Transcript

FOIA Advisory Committee Meeting (McGowan Theater)

Monday, September 9, 2024

10:00 a.m. (ET)

Alina M. Semo: My name is Alina Semo. I am the director of the Office of Government Information Services [OGIS] here at NARA and it is my pleasure to welcome you to our exciting new term of the FOlA [Freedom of Information Act] Advisory Committee 2024 to 2026. I have the absolute pleasure of introducing our 11th Archivist of the United States, Dr. Colleen Shogan. She was sworn in on May 17, 2023 as the first woman appointed to lead the National Archives and Records Administration [NARA]. As the nation's records keeper, Dr. Shogan is responsible for preserving, protecting, and sharing the history of the United States and she has appointed this committee that you see here on stage and we are all thrilled to be here and thrilled to welcome Dr. Shogan. Thank you.

Colleen Shogan: Thanks, Alina and good morning to everyone who is here and everybody who is also online. As Alina said, my name is Colleen Shogan. I'm the Archivist of the United States and I want to welcome you to the inaugural meeting of the sixth term of the Freedom of Information Act Advisory Committee. It's great to see all of you here at the National Archives. It's been over four years since the committee has been able to meet in person and this was something that we talked about and I really encourage that we wanted to make happen to bring everybody here in person for a meeting.

I hope if you have a chance today and you're here for the meeting that you're able to go into the National Archives Rotunda and to see the Declaration of Independence and all of our founding documents in person. It's a really transformative experience if you haven't done that before.

One of the grievances in the Declaration was that King George had called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of public records for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. So the depository of public records, that's what we are here at the National Archives. That's what we promise to do, to preserve, protect, and share our nation's records. And to not make them distant, the records of government. Exactly one of those complaints, those grievances that were leveled against the king.

Our founders understood that in order to hold government accountable, you need transparency and you need access to those records. And certainly in about 250 years that truth has not changed. Fifty years ago, during the congressional debates over the 1974 amendments to FOIA, Senator Robert Taft, Jr. said that “freedom of information is the hallmark of a democratic society.” It certainly is. It allows the American people to hold their government accountable. It ensures our branches of government are honest and transparent and it allows an informed citizenry to make decisions and that's why the Freedom of Information Act is so important and why your job here is so crucial. 

The work of this committee is not easy. There have been a lot of recommendations made in previous terms and a lot of intense discussions. But that's a good thing. That's exactly what you need to do. And that's what transparency really requires: intelligent, thoughtful, deliberate discussion and analysis, weighing the needs of government and the needs of the public.

And I know these issues are not just issues that can be analyzed, that need to be analyzed by this committee, although that's where we're looking to you for that leadership to be able to lead that discussion.

It also involves FOIA programs run across the federal government with over more than 1 million requests, FOlA requests last year alone. So I encourage you in your work, I encourage you to get creative. I encourage you to be diligent in your approach. You are all selected because of your intimate knowledge of the FOlA system and your capacity to help make FOlA operate more efficiently, not just here at the National Archives, but once again government-wide.

So I thank you for being here today and I thank you for your service. I would like to turn the remarks back over to Alina, who is going to kick us off with the beginning of the meeting. Thank you.

Alina M. Semo: Thank you, Dr. Shogan. Good morning again, everyone. As the director of the Office of Government Information Services and this committee's chairperson, it is my pleasure to welcome all of you to the William G. McGowan Theater at the National Archives and Records Administration for our first meeting of the sixth term of the FOlA Advisory Committee. It's hard to believe. I am just thrilled to be back in person here in the National Archives flagship building in Washington, D.C. for our inaugural meeting for the 24-26 committee term.

Earlier this year, Dr. Shogan renewed the committee's charter for two more years through 2026. And we thank her very much for her support. And can I please ask, next slide please, to advance? That's a picture of Dr. Shogan and that's a picture of me. If we can go to the next slide. Before we get started with the substantive part of our meeting today, I want to go through some basic housekeeping rules, review our agenda for today, and set some expectations for today's meeting. For those of you who don't know OGIS, we are the federal FOIA ombuds office. This marked the 15th anniversary of our opening and we have championed a vision of a FOIA process that works for all.

This year also marks the tenth anniversary since the National Archives established this advisory committee. Happy anniversary to both OGIS and to this committee. As OGIS director, I chair this committee and OGIS staff provides amazing administrative and managerial support for the committee. We could not have done it without them. And I want to take a minute to acknowledge not only the hard work of the OGIS staff that went into planning and executing today's meeting, but I also want to extend my thanks to other OGIS staff that has helped us with this, other NARA staff, and to our terrific AV [audio visual] staff for all of their staff in ensuring an excellent meeting today. It really does take a village.

So a few housekeeping rules. This meeting is being recorded and streamed on the National Archives YouTube channel, but we always remind people it's with a slight delay. Also, please keep in mind that there's a slight delay between the time members on the telephone - we have two members on the telephone we'll introduce - when they speak and when the microphones in the room are turned back on. This ensures that the livestream captures all audio.

If you have not already done so, please take a moment now to turn off or silence all of your electronic devices. Meeting materials are posted on the FOIA Advisory Committee page of the OGIS website.

Committee members please make sure you identify yourself by name and affiliation each time you speak during the meeting. I myself am guilty of this so I will try to remind everyone as often as possible. But it helps us tremendously with both the transcript and the minutes, both of which are required by the FOlA - no not FOIA, the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Another F.

The plan today is to take a 15-minute break at approximately 11:20 a.m. It may happen earlier or later, depending on our pacing. Unfortunately you cannot bring food or drinks into the auditorium but you are welcome to go to the cafe located on this level to purchase food or drink. And restrooms are directly outside of the theater. We will reserve the last 15 minutes of this meeting for public comments, which in accordance with the Federal Register Notice, will be limited to three minutes per individual. Only those today in McGowan will be able to comment but please note the committee meets again this Friday in a virtual setting and there will be another chance to provide oral comments, if you register via Eventbrite to participate via our Webex platform.

Of course, written public comments are always welcome. Please visit archives.gov/OGIS/public-comments to provide comments at any time.

So now on to our agenda. First we're going to introduce all of our committee members. That's housekeeping number one and the most important part. Then we will hear from our committees' Designated Federal Officer, Kirsten Mitchell, seated to my left. She will briefly introduce the FOIA Advisory Committee's bylaws and procedures. There will be a quiz at the end, so committee members, make sure you take notes.

After a break, we will hear from three returning committee members who will offer tips. Jason Baron, David Cuillier and Bobby Talebian who will offer new members some tips about getting the most out of your time on the committee. David and Bobby and Jason will then turn to a pass of the baton, if you will, of ideas from the last committee to this committee. And we're trying something new this term. The previous five terms of the committee started each term with a brainstorming session that led to topics ripe for study. This term, after five terms under our belts, I would like to suggest three broad areas of study, three big baskets, if you will, in which FOlA's biggest challenges can fit for further study during this term. Volume and frequency of requests, FOlA statutory reform, and implementation of past committee recommendations. There are 67 of them.

So any questions so far? I'm going to look around and make sure no one has any questions. Okay. I'm going to move forward with introductions. Next slide, please. And we're going in alphabetical order. Hence everyone is seated in alphabetical order. We're going to start with Jason Baron, who I believe is on the telephone.

Jason R. Baron: Good morning, Alina, can you hear me?

Alina M. Semo: Loud and clear.

Jason R. Baron: Great. I'm so sorry I'm unable to be with everyone in person.

Alina M. Semo: Please state your name, the organization or agency you represent, how your work relates to the Freedom of Information Act and if you could also share what you hope the committee can accomplish this term. Sorry, I talked over you, back to you.

Jason R. Baron: Thanks, Alina. I am a professor of the practice in the College of Information at the University of Maryland in College Park. Previously I spent 33 years as an attorney in the federal government, including at the Department of Justice, in the federal programs branch of the civil division. And after that, I was the first director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration. I have had the privilege of this being the third term I’ve served on the committee. I was on the 2018 to 2020 term and the 2022 to 2024 term. And I will reserve other remarks for the time that you've given me later today.

Alina M. Semo: Okay. Jason, thank you. So next is Kevin. Kevin Bell. Good morning.

Kevin Bell: Good morning. Yes. My name is Kevin Bell. I am an attorney in the Office of General Counsel at the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In that capacity, I wear a handful of hats but among those is handling both initial review and intake of FOlA requests, interfacing with requesters themselves, litigation defense, review of records, writing foreseeable harm statements, essentially cradle to grave of the process. I'm very excited to bring that perspective to the committee. And as a student of the committee's many recommendations, excited to hear all the different ways that we'll find to implement them.

Alina M. Semo: Thank you, Kevin. Appreciate that. Nieva.

Nieva Brock: Good morning, Alina and fellow committee members. I am very excited to be here and part of this…[inaudible] is my first time on the committee. My name is Nieva Brock. I am with the Department of Defense and Defense Intelligence Agency. I am a senior counsel to an IC [intelligence community] agency and in this role I am developing an information and management compliance office with other senior executives that incorporates all facets of information records management. My hope for this committee to accomplish this term is to see just how close the United States FOlA can partner with our five I’s and align our systems. Secondly, I would like to see how we can address technological advances in FOIA requests. Thank you.

David Cuillier: Hi, I’m David Cuillier, director of Brechner Freedom of Information project at the University of Florida which has been around about 47 years doing research and education access to government information. Glad to be here, I’m excited. I think there are a lot of important issues to tackle. I forget Alina what you call them, what kind of requests, not vexatious or pugnacious… 

Alina M. Semo: Frequent and voluminous.

David Cuillier: Voluminous, unduly burdensome, whatever we want to call them. I think that's an important issue that has to be addressed all across the country, not just federally. Also interested in following up on OGIS 2.0. So maybe we call it OGIS 3.0 this term and work on innovative ways of really making the system work better for everyone, requesters and agencies. So, thank you.

Whitney Fraizer-Jenkins: Good morning. My name is Whitney Frazier-Jenkins. I serve as the disclosure officer at the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation where I lead the division that processes all the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act requests submitted to the agency. I'm excited to join the committee and I look forward to building on the recommendations that have been recommended in the past, especially regarding FOlA resources and using technology to make the FOlA process more efficient. Thank you.

Elizabeth Hempowicz: Hi, everyone. My name is Liz Hempowicz. I am here as deputy executive director of American Oversight, which is a non-partisan, non governmental watchdog organization that advances truth, accountability, and democracy by enforcing the public's right to public records. [inaudible] I share all that because I am here, we use FOlA every day. I am here as a personal and professional lover of FOlA and hope to use my time on the committee really making the best use of non-governmental and governmental voices and minds coming together to improve FOlA so that it meets its promise now and in 10, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50 years in the future.

Scott Hodes: Good morning. My name is Scott Hodes. I am currently an associate counsel with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services where at DHS [Department of Homeland Security], we are a component of DHS, and I defend and address and advise clients on FOIA matters. Previously I had 16 years in private practice representing FOlA requesters and then over a decade at DOJ [Department of Justice] at the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] and OIP [Office of Information Policy] dealing with FOIA matters.

For this term, one concern I have is that over the life span of the FOIA, the responsibility of implementing the act has narrowed more and more to agency FOIA offices themselves. As a number of requests skyrocketed for a number of reasons, FOIA offices struggle to keep pace. FOIA offices are a modern-day Sisyphus struggling to push that rock up the hill alone. I would like to see this committee examine this specifically by addressing ways that agency personnel outside of FOlA offices share the responsibility with agency FOlA officers and offices.

Alina M. Semo: Thank you Scott. Isn't Shelley supposed to be next? I think we sat a little bit out of order. Sorry Frank. I'm going to turn the floor over to Shelley.

Shelley Kimball: Thank you, good morning it is an honor to serve with all of you. My name is Shelley Kimball, I am the associate director of the communication graduate program at Johns Hopkins University here in Washington, D.C. I have more than 20 years of research experience in open government and my focus has always been on taking a qualitative law in action perspective to understand that interface between requester and access professional. My personal interest and hopes to accomplish here on this committee are to look at ways to make that interface accessible, approachable, efficient, balanced for both sides, especially those that might be framed as unduly burdensome or excessively frustrating.

And I also am really interested in finding sort of efficient, creative ways to bring to life the recommendations, not only ours but of our colleagues in previous committees.

Alina M. Semo: Sorry about that. At the break we're going to switch and everyone is going to sit in truly alphabetical order. I'm just kidding. So, Margaret, go ahead, please.

Margaret Kwoka: Hi, everyone. It's a pleasure to be here. I'm Margaret Kwoka. I'm on the faculty at Ohio State at the law school and I served on this committee once before in the 2016-2018 term. Great, Alina thinks I'm right so I'm going to go with that. And I'm really happy to be back. I have spent about 15 years of an academic career studying FOIA, primarily, and the right to public access of government information, more generally. And I have always taken an approach of wanting to understand how the public uses access to information laws and also how sort of administrative systems can better administer transparency laws. And so one of the things that I would be excited to think about in this term is that Congress actually has an appetite for revisiting FOlA and improving the law on a sort of vaguely decade cycle, so every 10 years or so we get a set of FOIA amendments. I think there's a lot of recommendations that have come out of this committee in the past terms and ones that we may think of as well, as well as others that may be cropping up around other parts of government and civil society that we could mine for ideas about what kinds of legislative improvements might - which recommendations might be ripe for legislative improvements as opposed to other kinds of change. I'm excited to work with all of you.

Alina M. Semo: Next slide, please. I’ve been told by Kirsten…Frank, back over to you.

Frank LoMonte: Thank you. Hi, good morning. Frank LoMonte. I'm newsroom legal counsel with CNN [Cable News Network] where I advise our journalists on all aspects of the law but my area of specialty, focus, and passion is on FOIA, helping them to craft more effective FOIA requests and then helping them with appeals and to oversee the work of our outside legal counsel on the instances where cases go to court. I have been - I should say I am not speaking on behalf of my employer here, I'm here on my own nickel and please don't attribute anything to the organization - I have been a superuser of FOIA in a lot of different lifetimes I have had including as an investigative reporter myself, as an academic researcher, and now as a lawyer for a news organization.

If I got to rub the Aladdin magic lantern and got one wish for the genie, in these two years I would love to use the statutory reform task force or subcommittee to engage in a deep conversation about the continued necessity for a deliberative process to exist under Exemption 5. If you look around at the states, at least half of the states function just fine without a deliberative process exemption to their FOIA laws. If you asked 100 people on the streets why do we have a FOlA statute, 99 of them would say something like so we can see the process by which the government makes decisions. And to carve that out as an explicit exemption to FOIA, arguably makes the law more hole than donut and I hope we can use this committee as a vehicle too. Margaret, your mouth to God's ears, if Congress is receptive to having that conversation, I would love to be a part of it. Thank you.

Marianne Manheim: Hello. This is Marianne Manheim and I'm at - where do I work - I'm at the National Institutes of Health [NIH] and I'm specifically in the heart, lung, and blood institute. And my office, I'm a branch chief and our office handles Freedom of Information Act requests for about 22 institute centers and offices around NIH. There are a few more that we don't handle, thankfully. Not that I don't love them, it's just a lot of work. And what do I do? We do records, privacy and I have worked in multiple agencies. I have enjoyed actually working in an area where I see the different types of requests and how they interact with records and privacy as well. So that's been a part of it.

Over the years where I would like - where I think having worked at multiple agencies where we have seen a lot of litigation - I would like to look at how litigation has wagged the dog over the last few years. I think it's been a huge problem for regular requesters. I work at NIH so I see a lot of angry people making threatening phone calls. I would like some decency in the world so I would like kindness to come back into all of this. And technology, honestly, I think there's a lot of people on the outside, on the outside who don't understand how to use it, never mind just getting the technology. So I think that there's a need for training. I think there's a need for better technology so we can handle requests, which my other pet peeve would be that I see a lot of requests where they are describing words they want versus actual records. I would like to bring that back into FOlA when we used paper and we had to look for actual records. Okay. That's it.

Alina M. Semo: Thank you. Deborah.

Deborah O. Moore: Good morning, everyone. I'm glad to be here. I'm Deborah Moore. I'm the chief FOlA officer at the Department of Education. I'm also the first person to serve in that role since it became a full-time standalone position in 2021. So that's exciting because it gives me a lot of opportunity to figure out what needs to happen and how we can make things better. Before joining education, I spent about 15 years at the Department of Homeland Security in a variety of different roles, including overseeing the FOlA program at the Transportation Security Administration and also the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

For me in the coming term, I'm really interested in, as a lot of people have mentioned, working and building on the work that's been done in the past, especially the prior terms subcommittee on implementation, looking at what they have done, what they came up with, perhaps considering a barrier analysis and the impediments that agencies are facing to the recommendations they received. And perhaps figuring out, prioritizing solutions and ways forward. There's been so much great work done and recommendations are only as good as their implementation. Thanks.

Alina M. Semo: Before we get to Ryan, is this on? I just want to introduce Joan Moumbleaux from the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. She is unable to be with us today. She will be here Friday. She is both an attorney and an IT [information technology] expert. Currently works as a government information specialist, GIS, in the national FOlA office at EPA. She previously worked at NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at the Department of Commerce, using her IT expertise to help administer FOlA and manage records. Prior to joining federal service she served as senior knowledge manager at several national law firms. We do expect Joan at Friday's meeting and hopefully then she'll be able to share what her goals are for this term of the committee. But I did not want to leave her out. Ryan, over to you.

Ryan Mulvey: Thank you, Alina. My name is Ryan Mulvey. I'm an attorney at Americans for Prosperity Foundation. My practice there touches on various issues of administrative law and legal investigations. In that job I help lead some coalition efforts with other organizations on FOIA, particularly Hill outreach, policy education on FOlA and the need for reform and the types of reforms we can see. I help manage a center right coalition of organizations committed to transparency and open government at the federal and particularly at the state level. A few colleagues and myself, we run FOlAadvisor.com which is a free public resource on FOIA and finally I'm in my fourth year now as president of the American Society of Access Professionals [ASAP]. Which in large part is committed to doing training for federal but also state and local employees who work on Privacy Act and FOl laws.

So when Dr. Shogan gave her introduction, she mentioned the 1974 amendments and it's - I'm excited that this term coincides with the 50th anniversary of those amendments. The veto override passed in November 50 years ago this year. And I think, as Margaret had mentioned - and Frank as well - we're at a time now, 74 amendments in my mind really made FOlA what it is today and transformed the act as originally passed and this is a good opportunity for us to do a little retrospective analysis of how things have gone and where things need to go, especially in a world that's very different from 1974.

So I'm particularly excited that statutory reform is one of the three buckets that you mentioned, Alina. And whether it's dealing with new types of electronic records or fees or how litigation works or how the foreseeable harm standards and the statutory exemptions are working and whether we need to get rid of deliberative process privilege, there's a lot to explore and I'm thrilled to be a part of that conversation. Thank you.

Alina M. Semo: Thank you so much, Richard.

Richard Peltz-Steele: Thanks, Alina. Rick Peltz-Steele. I'm a professor at the University of Massachusetts Law School. I have been working on FOlA for a long time. It was an impetus for me to move from journalism to law some 30 years ago [inaudible] was frustrations in FOlA both at reporting and state level police, especially, and a little bit of federal tax records. And I've been an academic now going on 30 years and FOIA has always been close to my heart, both transparency, FOIA and state levels, teaching courses in the subject on and off over the years doing research on and off. It's a great honor to be here as part of this group to be able to have some input. 

In terms of priorities, I think we've heard a lot of the recurring themes. I'll say like Deborah did, I'm going to jump on some of those because when I look back at the reports from previous years, it seems pretty clear that making technology a good instead of an evil is key. Implementation is key. As an outsider, someone new here, it strikes me that this group has really amassed a fantastic volume of recommendations over the years and it really is important to start turning what has their impact been.

If I got a turn on Frank's magic lamp, I would like to - I would be interested in knowing more about exploring the efficacy of FOlA relative to private sector and private sector information that comes into government hands. Especially in this age of both corporate power and private persons information being very sensitive. I don't know, that's not to prejudge or say there's an issue or problem, but I think that's a big issue at the state level. And borrowing from Frank's comments, I would say that most of my work has been at the state level and I think one of the beautiful things that we ought not lose sight of at the federal level is we have the advantage of the 50 states laboratory to explore a lot of ideas and accountability. Thank you.

Alina M. Semo: Thank you. On the phone I believe we have Melissa Pickworth. Melissa, are you on?

Melissa Pickworth: I am. Can you hear me?

Alina M. Semo: Loud and clear. Good morning-

Melissa Pickworth: Great, good morning. Thank you for having me. I am a disclosure - I'm Melissa Pickworth - disclosure policy branch chief in FDA's [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] Office of Regulatory Affairs and I have been doing FOIA work here for about 15 years. I supervise a branch of disclosure GISs, Government Information Specialists, as well as work in the policy area for FDA. My hopes - like some of the other committee members have mentioned - one of my wish list items is to find a workable path forward on unduly burdensome requests and I think, also I'd like to do some work in the area of FOlA funds.

Alina M. Semo: Bobby, over to you

Bobby Talebian: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I am thrilled to be here with many new and familiar faces and many familiar faces that I've only seen virtually for a while. My name is Bobby Talebian. I'm the director of the Office of Information Policy, OIP, Department of Justice. OIP is responsible for encouraging government-wide compliance with the FOIA and overseeing FOlA through the reporting responsibilities. So we do that in a number of different ways. Through our guidance, training, resources we develop such as the DOJ guide to the FOIA and providing agency counsel. So really enjoyed working with past committees and on past committees and not just furthering the work of our office but also other areas of FOIA as well. I think one of the strengths of this committee is the different perspectives that we get from different agency folks and non-agency folks and I look forward to building on the past successes by bringing these new perspectives to the table. I think I share the interests in all the themes that were discussed today, I think they can all lead to this but I'm very hopeful that we can find new and innovative recommendations that help us meet agencies, able to raise the capacity of being able to meet the demand of FOlA with last year receiving over a million requests, processing over a million requests for the first time ever. And just based off of what I'm seeing at  Department of Justice, I think we're probably going to break those numbers again. We want to be able to stay ahead of that demand. Thank you. I look forward to working with the committee. 

Alina M. Semo: Thanks, Bobby, Sarah, over to you.

Sarah Jones Weicksel: Hi, everyone. I'm Sarah Weicksel, I am a historian and currently the director of research and publications at the American Historical Association, which was founded as a nonprofit organization in 1984 and chartered by Congress for the promotion of historical studies in the United States and the preservation of the historical records in general.

So I am really looking forward to being here and to contributing perspectives from historians and from history organizations. Historians are part of the requester community, of course, and we rely upon access to archival sources for our work. In thinking ahead to some of the things that we might accomplish as the committee, I share - and other colleagues - hope that we can consider some of the technological advances that could apply to FOlA and to identify some really workable solutions on all sides for decreasing the processing time. Look forward to working with you all.

Alina M. Semo: Thanks, Sarah. Last but not least. Nick.

Nick Wittenberg: My name is Nicholas Wittenberg. I am a corporate counsel and senior adviser for legal technology and innovation at Armedia where we serve a number of areas, including FOIA. Previously I was at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, I was detailed there for two years, from my home agency, the Environmental Protection Agency. I also had the pleasure of serving on the Chief FOlA Officers Council Technology Committee where I chaired our Al [artificial intelligence] working group. Like Ryan said, I also had the pleasure of serving on ASAP, an organization that helps training and discussion in the FOlA space.

I'm a proud graduate of undergrad and law school at the University of Toledo. I would love to work on artificial intelligence so that our federal family can be more efficient and accurate as well as not committing the FOlA sin of copies of copies of information moving down Pennsylvania Avenue so I’m really excited to make it more efficient and accurate for our federal family in this space.

Alina M. Semo: Thank you very much and thanks all of you for introducing yourself. We're running a little bit of ahead of schedule. I want to remind everyone materials are available on the committee's web page and we will make video and transcript available as soon as possible. Information about all of our committee members, including members' biographies and all of our committee documents are going to be available on the FOIA Advisory Committee webpage on the OGIS website. Although we’re running ahead of schedule, I'm going to invite Kirsten Mitchell, our Designated Federal Officer to go to the lectern and tutor us on FOIA Advisory Committee responsibilities, bylaws, and procedures.

Kirsten B. Mitchell: Thank you, Alina. Next slide, please. Next slide. I apologize to you all here, who I'm behind you but I'm speaking to all of you and all of you. Welcome, everyone. Committee members, those of you watching here in McGowan Theater and those of you watching on YouTube. I'm Kirsten Mitchell, the committee's Designated Federal Officer. In addition to that role, I lead compliance efforts at the Office of Government Information Services, or OGIS. My OGIS colleagues, Dan Levenson and Kimberlee Ried are alternate Designated Federal Officers and step in when I am unable to fulfill the duties of DFO. Dan is here in the front row of McGowan so I want to send an extra shout out to him. I also want to recognize Rana Khandekar in the Office of General Counsel here at the National Archives, as well as Jamle Atkinson and the National Archives AV team. Thank you for all you do. 

I'm thrilled that the committee comprises such esteemed FOIA experts from across the ideological spectrum. I'm going to very briefly, and I promise I’ll be brief, go through some governance matters and explain a little bit about my role and yours. And, fear not, while the agenda lists my presentation lasting 20 minutes, I plan to yield about half that time back to the committee. So first up, the committee operates under three laws. The Federal Advisory Committee Act, which you will hear referred to as FACA. The federal Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, and the Government in Sunshine Act. FACA governs the operation of federal advisory committees across the government, including the four here at the National Archives. In addition to this advisory committee, the FOIA Advisory Committee, the others are the Records of Congress Advisory Committee, the National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee, and the State Local Tribal and Public Sector Policy Advisory Committee.

Advisory committees have played an important role in shaping programs and policies of the federal government since the early days. I know some of you have heard this before but I'm going to repeat it. President George Washington sought the advice of such a committee, a federal advisory committee, during the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. So you always get a dose of history when you come to the National Archives.

FACA, which Congress passed in 1972, mandates how these committees operate. FACA requires the committee to operate transparently and openly, two qualities that are central to the work we do here at the National Archives. So records of the committee are posted on OGIS's website, as Alina referenced. Committee meetings such as this are public, whether they are in person or virtual. We invite public comment. In short, we shine a light on the operations of the committee. Next slide, please.

So what does a DFO do? A DFO is an administrative officer ensuring that the rules laid out in the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the committee's bylaws are followed. This slide lists some of the DFO's duties, the first four required by FACA. I'd like to say that the job entails herding cats. I won't read those first four requirements but the fifth point on this slide is not in FACA but I consider it to be among the most important: be a resource. Committee members, as some of you have already noted, you joined this committee with well-trodden ground. Previous committees have passed 67 recommendations. Your work on the subcommittees will require knowing what previous committees have studied and recommended and that's where your DFO is a resource. I am always happy to keep you informed and to connect you to resources, whether it's FOIA professionals at a particular agency that have experience with a specific topic, records management experts here at the National Archives, or committee alumni, who have expertise on a particular topic.

Next slide, please. Committee members, you all have some particular responsibilities too. Again, I won't read the slide but I do want you to encourage all of you to please submit agenda ideas. We have had some terrific speakers who have shared their research and work with the committee. In fact, some of the members of this term’s committee have presented to prior terms. And I'm looking at you, Ryan Mulvey, Richard Peltz-Steele, and Margaret Kwoka. Next slide.

So as Alina noted, we hope that subcommittees can be formed by the end of Friday's committee meeting, which like this one will start at 10:00 a.m. but will be virtual. Committee members, please consider volunteering to co-chair and/or join a subcommittee as that emerges. Next slide.

Finally I’d like to briefly address members of the public. Those of you here in McGowan Theater and those of you watching on the National Archives YouTube channel, please get involved. How can you do that? Well attend the committee’s meetings which as I’ve mentioned are open to the public. Submit written public comments at any time. You can go to the FOIA Advisory Committee page on the OGIS website to learn more about that but we welcome public comments at any time. And we have already received some public comments that are posted on our website and that I shared with the committee late last week

Speak during public comments period that we have at the end of each meeting. Again, as Alina mentioned today, only the folks here in McGowan Theater will be allowed to make public comments. But fear not, we have another meeting on Friday and anyone who registers will be given three minutes to speak.

So FOIA works best with everyone working together, agencies and requesters. And the FOIA Advisory Committee works best when there is hearty public engagement. One last point, Alina and I really look forward to working with you all this term and I promise we will have a lot of fun together. With that, I turn it back over to you, Alina, unless there are any questions.

Alina M. Semo: Any questions from committee members for Kirsten? No? Okay. It's all crystal clear. Thank you. Thank you, Kirsten. We are running ahead on our agenda, which is fine by me. I think it's fine by everyone else too. I just want to look around and make sure that no one else has any thoughts or questions before we take a break. You ready for a break? There are a lot of bright lights up here on the McGowan Theater stage so let me go over a couple of quick things before we take a short break. You may wish to purchase food or drink from the Charters Cafe located on this level. As a reminder, no food or drink is allowed back in the theater. There are restrooms directly outside the theater. And another set by the Charter's Cafe.

Enjoy your break, please. Please be back, it is 10:47. If we could get everyone back here on stage at 11:02 a.m. that would be great. And, with that, I just want to remind everyone that the mics are going to be turned off during our break but just to be extra safe, try to avoid side conversations near the mics. I encourage committee members to go in the green room or go upstairs. With that, let's take a 15-minute break. Thank you.

[break]

Alina M. Semo: Can you guys hear me? Now I can hear myself, much better. I'm going to try that again. Jason and Melissa, are you back with us on the phone? 

Melissa Pickworth: yes

Alina M. Semo: Hi, Melissa. Great to hear your voice. Jason?

Jason R. Baron: Alina, can you hear me?

Alina M. Semo: Loud and clear. Just want to double check. I'm checking with our AV folks. Are we ready to go back on live? 

Welcome back from break. Hope everyone had a good break. Welcome back to the FOIA Advisory Committee's inaugural term - sixth term, I should say, of the FOIA Advisory Committee 2024-26 - it's so hard to say 26. So we're a little ahead of schedule, but that's totally fine. We are at the point where we're going to turn to the agenda item of getting the most out of your time on the committee and passing the baton. We kind of merged them together. And getting ideas from the prior two terms.

And I have invited Jason Baron and David Cuillier and Bobby Talebian. Margaret, we didn't mean to leave you out but we figured you needed a break. We'll call on you later. Don't worry. There will be an opportunity for you to comment. So, David, could I turn to you first and share some thoughts with us about getting the most out of your committee time and also passing the baton.

David Cuillier: Okay. Well, thank you, Alina. And I welcome a conversation too with Jason and Bobby. And these are my own opinions so they may be completely contrary to what anyone else thinks, including you, Alina. So take that into consideration.

One, I think it's smart not to overextend. I think my first term I was on all subcommittees and I learned that's not a good thing. So I think focus is good. With subcommittees having liaisons and the ability to communicate with one other. And working groups. Folks can get involved in working groups, which can be very efficient.

One thing that came up in a term, I think when we don't necessarily have to wait until the last meeting in two years to propose everything or vote on everything. You know, that's, with my experience this last term where, you know, I completely botched it. We were rushing at the end. So I think moving on things early and even getting recommendations out the first year is a smart way to think about it. It's not like we have to wait and approve it all at the end, which can be frantic.

And then when we are approving things, it's not in the bylaws, but I like first readings. So, you know, as a committee member, I don't think any of us would want to be surprised at a meeting like, oh, here's a proposal. All those In favor? Without having read it, without having discussed it. Maybe throw it in a committee meeting and discuss it and then bring it back after people have had time to think about it and discuss. So I think it's not in the bylaws but maybe it should be down the road. It just makes good sense.

Let's see, I think - and this is my personal opinion and others may disagree - but I think it's good to think about who our audience is. You know, who are we engaging with? Who are we writing for? A show of hands. How many people here have a JD, raise your hand. Okay. So I respect lawyers. My dad's one. And I won't - I'll refrain from lawyer jokes - but, you know, there's a bunch of folks here who see the world from that lens. And I think it's important. Oh, and how many are PhD eggheads, raise your hand. Same thing, right? And so I think it's important that we think about who can we communicate with and particularly some of these exchanges. A lot of requesters don't have PhDs or law degrees. I don't know if there are a lot of FOlA officers out there. Maybe they all have law degrees. I don’t know if there are a lot of FOIA officers out there, maybe they all have law degrees or whatnot. But I think it's good to think about the public at-large as we write and we speak.

And then the last - well, two last things. One, okay to disagree. So I always wanted to hear more from FOIA officers and I always wondered, were their bosses telling them don't say anything in public or whatever. Maybe not. And Margaret, I brought this up last night with her and she's like, well, my term they were pretty, you know, they said what they thought. So I do encourage, if - I don't think the requester community has that problem, but I think sometimes, you know, reticent to speak up sometimes.

And it's okay to disagree. You know, we can do that. In fact, it's okay to vote no. It feels like sometimes a pressure that things are unanimously approved. And it doesn't have to be. And it's okay to have recommendations rejected. I authored this sole recommendation that was rejected by the Archivist, and I'm proud of it. You know, we should feel like we can express different ideas and come up with solutions and maybe even outside the box and not everybody agrees with.

Lastly, my thought is I think it's useful to really do our homework out of the gates. Skim not only the past reports from the past terms but the implementation report that a lot of folks worked on last term. That synthesized all 51 previous recommendations. And then also skim the subcommittee reports and the working group reports. I know it's a lot but it's good reading while you're watching something on Netflix. Just skim the stuff and I think you'll learn a lot. There's been so much research and work done by all these people previous and we don't have to reinvent the wheel sometimes. Those were just some of my thoughts and, you know, hopefully Bobby and Jason - Jason will have some really good ideas too.

Alina M. Semo: That's great. Thank you, David. Bobby, over to you.

Bobby Talebian: Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to share my thoughts. I just kind of thought about it a little bit from my perspective, the prior terms and some key takeaways I took to help us going forward. I think it's really important to keep an open mind. We bring, again, different perspectives and what I really enjoy and I thought was really successful in the past committees is when we learn from each other. And then develop recommendations or recommend initiatives that are really actionable and can really achieve something because they have taken into account all the different perspectives that we are engaging in this.

The other thing is I think it's really helpful and important to leverage all the available resources that we have. In the past, the committee did that with reviewing reports, Chief FOlA Officer Reports, information that's already readily available. Working and conversating with the Chief FOlA Officers Council, which Alina and I co-chair, and the work they're doing and a number of initiatives that actually came out of recommendations from prior committees, as well as, David mentioned looking at the past reports and recommendations of the past committees. As well as introducing or talking to other agency representatives that are not here as well as the public stakeholders to be able to learn from them in furthering our work.

And with keeping an open mind, this theme I think is in the past report, the past committee reports as well. I think, you know, recommendations are good when we can come up with really good recommendations but that doesn't define the success of the committee. And we can look to different ways and I think observations, education, there's all these different things that might be of more help for this term of the committee that we could explore. But when we do form recommendations, I think the most successful ones have been - I'll disagree somewhat with David - I do think it's important that, you know, we be comfortable to disagree and agree and disagree and have really fruitful, robust discussions. But I think the best recommendations from my point, the ones that are most actionable, have been the ones where the majority have been able to come to a consensus of what is a reasonable recommendation to meet the challenge that we're trying to solve.

With that, and I think the last committee did a really good job with this, when we do have recommendations, making sure they're very well justified and explained. I think the very specific and developed specific and actionable recommendations as well as thinking about when we do develop any recommendations, certain milestones maybe that would be helpful for consideration and meet the recommendation timelines, reasonable timelines.

I guess one of the last observations I had - and I think everyone here has had - the majority of the committee's work is done through the subcommittees. I agree with David. I think you shouldn't overextend yourself because when you commit to a subcommittee it's important you're active because you're representing a perspective. And if you're not active, then that's something that's not in the conversation anymore and not going to lead to a helpful recommendation, I think. Again, I think a balanced perspective resulting in participation is key to good recommendations.

And then, finally, I think it's a good point David made is that we should consider with other committees - don't overextend yourself but the subcommittees should consider what the other subcommittees are doing so we're not doing overlap, as well as we're not overlapping with what the Chief FOIA [Officers] Coucil is working on. Those are my thoughts and just FOIA and fun both start with F, so let's just have fun.

Alina M. Semo: Okay. Thank you very much. I forgot to mention David Cuillier served on the 2020-2022 term and the 22-24 term. And Bobby has been on the committee since 2020 by virtue of his position as the director of OIP. So, Jason, over to you on the phone. We'd love to hear from you.

Jaron R. Baron: Alina, can you hear me?

Alina M. Semo: Loud and clear. Loud and clear.

Jaron R. Baron: Great, I'm so sorry that I can't be there with everyone. I do want to thank Alina for giving me the opportunity to make some remarks here. And I want to make some broader remarks about the issues that this committee needs to acknowledge, that's sort of the reality in the space. And then I will turn to remarks about how the committee should approach its work this term. Can just preface that I passed on the opportunity to say anything further about my own FOIA background. I didn't want to be a disembodied voice twice.

So I have been in this space for a long time, 33 years in government at DOJ and NARA. I was lead counsel on the Armstrong v. the Executive Office of the President case from 1992 on. I was lead agency counsel on a number of FOIA lawsuits. Very proud of the fact that I was an evangelist standing up to get rid of print to paper in government and urge NARA to adopt a Capstone policy for email. I also played a role in the managing government records directive  where I recommended a 2019 deadline for the transition to electronic recordkeeping which was then extended twice to June 2024. We have now passed that deadline and every agency is under a mandate to manage their records electronically.

So, with that said, I want to direct…first a couple of comments to the government reps on the committee. I have nothing but the highest admiration and praise for those of you who are serving on the committee, who represent agencies. It was the highest honor and privilege of my life to stand up in court saying that I represent the United States.

But here's the thing. As a government rep, I don't believe you should be reticent in this public forum to acknowledge obvious things about the FOIA as it works or it doesn't work. And how it should work through the executive branch. I know that agency representatives on this committee are all stellar public servants but we have to acknowledge the reality that not all FOlA shops are implementing cutting-edge practices involving technology or dealing with their backlogs.

In fact, in 2012, the year before I left government service, there was a reported 71,000 FOIA backlog cases. But in 2012, ten years later, that number had grown to 206,000. It is not unusual for a DOJ lawyer in the office I used to be in - federal programs - or the U.S. attorney's office to file in court a declaration from an agency saying it will take many years, maybe even more than a decade to complete work on a particular large volume request. The representatives of this committee from the public interest committee know this and from academia and they can point out the enormous frustration that delays, coupled with inadequate explanations from agencies cause, leading, among other things, to litigation when it is feasible for the requester to do so. 

I for one am still waiting for over two years for half of the two dozen or so FOIA requests that I filed with different agencies to be responded to. So there's another reality as well. The volume of electronic records - and I'm glad to hear, Alina, that your big basket includes volume as one of the issues. It's beyond anything that can be handled by traditional methods. No one in their right mind would consider it reasonable to conduct human review of millions of agency records. But with keyword searching a huge volume of hits are routinely retrieved and further reviewed for the purpose of responsiveness and withholding exempt material is largely still done manually, without any assistance by more sophisticated technology. FOIA backlogs will only increase if these methods from the past continue. And we can say something more about this and do something more about this. Especially when dealing with your own agency's Capstone repository of emails. I would ask every member from the government on this committee to find out what the number of emails are in your own agency's Capstone repository. I can guarantee that there are tens or hundreds of millions of email records and attachments in larger cabinet departments and agencies. But there are solutions involving the use of state-of-the-art Al and machine-learning methods that urgently need to be implemented in line with past recommendations. I have devoted the last two years as an academic to researching Al and FOlA, which I'm happy to talk about.

So now let me turn to some thoughts on how the members of this committee might best proceed, given what past committees have recommended, formally and informally. I agree with what David and Bobby have said. We all should know that the committee has crafted a total of 67 formal recommendations in past terms. The terrific OGIS dashboard has cataloged these, many of which can truly be said to be completed through the fine work of the staff of OGIS and OIP.

Let me put a marker here - and David knows I was on my soap box all last term about this - we have to be emphatically clear, as we were in the Implementation Subcommittee report from last term, that many of the successes by OGIS and OIP and completing guidance to be sent to agencies haven't translated into the agencies themselves taking steps to implement that guidance in a meaningful way. The Implementation Subcommittee report needs to be carefully read as it lays - not skimmed but really read - as it lays out a road map for what still is needed, even with respect to, quote, completed, unquote, recommendations.

As for recommendations that are pending from last term or otherwise in progress, those two are worthy candidates for concrete action on the part of all actors, not just OGIS and OIP, which is terrific, but all agencies that are within scope of the recommendation. Now I said they were both formal and informal recommendations made in the past. By informal what I would point everyone here to are the last sections termed additional or final remarks and observation in the Modernization Subcommittee's report, the Implementation Subcommittee's report, and the Final Report of the FOlA Advisory Committee from last term. Of highest importance last term's committee was of the view - and David and Bobby have reiterated this - that in this next term, we should all be, quote, thinking outside the recommendations box. It was noted at the present rate, by 2030 this committee will be expected to make over 100 recommendations and it was alluded to in the next decade, 50 years in the future I hesitate to wonder how many recommendations it will be then.

It makes no sense to continue to churn out recommendations if agencies lack awareness of their existence or are aware but routinely fail to implement or comply with recommendations, for whatever reason, including due to resignation that nothing can be done to change the status quo without more resources from Congress or from their heads of agencies

So, I cannot urge enough everyone on the committee taking a look at the Modernization Subcommittee report pages 25 to 31, the Implementation Subcommittee report pages 10 to 12, and pages 35 to 37 of the final report from last term. In those passages you will find a broad discussion of such matters as the following: acknowledging the need for this committee to step up in its public engagement practices with the FOlA community and civic society; including giving public notice and a chance to comment on staff recommendation; also the desirability of having OGIS, the Archivist, and DOJ/OlP engage with the White House and OlP. Another thought in those passages was greater collaboration with the Chief FOlA Officers Council and its Technology Committee. And also ensuring that this committee keep in mind what this and the next administration is doing with respect to the open government partnership.

I also highly recommend reading Appendix E to the Implementation Subcommittee's report from last term, which describes in detail what was learned from interviews conducted with FOIA officials in a variety of agencies. They had much to recommend themselves about how this committee could heighten its visibility, make a greater impact, and sharpen the quality of its recommendations. Making recommendations is not easy but it is far easier to dream up recommendations than actually figuring out how this committee can make a difference in ensuring that all past and present recommendations are known throughout the executive branch and are meaningfully discussed by senior officials who can actually do something about them. We need to take stock in the first meeting, the first month of this committee, how we can move the needle in making the impact of what our recommendations have said more - just a better job of doing that.

As last term's report acknowledged, this committee is chartered as an advisory body under FACA. It's not an auditing agency or one that can itself directly provide guidance to the executive branch but we can actively engage with OGIS and OlP through Alina, Bobby, and their staff to accomplish more than we ever have in taking a hard look at how we can improve the way agencies administer the FOIA. We can do so now over the next few months without waiting until the end of this committee's two-year term

As an aside we have to acknowledge that there will be a new President and new administration come January and we should act as a catalyst in making early recommendations to whoever is in charge in thinking about government policy. So the final paragraph of last term final report is I believe a good starting point for our further discussion starting this Friday in our second public meeting and going forward. And I'll quote a couple of sentences and then I'll be done.

The report says, quote "For the past five terms the members of successive FOlA Advisory Committees have endeavored to make a positive contribution in improving how agencies administer the FOIA. We trust and suspect in future terms that committee members will not consider themselves solely wedded to past ways of doing business. Instead, they should consider employing strategies and creative thinking to magnify the committee's voice to ensure that the mission of FOlA members will not consider themselves solely wedded to past ways of doing business. Instead, they should consider employing strategies and creative thinking to magnify the committee's voice to ensure that the mission of FOlA to increase government transparency and accountability is best accomplished through their efforts."

It just takes some real creativity on the part of everyone here, with everyone on the committee actively participating with their ideas and suggestions, and I look forward to being part of this effort. Thank you.

Alina M. Semo: Thank you, Jason. That was very well put. I took a lot of notes. I'm sure everyone else did too. Dave, Bobby, anything you wanted to add based on Jason's comments? And everyone jotted down the homework assignments, right? No? Okay. Questions from the rest of the committee members? And I know we have a number of new committee members so we will walk you through this, don't worry. We're here to be here with you by your side. I welcome questions, comments, and thoughts. And Margaret, not to call on you unnecessarily, but do you have any other comments or thoughts based on your experience on your term?

Margaret Kwoka: Sure. Not to call on me, but here you have. (Laughter). I really appreciate all the comments that were already offered about the experiences, which I believe are more recent and more relevant than mine, which was a little while ago and in the earlier phases of this committee. So I'll add maybe just a comment that's more of a reaction, not based on my service prior, but just on the comments that were offered. Which is to add sort of one other aspect of sort of operationalizing our recommendations in a better way. You know, we are not the only, you know, the FACA committee, but also a body in government that is working collaboratively between government and non-governmental members to create recommendations for the improvement of the administrative state. And I've had a chance to work with ACUS,the Administrative Conference of the United States, which produces recommendations about improving agency administration across a wide variety of subjects, and one of the things that a recent project I was involved in there did was to actually create recommended proposed legislation on a topic. It was not a sort of FOlA reform, but it was sort of a narrow topic.

I just mention that example to say while we're thinking about, I think, Jason's comments really highlighted all the ways in which on the administrative side recommendations could be better operationalized, on the legislative side if we're talking about that I think we should be thinking about getting as specific as we can be and creating as useful as possible a product at the end of this term that could be sort of an off the shelf proposal of some variety when there is someone ready to take up that charge. And I think that's one way in which this expertise could be best harnessed.

And the last thing I was going to say, which really is more about my time on the committee and was referenced I think a bit both in Dave's and Jason's comments is that I found an enormously helpful the process of interviewing or at the very least sort of reaching out and getting sort of a variety of experiences from government agencies as sort of source federal for  recommendations. So I would just for those of you who are serving for the first time, you know, OGIS staff are very gracious in setting up contacts wherever it is that you might want to get information from, so if you're really interested in the experience of, you know, the VA [Veterans Administration] or if you really want to know more about what's happening in a particular agency, if there's someone not on the committee who represents that agency, there's always a way to get in contact with those places. And you know, as we were studying particular topics, it was always very useful to sort of canvas a wide variety of experiences and I learned an enormous amount and really felt grateful for the time that people offered. So that is one way to approach at the very least topics that might be beneficial to understand a variety of agency practices.

Alina M. Semo: Thank you, Margaret, that was really helpful. Any other thoughts or - yeah, Dave, go ahead, please.

David Cuillier: Building on that, I think you make it - David Cuillier from the University of Florida, got to get in the habit now. So yeah, I think if the subcommittees also coordinate in their work that would help. I think one subcommittee did a survey of FOlA officers and then soon after another subcommittee did a survey of FOIA officers. So if we kind of coordinate efforts it might relieve some burden on people. And so definitely a way of systematically coordinating would be good.

And the other thing is we might want to coordinate with this new committee on something or other that GSA [General Services Administration] is about to start, an open government partnership thing. Which sounds great. And I'm really excited to see what they do, but it would be great if -- I don't know how we do it, but somehow coordinate the two committees as we're looking at least informing each other of what we're working on at minimum so maybe we can learn from each other if we have topics we're both working on. Anyway…

Alina M. Semo: They're learning from us actually. We've been in touch with them and trying to help them. Their first meeting is October 23rd. I think that sounds right. I hope that's public. Just shared some private information. No, their first meeting is next month. So yes, we really look forward to working with them cooperatively and learning from each other and we're - Kirsten and I certainly have been in touch with them to help them. It's their first FACA that they're running in this space. So we definitely want to work with them. Great idea. Yeah, go ahead, Ryan, please.

Ryan Mulvey: AFPF. Sorry. I thought, Jason, you had made a point - really I think Dave and Bobby had kind of suggested this too about thinking outside the box when it came to recommendations, the open government secretariat and its new advisory committee doing something with them I think is really interesting.

This is more a question I suppose for Kirsten and Alina and NARA. Looking at the charter and the bylaws, the scope of what we are authorized as it were to do seems rather broad. Our deliverables are to make recommendations. Are there clear boundaries as to what you consider acceptable? Because I seem to recall that there was debate in the last term with respect to Congress and like whether recommendations could be made that were really directed more to Congress as opposed to the Archivist to - do you see where I'm going? So I suppose we can get creative, but are there - is there openness on the part of the Archivist to allowing us to do things that haven't been done before or how far can we possibly experiment?

Alina M. Semo: Great question. I haven't spoken to her directly about this so I'm happy to explore this further. From the beginning when I first took over as chair, I was struggling a little bit about the fact that the mandate of the committee is to actually make recommendations to the Archivist of the United States, and the Archivist of course has full jurisdiction over records management issues, but not FOIA, writ large, she's not responsible for FOIA across the government.

So we've been careful about how we phrase the recommendations but I don't want to discourage anyone from thinking outside the box and making creative recommendations. I think there's ways we could work with whatever the committee comes up with. So is that - a very good equivocal answer that I just gave you?

Ryan Mulvey: Ryan again. So I guess it's been a greenlight for us to do what we want and then we'll get to - not to what we want, but to propose what we want. [Laughter].

Alina M. Semo: Ryan will be running amuck.

Ryan Mulvey: I want to say let's go have a meeting on the Hill, talk to legislators or something.

Alina M. Semo: Sure. So the non-government numbers are certainly able to do that, absolutely. But thank you for raising that. That's a really good point. And we'll continue having dialogue about it. Yeah, go ahead, please, Frank.

Frank LoMonte: Frank LoMonte with CNN. Jason's remarks about having a new President coming really resonated with me. And I'm sorry this may be not just outside the box, but this may be Hubble Space Telescope distance from the box, I apologize for this. But is there a mechanism or could there be a mechanism to synthesize the greatest hits out of the 67 past recommendations into something like a day one action agenda for a new administration of things that could be done without new appropriations or new legislation, but could be done by Executive Order? Because when you have 67 priorities like nothing is priority, right?

You sort of have to prioritize your priorities. And would it be possible to set - even if it's wholly aspirational, a 10 greatest hits agenda that these are things, that is the consensus of this committee is both urgently need addressing and could be done with a proverbial stroke of a pen?

Jason R. Baron: I have a response to that.

Alina M. Semo: Please, go ahead, Jason.

Jason R. Baron: Jason Baron. I think that's an excellent point. President Obama issued an Executive Order on day one about government transparency. My thoughts on this would be that it certainly is within our remit to come up with language for OMB [Office of Management and Budget] to pass on to the new President to issue an Executive Order that highlights the importance of FOlA and points in a link to our final report. Not to get the President in the weeds of this or OMB but to put down a marker that FOIA is important and that we exist and would be happy to work with people on that.

Alina M. Semo: I was looking also at Dave because the Implementation Subcommittee last term tried to generate thoughts from the subcommittee members about the five most important past recommendations. And how did that go?

David Cuillier: Dave Cuillier, University of Florida. It wasn't easy and I'm sure this committee would probably come up with other priorities, but I think it's a really good idea what Jason is saying, and Frank, I mean, shoot, this is something we could turn around this fall and get in their hands, which  well, both campaigns. No, I think this is a great idea to get us moving quickly. And it's a great way for everybody to review and get up to speed quickly. It forces us to. I love it.

Alina M. Semo: Frank, thanks.

Nick Wittenberg: Nick Wittenberg with Armedia. I think it's great because we don't want to copy information but I think the collaboration is great, but I think Alina and Bobby also testified and provided excellent information. So I think that moving that mission forward, that FOlA of the future, as aspirational hope, could be reality on day one. I think it's a wonderful thing from non-goverment/government officials to really look at and hash out in a subcommittee like this and really move the needle forward and be real exciting to see what's that training, technology and those things that agencies could value from a great group like this.

Alina M. Semo: Anyone else? Great discussion, thank you. Jason, any other thoughts?

Jason R. Baron: No. I would say if everyone reads the sections of the reports in particular that I highlighted before Friday, I think we could have a meaningful discussion of the kind of informal or procedural recommendations rather than formal recommendations. How do we strategically do things in getting OGIS and OIP and other actors in government involved in what we have said substantively in other recommendations? So it's a kind of particular type of recommendation. It's one about process, not about substance.

Alina M. Semo: Okay, thank you. Melissa, I know you're on the phone. Any thoughts about what we've said today. I want to make sure we don't forget you.

Melissa Pickworth: Sorry. Thanks for calling on me. I just had a question kind of going off what someone had mentioned earlier about proposals to the Hill. And I was just curious if - I know there's been discussion of some of the potential subcommittee jurisdictions that we want to set up, and if there were a legislation subcommittee - has it ever occurred that we have needed draft legislation proposals in prior committee terms? I was just curious in knowing the answer to that.

Alina M. Semo: Not language per se. I'm just thinking out loud. Kirsten, can you think of anything?

Kirsten Mitchell: This is Kirsten Mitchell, the Designated Federal Officer. The committee has not made specific recommendations with specific legislative language, but I know the past committees have made proposals for legislation and OGIS has provided not so much specific language, but sort of fine tuned it and said, well, I'm thinking of the 508 compliance, the intersection between 508 compliance and FOIA. And OGIS was able to provide to the Hill some options for how to make that intersection more streamlined. But we didn't make specific language recommendations.

Alina M. Semo: Right, yeah it’s one of the duties OGIS has, a statutory duty is to provide an annual report to Congress and the President and we have used that as a vehicle in the past to advance some of the Committee’s recommendations and we’re happy to continue that in the future, So that’s also another opportunity, We used to put it out around Sunshine week. Now we’ve pushed It back to May, Sunshine Week gets a little crazy. So May of 2025 is our next opportunity to speak to Congress and the President. So think about that also as an option.

Melissa Pickworth: I was also wondering it there's ever been discussion of - you know, if there was a widely agreed upon idea that, you know, the agency representatives that was wildly popular with the agency representatives and there was a support internally that they could be used in the A19 process to submit those legislative proposals. If that's ever been considered or raised. It's just an additional mechanism for getting traction on an idea if it was very, very popular.

Alina M. Semo: I'm not sure I know what A19 refers to. Could you spell that out a little bit more?

Melissa Pickworth: That's a process where - that we use in agencies to submit legislative proposals up through OMB that happens generally in the early springtime. And they’re soliciting input for legislative changes and kind of for priorities within the White House and then the White House would propose those initiatives on the Hill. There are other mechanisms as well, but that's the main one that we've used to propose disclosure related proposals to the Hill.

Alina M. Semo: I did not know that. Thank you for informing all of us.

Kirsten Mitchell: This is Kirsten Mitchell, the DFO. I know that has been discussed at the subcommittee level, but, and I can't remember which term nor which subcommittees, but it has that A19 thought has been discussed before so you might wish to bring it up again, but it's not anything that the full committee has acted on.

Alina M. Semo: Thank you for that. That's actually really helpful for us to think about.

Marianne Manheim: Marianne Manheim, NIH. I guess one of the things I'm thinking about because I think it's good to look through the recommendations because that's a lot going from thing to thing. And it seems like they worked on it last time and we're still back here.

But the other thought is one of the things while I've been working on FOlA all these years is Chief FOIA Officer Council and it seems like there's a lot of overlap. There's only so much time in the day. They're all looking at technology. They’re all looking at these things. They might be looking at legislation for all I know. I wonder how much we should be interacting with them so that way everyone is not doing their job twice. And maybe I don't understand enough, but I just want to throw that out there so that maybe we can look at that early on so it's not going to the same meeting twice, Bobby, in one week.

Bobby Talebian: I think they did a good job of making sure the work was complementary and not overlapping. So one of the positives of it is that both Alina and I co-chair the CFO Council and so I think we'll make sure that the committee and the council are aware of what each other are doing. For sure we don't want to overlap where it's not necessary. I think that's a great point.

Marianne Manheim: If someone is on here and interested, they can go to that meeting too. 

Alina M. Semo: Yeah. Our next meeting is November 7th. Early advertisement. But we have actually invited the Technology Committee and the COCACI, the Committee on Cross Agency Collaboration and Innovation, I wish they would shorten that, but they have not, to come and speak to our committee. So we're happy to do that again if folks are interested. We're happy to set that up so you can hear about the work that they're doing. Otherwise tune in on November 7th. We always give them an opportunity to brief the council and the public about all the work that they/ve been doing. Great point. Thank you. Anyone else? Great ideas. Thank you everyone. Great discussion.

Okay. So lots to think about. We have some homework to do between now and Friday, I'm going to go back to go back and read it myself. Jason obviously will be quizzing us on Friday, so we better be ready. 

I've tried to plant the seed for volume and frequency of requests subcommittee, a statutory reform subcommittee and implementation of past committee recommendations so think about that. And I again want to encourage members of the public to provide feedback to us on these topics and think about everything we've talked about today and provide us topics to think about between now and Friday. That would be very. very helpful. Again, our public forum is available on our website, archives.gov/OGIS/public-comments. And we'll continue this discussion on Friday. So make sure everyone does their homework. No pressure, Jason. Thank you.

Okay. I think we're actually at the point where we're ready to turn to public comments. I just want to look at the committee members one more time and make sure no one else has any other questions or comments or thoughts before we turn to public comments. Next slide please.

So at this time we're turning over to our public comments portion of our meeting. I want to invite any members in the audience who have public comments to please stand up at the microphones that are available on both sides of the theater, and we would love to hear from you. If you could please state your name and affiliation, that would be great. And we'll take it from there. So we have one speaker already ready to go.

Adeline Wilcox: My name is Adeline Wilcox I'm a retired Federal employee. I submit FOIA requests to the U.S. Census Bureau. Compared with the Trump administration, I find FOlA more frustrating under the Biden administration. Could be because a different attorney is assigned to my requests. A notable exception over, over the Labor Day weekend, Census FOIA sensibly produced within days. Usually I hear nothing for weeks. Because I am a citizen journalist, I fall into the "other" request or category. I find Census FOlA's demands for amounts exceeding $400 unreasonable.

Alina M. Semo: Thank you, Ms. Wilcox. Appreciate those comments. We have another speaker. Ready to go? 

Michael Ravnitzky: Hello. Can you hear me?

Alina M. Semo: A little louder.

Michael Ravnitzky: Hello. Members of the Advisory Committee my name is Michael Ravnitzky and I truly appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. I submitted some written comments but I would like to highlight some few points about my recent article, The Right to Know FOlA Bill of Rights.

In my experience using the Freedom of Information Act and helping others, I've seen firsthand the unnecessary difficulties some requesters face. FOIA's core function is impaired. The statute, regulations, and guidance touch on some of these difficulties, but the issues persist. Requesters often face delays, overcharges, denials, and inconsistent communication. The FOIA Bill of Rights addresses these issues. These rights are real whether or not they are explicitly recognized in the law. Better acknowledgment would benefit everyone.

A few examples: Requesters have the right to a final response letter that contains the case number, the subject description and appeal right, many letters lack those basics.  Requesters have the rights to an estimated completion date and knowing their position in the processing queue on request. Few agencies will provide this. Requests should be processed with presumption of openness and the foreseeable harm test applied, but this often doesn't occur.

Requesters should be able to ask for an electronic search of email without inappropriate constraints. Instead, agencies needlessly object to email searches, I should say some agencies object to email searches, and often demand impossible information from the requester such as specific email subject lines or dates and times of specific emails before they will proceed with the search. Requesters have the right to records that are not locked or encumbered by file restrictions unless a legitimate reason exists. They should also receive records scanned with reasonable care however it is common for requesters to receive records that are locked or restricted or poorly scanned or in unusable formats. Referred or remanded requests should be processed based on the original submittal date to avoid unfair years or decades long delays. Finally, requesters should be given a good faith decategorization and not just defaulted to the commercial requester category.

Agencies should ask the request for clarification if they object to the requester’s self described category. Requesters in a non-commercial fee category should not be charged for review fees. This happens a lot. And requesters should receive a complete and detailed fee breakdown of applicable fees upon request. These things all happen. Accommodating these rights would benefit agencies and requesters by reducing time-consuming appeals and litigation, saving time and resources.

While statutory improvements would be helpful and welcome, my primary goal is for this committee to discuss the FOIA Bill of Rights and to issue recommendations. I ask the committee to consider these principles and explore ways to integrate them into existing FOIA regulations and practices.

Some such recommendations can encourage DOJ and OGIS to provide formal direction on these areas and this may lead to improvements in DOJ's sample template. Clear guidance on these rights would improve problem areas providing a more efficient and less adversarial FOIA process. Adopting these FOIA Bill of RIghts principles will enhance transparency, fairness and efficiency reducing appeals and litigation. FOIA is essential to our system of government democracy, it supports the crucial work of journalists and empowers citizens to hold their government accountable. I urge the committee to consider the FOlA Bill of Rights to improve the experience for all FOIA requesters. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Alina M. Semo: Thank you very much. Appreciate that. And the FOIA Bill of Rights has been posted on the OGIS website so it's available for all the committee members to review and read. Thank you.

Kirsten Mitchell: Hi. This is Kirsten Mitchell, the Designated Federal Officer. I just wanted to note Michael, your comments, you noted that final letters should include case numbers, subject description and appeal rights. And one of the recommendations that came last term was a model determination letter, that is, I can't remember the number, which recommendation number it is, but it is posted on the OGIS website. And I know Dave worked on that and Bobby and Jason. So that is out there. Just wanted to point that out.

Alina M. Semo: Okay. Any comments from the committee based on the public comments we've heard? Okay. Thank you. That was very helpful feedback.

For those of you who are not here with us today in the McGowan Theater, there will be another opportunity to make oral public comments at our Friday meeting. You have to register on our Eventbrite link that is on our website no later than 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday. So that way we can get you the event bright information - sorry, the Webex information for that meeting.

So I'm going to just ask committee members any other parting thoughts? Otherwise we're going to end our meeting a little bit early and I'm happy to give you an hour back of your time. Any comments, questions? I just want to thank everyone for being here today. Jason and Melissa, thank you for participating on the phone.

I want to invite everyone to visit our website, social media, for more information on how our committee is moving forward, our activities and how you can participate. Thank you for joining us today and I hope everyone and their families remain safe, healthy, and resilient.

Just a reminder again we're going to meet Friday, September 13th, starting at 10:00 a.m. online. I want to encourage and invite all of our committee members to please sign in at 9:30 a.m. to make sure that there are no technical problems and we can work out any technical issues at that time. If there are no questions or comments, I think we're ready to adjourn. So we stand adjourned. Thank you.