Office of Government Information Services (OGIS)

Home > The Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) > Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee > 2022-2024 Term > May 9 - Minutes (Certified)

May 9 - Minutes (Certified)

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee convened virtually at 10 a.m. ET on May 9, 2024. 

In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1014, the meeting was open to the public from 10 a.m. to 12:04 p.m. and livestreamed on NARA’s YouTube Channel.

Meeting materials are available on the Committee’s website at https://www.archives.gov/ogis/foia-advisory-committee/2022-2024-term/meetings/foiaac-05-09-2024.

Committee members present at the virtual meeting:

  • Alina M. Semo, Director, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) (Committee Chairperson)
  • Jason R. Baron, University of Maryland
  • Paul Chalmers,  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
  • Carmen A. Collins, U.S. Department of Defense
  • David Cuillier, University of Florida 
  • Allyson Deitrick, U.S. Department of Commerce 
  • Gorka Garcia-Malene, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • Michael Heise, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
  • Alexander Howard, Digital Democracy Project
  • Stefanie Jewett, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General
  • Gbemende Johnson, University of Georgia
  • Adam Marshall, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press 
  • Luke Nichter, Chapman University
  • Catrina Pavlik-Keenan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
  • Thomas Susman, American Bar Association 
  • Eira Tansey, Memory Rising
  • Benjamin Tingo, OPEXUS (joined around noon)
  • Patricia Weth, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Committee members absent from the virtual meeting:

  • Bobby Talebian, Department of Justice, Office of Information Policy

Others present or participating in the virtual meeting: 

  • Kirsten Mitchell, Committee’s Designated Federal Officer, NARA
  • Dan Levenson, Alternate Designated Federal Officer, NARA
  • Jackson D., public commenter
  • Webex Event Producers, Intellor

Welcome and Updates from the Chairperson

Ms. Semo welcomed attendees to the tenth meeting of the fifth term of the FOIA Advisory Committee. She noted that the final public meeting will be on June 13, 2024, at 10 am. She also noted that Dr. Nichter would step away at 12:30 p.m., but the meeting may end before that time.

Ms. Semo noted that the meeting operates under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), and is public in accordance with FACA requirements. She noted that the certified minutes from the March 5, 2024, meeting had been posted online and that the biographies of Committee members were also available online.

Ms. Mitchell confirmed a quorum.

Ms. Semo announced that no substantive comments should be made in chat because they will not be captured in the transcript.

Ms. Semo announced that Ms. Weth would be changing agencies, leaving the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to go to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). The Archivist of the United States has reappointed Ms. Weth, and there is no conflict with either the charter or bylaws.

Bylaws Discussion

Ms. Mitchell noted that on April 26, Archivist of the United States Dr. Colleen Shogan signed a renewed charter for the 2024-2026 term, the Committee's sixth term. A forthcoming Federal Register notice would seek nominations.

Ms. Mitchell stated that while preparing the new charter, the need to amend the bylaws arose to align the bylaws and the charter with regard to the number of designated and non-designated sears for government and non-government members. This is the first amendment since the Committee’s founding in 2014. Procedurally, amendments to the bylaws require agreement by two-thirds of the members, which is 13 of the members.

Ms. Mitchell walked through the changes to the bylaws article by article. 

She began with Article 2. Authority. The bylaws were written before the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, and this revision aligns the bylaws with the current statutory language about OGIS’s role.

Article 3 spells out the rules for membership. Ms. Mitchell noted that the revisions do not reduce the number of seats on the Committee. She described a graphic, which is posted on the FOIA Advisory Committee website (www.archives.gov/files/ogis/documents/foia-advisory-committeee-designated-non-designated-seats-8-may-2024.pdf), that illustrates the designated and non-designated Committee seats and the designations for each seat. 

The charter and bylaws address only designated seats, which are those representing the interests of a particular group. For example, one designated seat for a non-government member represents the interest of FOIA requesters who fall into the news media FOIA fee category. Non-designated have no parameters other than being filled by FOIA experts. She reiterated that the amendments would create consistency between the bylaws and charter, and emphasized that there will be no reduction in seats. FACA requires advisory committees to be balanced and to submit a membership balance plan to the General Services Administration (GSA).

The next change—also to Article 3—is related to failure or inability to participate regularly in Committee work, in which case the Archivist shall appoint a replacement. The change clarifies that there are participation expectations.

Article 4 is about Meetings. The changes reflect current practice about frequency and confirmation of a quorum. With regard to meeting frequency, the bylaws currently state that the Committee will meet “up to” four times a year. Beginning several terms ago, the Committee started holding more frequent meetings in the last several months of the term. Regarding a quorum, the bylaws currently state that members will “state their presence.” That language sounded like a roll call—which the DFO may elect to do, especially at the beginning of a term; however, a roll call is unnecessary to conduct at each meeting for quorum or attendance purposes.

Article 5 pertains to Voting. The changes reflect how the Committee conducts business in the virtual world. The DFO seeks, when possible, to avoid roll call votes; however, it is important to be accurate in the vote tallies, so the DFO does sometimes conduct roll call votes.

Article 6 is about Committee Officers and Responsibilities. The proposed amendments contain a language regarding the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. This language is not wholly new; it is being moved from the charter to the bylaws. This is language that the GSA, in the charter renewal process this year, noted would have a better home in the bylaws than in the charter. 

Regarding the language about a DFO and an alternate, it is not correct to say that FACA requires both a DFO and an alternate. FACA requires only a DFO, and there have been times since 2018 when the Committee has operated without an alternate. Ms. Mitchell noted that she is very happy to have alternate DFOs: Dan Levenson and Kimberlee Ried. 

Article 7 is a technical amendment moving quotation marks to more accurately reflect how the bylaws quote the FACA and its implementing regulation.  

Ms. Mitchell also noted that GSA recently published an updated rule for implementation of FACA. It’s the first time since 2001 that the rule has been amended, and the new rule was incorporated into the revised bylaws.

Ms. Semo asked if there were comments from the Committee; hearing none she asked Ms. Mitchell to continue.

Ms. Mitchell reviewed the procedural requirements for amendments, as spelled out in Article 9 of the bylaws. There are no proposed changes to this particular Article.  Regarding confirmation of receipt by members, the DFO emailed these proposed changes to each member and obtained confirmation of receipt from almost all members. The DFO would follow up to get confirmation receipts from everyone. The amendments require agreement by two-thirds of the Committee members: 13 members. There are 18 in attendance.

Ms. Mitchell noted some public comments on these amendments that she had alerted Committee members to and that are posted on the FOIA Advisory Committee website.

The commenter, Mr. Robert Hammond, expressed concern that the new bylaws would reduce the number of seats on the committee. As the DFO explained earlier, the amendments do not reduce the number of seats on the Committee. The graphic showing the designated and undesignated seats, which is posted on the website, would help visualize the breakdown, she said.

The commenter further suggested that the bylaws be changed such that meeting materials—the agenda, slides, and supporting documents— be posted 10 days prior to a meeting on the Committee’s webpage on the OGIS website. In response, the DFO noted that there is no requirement in FACA nor its implementing regulation about when to post materials, and that materials for this Committee are posted as soon as they are available.

The commenter suggested amending the bylaws to include that YouTube chat to be turned on, and that oral public comments not be limited to three minutes. The DFO noted that the Committee’s meetings are held in accordance with the FACA  and the Government in the Sunshine Act. The commenter suggested that minutes be certified within 45 days of a meeting rather than 90 days. FACA’s implementing regulations state that the DFO must certify minutes for accuracy within 90 calendar days of the meeting. 

Finally, the commenter suggested that the DFO submit time cards to the General Services Administration documenting time spent on Committee business, and that those time cards be publicly available. The DFO noted that GSA runs a FACA database, available to the public, which requires annual reporting on pay and full-time equivalency of federal support staff for all of the more than 1,000 advisory committees across the government. Ms. Mitchell invited anyone listening to visit FACAdatabase.gov.

Ms. Mitchell turned to the Committee members for comments on bylaw amendments.

Ms. Tansey asked for clarification about designated seats, particularly in regard to  membership in the Society of American Archivists, and how members of the society might fit into the non-government seats on the Committee. 

Ms. Mitchell noted that when OGIS runs the notice in the Federal Register seeking nominations, OGIS publicizes the call for nominations in a variety of ways, including outreach to various professional organizations. With regard to the designated seats, non-government slots have more leeway. On the government side, a person either works for a cabinet-level department or a non-cabinet-level agency. It's one or the other. But on the non-government side, people can fit into different slots. She gave the example of some of the professors and civil society members on the Committee who could fit into several designated non-government slots. 

Mr. Howard noted that the graphic breakdown of seat designations along with the narration was helpful in clarifying any confusion he and others had. With regard to the Committee’s charter, he suggested that the Committee try to replicate virtually some of the conditions that exist at McGowan Theater at the National Archives building in Washington, DC, where the advisory committee met prior to the pandemic, to include allowing public commenters to ask follow-up questions. He suggested not limiting comments to just three minutes, as well as using hybrid meetings to allow most people to attend in person while also having a virtual option. He acknowledged that the available technology has hindered a hybrid option and that it is a challenge for volunteer members to travel to Washington.

Ms. Mitchell thanked Mr. Howard for raising the issue about membership seats because that was the impetus for creating the graphic.

She noted that the three-minute limit on oral public comments will not be included in the bylaws because it doesn't belong there. The GSA regulation implementing FACA provides that a public comment period can be allowed as long as the rules of the agency allow for it. The Committee will not stop allowing for public comments

Ms. Pavlik-Keenan noted that the graphic was helpful to her understanding the breakdown of the seat designations.

Action item: Pavlik-Keenan moved to vote on the proposed bylaw amendments. Mr. Susman seconded. The amendments passed unanimously, 18-0, with no abstentions.

Ms. Semo noted that the Implementation Subcommittee would present three proposed recommendations to the Committee. There would also be an update from the working group for the final Committee report, before the meeting closed with a public comment period.

Implementation Subcommittee

David Cuillier and Michael Heise, co-chairs

Dr. Cuillier noted that the Implementation Subcommittee had three proposed recommendations, which members have had a chance to look at along with the background information and explanations.

Dr. Cuillier presented recommendation I-1: “We recommend that OGIS and OIP follow up with selected agencies and other government entities in an effort to increase compliance with past recommendations of the FOIA Advisory Committee.”  

Dr. Cuillier noted that the Subcommittee report lays out the methodology and reviews the accomplishments throughout the years. Not all recommendations, even those where the action was taken, have had the desired effect. The appendices contain the Subcommittee’s research findings, survey results, the summary of the interviews with officials, and a summary of the Chief FOIA Officer reports that the Subcommittee examined. There have been 51 recommendations from the Committee. And a lot of good has happened, but a lot of work remains to be done.

Ms. Deitrick asked why the report focused on whether or not agencies followed the guidance or the recommendations rather than what caused agencies not to follow them. She noted that agency rationales were more interesting: if agencies felt the recommendations were too aspirational; or if a smaller agency felt that the recommendations were geared more towards larger agencies; or the recommendations didn't apply to the specific situation. Focusing on the rationales would be much more helpful than just counting how many recommendations were followed, especially when a lot are best practices and not requirements.

Dr. Cuillier noted that agencies may perceive that the report picks on agencies heavily. In interviews conducted by the Subcommittee, there were lots of reasons why there has been difficulty implementing recommendations, but the primary reason was resources: with lots of resources agencies would be able to overcome lots of impediments. Feedback from Chief FOIA Officers was helpful: it helped recognize that some of these recommendations are a little naive or didn’t apply to all agencies.

Ms. Deitrick noted that it’s up to agencies to implement recommendations or not.

Mr. Howard noted that the report does not intend to be unfair to agencies. He noted there is widespread dissatisfaction with the FOIA process in the requester community, and the comment that resources are at issue is correct. One of the findings in this report is that better use of technology would improve the situation. Also, it would be helpful to remove first-person requests from the FOIA process, and nurture a culture of transparency through government, which is not about resources. There is a need to get buy-in from senior leadership across the government. 

Mr. Howard surmised that government members of the Committee are reluctant to criticize the leadership of the current administration or past administrations. Mr. Howard noted that FOIA has not been a political priority for an administration in quite some time. The last President who really talked about the FOIA was President Obama when he directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to explore a release-to-one-release-to-all policy. 

He noted that it would be useful to raise awareness that this work exists and then evaluate how the recommendations can improve the work of DOJ’s Office of Information Policy. Having dialogue with requesters could reduce lawsuits, saving agencies money on litigation. It is not just about resources, but it's also about making it clear that FOIA and creating access to information is everyone’s job.

Mr. Tingo noted that the interviews showed that many agency personnel were not aware of the Committee’s recommendations. Improvements may have happened independently from the recommendations, with agencies potentially having arrived at a conclusion about a best practice by themselves or found out from another source, he said. The Committee should raise its own profile.

Action Item: Ms. Pavlik-Keenan moved to bring proposed recommendation I-1 to a vote. Ms. Weth seconded. The motion carried 16-1 with Ms. Semo abstaining and Ms. Deitrick opposed.

Dr. Cuillier presented proposed recommendation I-2: “We recommend that the Office of Information Policy (OIP) include one or more specific questions in Annual Chief FOIA Officer (CFO) reports requesting agencies to report on activities that they have implemented consistent with selected FOIA Advisory Committee recommendations.” He noted that the reports already have a lot of information about past recommendations, but that using the reporting system to track implementation of recommendations could be helpful in the future. He asked if anyone wanted to move to vote.

Action Item: Ms. Weth moved to vote on proposed recommendation I-2. Mr. Howard seconded.

Dr. Cuillier asked if there were any discussions on this recommendation.

Mr. Heise noted that certain agencies might have specific reasons that are idiosyncratic to that agency that make the Committee’s recommendations non-applicable. He noted that in answering questions about implementation of Committee recommendations in Chief FOIA Officer reports, agencies can provide reasoning for not implementing a particular recommendation in response to  “out of the 50 recommendations, which one did you do?” or asks about compliance with three particular recommendations. That could help future Committees in understanding the practicalities of implementation, he said.

Mr. Howard noted this recommendation is likely to be implemented but that he is concerned about how much impact it will have. While the Chief FOIA Officer reports are lengthy and useful data collection on the administration of the FOIA, they may not create pressure for agencies to actually carry through with the Committee’s best practices and recommendations.

Ms. Deitrick noted that she has less concern with this recommendation because it's open-ended enough. OIP has some discretion in how they phrase it, if they ask about certain recommendations that the committee has made, or ask a yes-no question about which recommendations have been implemented.

Ms. Semo noted that Ms. Weth had already moved for a vote and Mr. Howard had seconded. Ms. Semo called the vote.

Ms. Mitchell and Ms. Semo clarified that Mr. Susman had voted.

Action Item: The motion passed unanimously 18-0 with no abstentions.

Dr. Cuillier presented draft recommendation I-3: “We recommend that the FOIA Advisory Committee create an Implementation working group, to be charged with:

  1. providing a summary of previous recommendations to the Committee early in the term;
  2. coordinating with Subcommittees throughout the term to provide research and context from previous terms related to their work;
  3. conducting research throughout the term to assess progress on previous selected recommendations; and
  4. highlighting for the Committee recommendations that could use further attention including proposing ways to achieve greater implementation.”

Dr. Cuillier noted that a standing Implementation working group could, in future terms, continue the work that this Subcommittee found valuable, including educating at the beginning of a term on previous activities and priorities. It's a lot of work for new Committee members to review all the previous terms' reports and recommendations.  Many Committee members may not have the time to do that. A small group may help them get started quickly and provide that background and context.

This two-year term has not been enough for everything the Subcommittee has wanted to do, he noted. A lot of the recommendations are ongoing and should be monitored.  The recommendation for future committees is important because, as the number of recommendations keeps growing every term, they will be more difficult to track.

Ms. Semo opened the floor to comments.

Ms. Pavlik-Keenan noted that there have been many terms of the Committee looking at many things and sometimes duplicating efforts. The working group would help future terms of the Committee avoid duplicating efforts. It would help new Committee members by summarizing and maintaining information.

Mr. Heise noted that bullets one, three, and four were doable. Providing the summary can be done. There is already a recommendations dashboard on the OGIS website that has things spelled out but is not sufficiently detailed. Also the Subcommittee did a lot of work conducting research.  

He noted concern about number 2 “coordinating with Subcommittees throughout the term to provide research and context from previous terms related to their work.” Under FACA certain meetings must be public, so the problematic word is “coordinating.” In coordinating with subcommittees throughout the term, the working group would have to take care to avoid coordinating with everyone en masse, because a quorum triggers requirements under FACA. He noted that this term has enjoyed the benefit of institutional knowledge, but wondered about a possible future term that lacks FOIA Advisory Committee veterans.

Ms. Semo noted one role of the chair and DFO is the institutional memory and continuity from term to term as well as coordinating and liaising with the Chief FOIA Officers Council to avoid the duplication of work.

Ms. Mitchell added that the threshold for a public meeting is a quorum, which is 13 members, and that subcommittees and working groups are generally smaller than that.  If the DFO or the Chairperson were to see that there would be a quorum, then they would have to take appropriate measures under FACA.

Ms. Tansey noted some concerns that the recommendation might be putting too much work on a future term. She noted a benefit in providing a summary of previous recommendations to committees early in the term. She noted her experience that it has been very difficult for her to figure out, as a new person outside of the government, how to get a foothold and how to contribute to the Committee. Onboarding material would be helpful to bring people who may not have the same depth of subject matter knowledge up to speed.

Dr. Nichter noted that as a non-federal employee and non-FOIA professional who is serving his first term on the Committee, he didn’t know exactly what he was committing to when he was appointed to the Committee. It's been the most interesting education, and noted there is a lot of institutional knowledge. He did all the recommended homework at the start of the term, but a deep-dive is required to figure out what the origin is behind a lot of the recommendations. He had not realized a lot of the Subcommittee’s ideas have been tried in some way before. 

Mr. Howard noted that one of the most positive parts of his participation on the Committee was getting the opportunity for this Subcommittee to review the implementation of past recommendations. The process of review created knowledge, which went into a spreadsheet and then informed the Subcommittee's report.

Mr. Susman noted that this was his third term on the Committee and he was dedicated to implementation. He agreed that preventing duplication of efforts was important. He noted that proposing ways to achieve greater implementation, it is important to remember that the first term of the Committee came up with a single recommendation that has not yet been fully implemented. Having a group within the Committee looking at previous recommendations, and advocating for implementation would be helpful. He supports the proposed recommendation.

Ms. Semo noted that it was Mr. Susman's fourth term on the Committee.

Ms. Pavlik-Keenan noted that the difficulties onboarding onto the Committee do not have to do with lack of knowledge on FOIA. She had not realized how much work the Committee would be, and she did not know what to expect. She noted that there is a learning curve for everyone on the Committee, even FOIA experts.

Ms. Semo noted that she and Ms. Mitchell were open to feedback about improvements to onboarding new Committee members. 

Mr. Heise clarified his earlier statement: he did not mean to imply that there should not be public meetings. The purpose of the Subcommittees not holding public meetings was to ensure work gets done; a lot of work gets done because there's the space to do it. This is the first recommendation that the Committee makes for itself. The chair had previously encouraged members to serve on more than one Subcommittee to aid in information sharing and avoid reduplication. He noted that having a private space for deliberation is important but public meetings are also important.

Ms. Mitchell responded briefly to Mr. Heise, noting that subcommittees are how the work gets done on this Committee, and that Mr. Heise’s being the only member of the Committee who was on all three subcommittees was extremely helpful in avoiding duplication. Ms. Deitrick asked if the term ‘working group’ was the same as a Subcommittee and what would happen if the next term does not want a working group.

Dr. Cuillier noted they chose the term ‘working group’ because it is smaller and less formal than a subcommittee. Future terms may choose not to follow this recommendation if they do not see value in it. Dr. Cuillier thanked everyone for their hard work and noted that the product exceeded his expectations.

Action Item: Ms. Weth moved to vote on proposed recommendation I-3. Catrina Pavlik-Keenan seconded. The motion passed 16-1 with Ms. Tansey abstaining and Ms. Deitrick opposed. Ms. Mitchell noted that Mr. Susman was still present and voting.

Ms. Semo announced a 10-minute break.

Final Report Working Group update

Jason R. Baron, Paul Chalmers, David Cuillier, and Patricia Weth

Mr. Baron noted the three subcommittee reports are worth reading independently from the Committee’s final report because they give more detail and background about each of the 16 recommendations. The full Committee's final report will categorize the recommendations: best practices, training, staffing, technology, public engagement, open government, and implementation. The final report will highlight some ideas about where future terms may want to go.

The subcommittee reports include observations that are apart from recommendations. Resources' report includes a section on backlogs. Mr. Baron read from the Implementation Subcommittee report: “Given the reality of these [67 total] recommendations, the foundational question otherwise left unaddressed in [the Implementation Subcommittee] report is that whether FOIA Advisory Committee should continue to be in the business of crafting new recommendations to add to the accumulating corpus of existing ones, that the present rate of crafting on the order of 20 new recommendations per term by the year 2030, this committee will produce well over 100 recommendations for agencies and other government entities to implement. The prospect of continuing down this path and expecting that interested parties—that is OGIS, OIP, FOIA staff, future FAC members—will be able to reasonably keep track of and absorb this cumulative number of best practice recommendations is unrealistic.” 

Mr. Baron noted that the final Committee report should consider what the Committee can strategically do beyond making recommendations to the world. Perhaps engaging with  the outside world, maybe working towards getting another presidential memo to go out, similar to the one Obama issued. Ms. Semo asked for questions or comments; hearing none she opened the public comment period.

Public comments

Ms. Semo opened the public comment period. She noted that oral comments are captured in the transcript and in the recording, with public comments limited to three minutes per individual. 

The event producer noted that each individual would have three minutes.

Jackson D, a public commenter, noted that the YouTube chat feature was turned off for public meetings. The commenter expressed a hope for more participation from FOIA requesters. The commenter questioned why OGIS has not yet conducted its Annual Open Meeting, and expressed concerns about the dispute resolution figures that OGIS reports each year. The commenter noted that additional funding for OGIS is needed to resolve more disputes without appeal or litigation. In response to the work of the Committee, the commenter noted that one idea is to hold senior agency leaders accountable for properly funding FOIA personnel career path development, retention, and professional certifications and for technology enhancements. And it would be good if lawsuits could instead be resolved through mediation. 

Ms. Semo noted that OGIS had its annual open meeting last year. It is available on the NARA YouTube channel. This year's annual public meeting is scheduled for July 24, and OGIS will announce it soon in the Federal Register. That meeting will cover OGIS events and activities in Fiscal Year 2023. 

The event producer confirmed that no callers were in queue.

Ms. Semo turned the floor to Mr. Levenson who had been monitoring chat. She noted that the chat was not to be used for substantive comments. She noted that one commenter had been very active in chat, and she wanted to make sure that that was captured in summary in the transcript.

Mr. Levenson summarized the comments in the chat. First, he noted that the OGIS Open Public Meeting will be July 24 of this year. Another comment asks to be able to download the transcript of this meeting. Mr. Levenson noted that OGIS will post meeting materials on the website, including the transcript, as they are ready. FACA does not provide a timeframe for when OGIS must post the transcript. It does however mandate a timeframe for the minutes. Minutes will be posted within 90 days of each public meeting, and the transcript will be posted as soon as possible, consistent with past practice. The commenter asks why members of the public cannot have their questions addressed during the discussion while a Subcommittee is reporting and the full Committee is deliberating. 

The commenter does not agree with reducing from two to three individuals representing the interests of different constituencies for the change of the bylaws, Mr. Levenson noted that the DFO spoke to that concern earlier, and there is no reduction in seats. The commenter requested that the agenda, draft slides, and any draft committee recommendations be posted 10 days prior to the public meeting. Mr. Levenson reiterated that it is the practice to post them as soon as they are ready, but they are often not finalized 10 days before the public meeting. The Subcommittees and the full Committee work hard to produce the slides and meeting materials as soon as possible, but those are frequently only finalized several days before the meeting. 

The commenter does not agree with the limitation of 25,000 characters for written public comments and would prefer if his comments could be posted in PDF form. The commenter is further unhappy with the bylaw changes and notes that as a public citizen, he would be willing to work to promote the activities of the Committee and advocate for the FOIA process. The commenter notes that not allowing [NARA] YouTube chat is potentially detrimental to people who might want to look at YouTube chat later on. Mr. Levenson noted that having YouTube chat turned off is in line with NARA's policies regarding the use of chat in social media. Finally, the commenter noted that agencies are not supporting all FOIAonline data, which the commenter considers that non-authorized destruction of records, and the commenter himself notes this is his opinion. The commenter ended by saying he hopes that all the committee members return for the next term. 

Ms. Semo asked Committee members if they had any comments or reactions to any of these public comments. Hearing none, she thanked all Committee members for their hard work throughout this whole term. She noted that the Committee would be circulating a draft of the final report prior to our next meeting on Thursday, June 13, which will be held virtually. 

Ms. Semo adjourned the meeting at approximately 12:04 p.m.

I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete on June 28, 2024. 

/s/ Kirsten B. Mitchell

Kirsten B. Mitchell

Designated Federal Officer,

2022-2024 Term

 

/s/ Alina M. Semo

Alina M. Semo

Chairperson,

2022-2024 Term

Top