December 1, 2020

Right before the Thanksgiving break, I listened to an HLC webinar about Department of Education regulations for "substantive changes" that occur at colleges and universities. I suspect that all of the participants in the call walked away the same way I did -- with a hell of an upset stomach.

I would have thought Betsy DeVos would tear away all of the compliance for higher education, but perhaps I underestimate a leadership philosophy premised on chaos. Here's the thing, though: Everyone wants to complain about how expensive higher education is.  No one wants to complain louder than a politician (at this point that is what DeVos is, another politician). No one has piled on more compliance to justify complaints than politicians. And compliance comes with cost.

At SMC, we call this OPP (Other People's Priorities) and it consumes a massive amount of our time and money.  This week, I checked the Higher Education Compliance Alliance's Compliance Matrix, which links to minimally 277 regulatory compliance standards, maybe 295 (depending upon where you look), maybe 312 (if you count multiple statutes listed with some of the 277), maybe 606 (if you count individual regulations within each statute). To boggle your mind even more, all these numbers apply to 13 months ago, when the site was last updated. Potentially 606 federal regulations that an institution of higher learning must adhere to. 

I pity my friends in Institutional Research, who often are the point people for all of this compliance crap. I know SMC's Director of Institutional Research hates October as that is routinely compliance cluster time. The search-by-deadline function at the website above might make you long for March, May and November (all have zero compliance deadlines) until you realize that more than half of them have no deadline, which must be the IR equivalent of the doctor telling you the good news is you will have a disease named after you.

Categorically, these 277/295/312/606 expectations tell us what our regulatory priorities are: dozens for environmental health and safety, as well as financial aid. O.k., I would hate to argue against those safeguards, although certainly against so many. The other end of the spectrum might have you head scratching: single digits for athletics (everyone knows to keep our mitts out of sports) and for ethics.

Let me give you my Top 10 List of Ridiculous Items from the Compliance Matrix:

10) Guarding of Portable Powered Tools -- Originally proposed in 1974 and amended frequently since then, this OSHA requirement stipulates, among many other things, that a rotary mower's "instruction manual shall state that the mower shall not be used without either the catcher assembly or the guard in place."  I guess this means we should be allowed to open the box for the mower at our local Sears to make sure we have the proper instruction manual.  God forbid, Lawnboy be held accountable.

9) Standards for the Management of Used Oil -- From 1992, apparently, with subparts dedicated to "used oil generators," "used oil fuel marketers," "used oil burners who burn off-specification used oil for energy recovery" and more. I am all for the environment, but I would go crazy just trying to determine the standard oil categorizations.

8) The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act -- I just love this one's name. Makes me get all Pearl-Jammy. Much more interesting than "Public Law No. 111-2," its less sexy title.  As is the case with the law, reading it, I don't know if it supports worker's rights to claim compensation unfairness or limits it because it designates an 180 (or 300) day window to file such a claim.  By the way, that parenthetical is huge.  Not sure what justifies an additional 4 months.

7) Small Webcasters Settlement Act of 2002 -- Taking this straight from the Compliance Matrix website: "Enables Exchange, the recording industry's royalty collection clearinghouse, to enter into royalty rate agreements with small commercial and all noncommercial webcasters." Can't help thinking that a dude on a stratocaster as a webcaster ultimately falls prey to a typecaster.

6) The Davis-Bacon Act -- No, sadly this has nothing to do with the quality of breakfast in the cafeteria.  It's all about how much contractors need to be paid if federal assistance funds are being used. At least Sarbanes Oxley Acts don't tempt readers with a false premise for food.

5) Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998-- This one sounds both left-leaning ("imposes rules prohibiting the circumvention of technological protection measures") and right-leaning ("sets limitations on copyright infringement liability for online service providers") at the same time.  Maybe 1998 is the last time Congress worked together?

4) Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005 -- Does anyone even use a Fax machine anymore?  The great thing about this regulation is that it is illegal "for the University to use a fax machine to send an unsolicited advertisement to another fax machine."  No fax machine on fax machine solicitation allowed.  Email to email, go at it, girls and boys.  Of course the regulation does go on to try and explain consenting faxing relations: "unless there is: 1) An established business relationship; 2) the sender obtained the fax number through voluntary communication with the recipient; and 3) the first page of the fax conspicuously states the recipient can request no further unsolicited communications."  Does no mean no or not? I have never appreciated "fax" as an "F" word more than I have now.

3) Trading With The Enemy Act -- I tried to read this to determine how the feds define "enemy." It is not clear to me.  There is also no sign of Julia Roberts, trading or sleeping, anywhere. 

2) Visual Artists Rights Act --  Visual artists, we're here to protect you. Well, kind of.  Uh, maybe not: "Protects moral rights for fine art works, but does not protect audiovisual works and probably does not apply to most multimedia creations." You actually lost me at "moral rights?"

1) Cafeteria Plans 26 U.S.C. § 125 -- See its partner-in-crime the "Davis-Bacon Act." Not a damn thing about ensuring healthy food options, or maintaining a clean kitchen, or even mandatory ice cream machines.  All about benefits and gross income.  

The kicker to all of this. None of these, at least based upon my superficial review, represent anything under "substantive change" as laid out by HLC last month. In short, those seem to be simply explained by a "if you sneeze, check HLC if you need approval to blow your nose" kind of mentality. I wonder if I can fax the Kleenex to HLC?