda item proposes revisions to the current reciprocal tuition agreement policy.
This policy change fosters innovative partnerships and collaborations across the state of Colorado among our institutions and develops a framework, to transfer FTE from a state institution currently participating in a reciprocal agreement to another Colorado institution provided that they enter into an MOU. And you're gonna hear me use a lot of acronyms and, as we go through this. So as reflected in your materials, we provided also the MOU between ASU and CSU.
But as reflected in those materials, ASU has entered into an MOU with CSU Fort Collins, which developed the mechanical engineering program. And as students matriculated into those upper level coursework through CSU Fort Collins, based on the closest college concept, these students no longer qualified for in state tuition under the New Mexico reciprocity agreement, thereby creating financial hardship for these students as they continue to persist through that program. Currently, there are two students at ASU who are impacted by this,
measure in the mechanical engineering program and four students similarly at Fort Lewis College through their BSN program, who would benefit greatly from this policy change. It is imperative to note, however, the overall mechanical engineering program anticipates overall enrollment of 60 students by cohort twenty, thirty one, thirty two. That is really weird to say, but, yes, by twenty, thirty one, 32 is that overarching enrollment for that particular program. So as I mentioned, this agenda item revises three elements of the reciprocal tuition agreement.
Number one, it streamlines, as you can see here, the transfer of the FTE excuse me. It streamlines and transfers the FTE quota recommendation process from the commission to the department, whereby the department would then receive those recommendations from the institutions and inform the commission. However, it is imperative to note that currently our FTE is at 550 FTE, and IHEs that are currently participating in those reciprocity agreements have not fully, utilized that allotted FTE.
So we don't foresee that exceeding, that five fifty FTE at this time. So, secondary, similarly to the FTE quota recommendations, the institutions would inform the department when FTE is not fully utilized versus the commission. And then lastly, and the primary purpose of the proposal, as you can see reflected here in this red paragraph that's been added, is to develop a framework which allows the transfer of FTE when students excuse me, when institutions are participating in a tuition reciprocity agreement and enter into an MOU with another Colorado
institution. This would allow for the transfer of the FTE for those students matriculating into their upper level coursework of their program to then qualify for in state tuition. Therefore, it is the department's recommendation to approve the revisions to the reciprocal agreement, policy, which authorizes that transfer of FTE between in state institutions, participating in reciprocal agreements and partnering with institutions via MOUs. So, if you need any additional clarification, there is a lot there.
But in essence, our predominant concern was to add this excuse me, modify the current existing agreement and add this paragraph for which allows that transfer of the FTE. Is it possible for you to give me a scenario a hypothetical scenario of how this would work and exactly, like, institution x does this and that this is why the change is coming? Absolutely. And and hence why I provided the MOU because this is currently part, actively occurring at our institution.
Perfect. Okay. This is a situation where by developing this framework, it would allow institutions that are not excuse me. It would allow students who are entering into a program that are taking coursework on a college's campus who is part of the to New Mexico tuition reciprocity agreement to take upper level coursework via those MOUs and those partnerships, and still qualify for that in state tuition by transferring the FTE.
So as you have those documentations with the MOU, currently, ASU is covering those extra tuition costs for students, which is about $17,000 per student, as they're transferring from in state tuition to out of state tuition because they no longer qualify based on that closest college concept that we have in the reciprocal agreement. So this would be changing the overarching umbrella reciprocal agreement, not the New Mexico tuition policy excuse me,
New Mexico tuition reciprocity agreement, but allowing any institution that participates in the New Mexico tuition reciprocity agreement to enter into an MOU, transfer that FTE to that non participating institution so those students can qualify for in state tuition classification. There's a lot there. Does it make sense? We see that Mister Hughes has her hand up. I'm gonna say something out loud, and I would love for you to tell me if I'm thinking about this the right way. Not that anyone's really watching.
However, for the sake of the public good, the reason the commission and the department support these represent preprocedy agreements is that we strongly believe that they help our Colorado students benefit when they attend institutions in other states. And so we may be foregoing some small incremental amount of money to help our state. We are benefiting and looking out for our total population. And so I'm saying that out loud to make sure that we're all on the same page about why we're considering making rule changes to benefit out of state students
at the and it's not at the expense of in state students. We believe it's in favor of our in state students having as much flexibility to find an institution that meets their needs. Is that a fair, comfortable assumption that, one might arrive at? That is correct. And if I may elaborate just a little bit further. So via the New Mexico tuition reciprocity agreement, New Mexico does allow Colorado students to attend and matriculate at any New Mexico institution. There are no geographical barriers that present them from from matriculating at a specific institution
with the exception of their law school in addition to their military school. So those are the only exceptions, and I can't, off the top of my head, recall the names of those institutions. But there are only two that have exceptions for Colorado students in New Mexico. And then, additionally, this measure would also increase that workforce development in the mechanical engineering program, and also provide an avenue to support Our workforce, in this area as well. So I think overall, in in all,
although we see it as benefiting out of state students because they are New Mexico students originally, you know, once they've matriculated here and so forth, it is our hopes. And we see that occurring on a regular basis that they end up staying in Colorado and contributing to not only our economy but our workforce is through those measures as well. So I think this would be a great framework to, approve, but, ultimately, the decision is yours as the commissioner's. Thanks for that, additional concept, but thank you. Commissioner Harber, you had your hand up earlier. Yeah.
Go ahead. You're on mute. What's wrong with you people? Can't you read lips? So, when you say Colorado institutions in the language, I assume you're talking about only public institutions. That is correct. Okay. We perhaps should have identified that a little bit better. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Because there are lots of different kinds of Colorado institutions. Or at first, I thought it meant any institution in Colorado. So, my second question is what is the net in terms of reciprocity, in terms of do we send more people out of state than come in or
do more people come into the state? I'm just wondering if we need to, you know, like set a tariff or something like that. Doctor. Appreciate the humor, Commissioner Harbor. I do have those data elements. However, I don't have them before me today. If you are thoroughly interested, I can definitely provide you with that. We do also have some missing elements for the 2023, academic year because of, one of our, situations that we encountered. But I can definitely provide that data for you and show the comparison from New
Mexico students versus, Colorado students. I can share with you, though, at this time, we haven't even come close to utilizing the full 550 FTE that we allow for New Mexico students to come matriculate into the state of Colorado. I I believe it was roughly three forty eight students, that come from New Mexico to Colorado. However, I would have to take a closer look at the numbers and the data elements for Colorado students matriculating in New Mexico. That'd be great. And if there's,
I mean, if there's a table or chart somewhere I don't want you to do extra work which shows each state and how many are coming into Colorado and how many Colorado students are going to that state. You know, that simple table would, be helpful. My guess is, most of the commissioners would probably like to see that. Absolutely. And I can provide you, I believe, for the last, the previous five years. Oh, that's great. I mean, I'd be happy to just see one year, but whatever you can do is great. Perfect. Thank you so much. Advisor Pickett Bank?
Hi. Sorry. I I might be misunderstanding this, but you talked about students transferring from ASU into Colorado for mechanical engineering, but ASU has a mechanical engineering program. So I'm I'm not quite following what this transfer is. We have better skiing. So is it just a choice? It's not a programmatic thing? It's just they're choosing to go to a different school? No. Allow me to expound upon that. Okay. So currently, ASU and CSU Fort Collins entered into an MOU in the fall of twenty twenty
two is when this program was developed. So New Mexico students are matriculating at ASU based on the closest college concept under the New Mexico two. Say that you're talking about Adams State? Yes. Yeah. So I think I just, yeah, I just wanna make sure that Yes. Adams State University and Colorado State University Fort Collins. Where the miscommunication may have been. You. Okay. Yeah. Wanna kinda get to the point because I is that is that right? Yeah. Yeah. These are Colorado institution. Yeah. Sorry to cut off,
but I thought we might save time. Thank you. You did open with you. We're gonna use a lot of acronyms. So to your credit, you did warn us. Well Thank you so much. And I will share with you, commissioner. I am a talker. So please, by all means, feel free to stop me. No. You've been tremendous. It's perfect. Any other questions from advisors or commissioners? Seeing none, is there a motion to approve the revisions to the tuition agreement? So moved. Moved by commissioner Haber. Is there a second? Mister Tucker? Fabulous. Any opposition to the motion? Seeing none,
that is approved by consent. So thank you. Thank you, Diana. Thank you, Kimberly. Okay. We have reached the end of our agenda, and that's two zero three, which is amazing news because I can head back to the capital. So thank you all so much for your time. I just want to announce that the next meeting of the commission will be Thursday, 06/05/2025. This will be an in person meeting, but it will be a hybrid meeting. So for those who are unable to travel to Denver, we will see you online. But just as a reminder, we'll have some institution leaders with us, and so we will be doing it at,
College Invest, on June 5, and we look forward to seeing you all then. Hope you all have a wonderful weekend. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks.