Office of Government Information Services (OGIS)

April 17, 2018 Meeting Transcript


Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee.

Tuesday, April 17, 2018.

>> David Ferriero: Nates Jones and Logan Perel of the search subcommittee, Margaret Kwoka and Chris Knox and Ginger McCall of the efficiency and resources committee.  I know during the committee's January 16 meeting the committee voted unanimously to approve several recommendations and best practices to improve the administration of FOIA and I also understand during today's meeting you will be considering a draft of the final report and recommendations and deliberating to finalize that.  And I look forward to receiving and reviewing the committee's final report and recommendations, and more importantly look forward to figuring out how to implement them so you have my commitment to support your work.  At this time I would like to recognize committee members here today by presenting them with a certificate and small token of participation, please come up and pose for the official photograph for the record.


>>Alina Semo:  David, thank you.  Good morning everyone.  I just wanted to take a second to say we ordered these lovely challenge coins, slash paper weights.  They look like this.  There is a wonderful logo on the front and OGIS.  There is a little bit of a delay on the record, they are prototypes.  I want to assure every member of the committee they will be getting one when I call your name go up for your certificate and a photo opportunity for the archivist.  Michael Bekesha, Judicial Watch.


>> Ferriero: Michael Bell, Department of Health and Human Services.


>> Ferriero: Nate Jones, National Security Archives. 


>> Ferriero: Chris Knox, Deloitte.


>> Ferriero: Raynell Lazier, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.


>> Ferriero: Sean Moulton, Protection Government Oversight.


>>Ferriero: Logan Perel, Department of the Treasury.


>> Ferriero: David Pritzker, Administrative Conference of the United States.


>> Ferriero: Melanie Pustay, U.S. Department of Justice.

>>Ferriero: Tom Susman, American Bar Association.


>> Ferriero: And last but really not least, Amy Bennett, our designated federal officer.  I think she deserves a really big round of applause.  Yay, Amy.


>> Amy Bennett, our designated federal officer.

>> Semo: Michael, can you guys hear me?  Good morning.  I am Alina Semo, the chair of this FOIA Advisory Committee.  I am very excited to welcome you to our final meeting of the 2016‑2018 term.  I am a little sad, but it's ‑‑ all good things have to come to an end.  So, we are going to have a few items on our agenda some of them are going to be housekeeping.  As we normally do.  I will start with asking the members to go around and introduce themselves, I know we have several members on the phone.  So, and I apologize that you could not be here to get your certificate we will mail it to you.  Also, the challenge coin don't forget that. 

We will go through the housekeeping measures, and we will obviously be working primarily today on the committee's final report and recommendation of the let's begin by introducing all of our committee members.  Let's start with the folks on the phone if you could please introduce yourself state your profession and affiliation?  Ginger McCall?

>> Ginger McCall, I am currently unaffiliated, although I was affiliated with the Department of Labor and will soon be affiliated with the state of Oregon.

>> James Hershberg, historian, George Washington University.

>> Stephanie Carr, the FOIA officer for the office of security joint staff

>> James Valvo, Cause of Action Institute.

>> Hi, Jill Eggleston, FOIA office for USCIS.

>> (inaudible)

>> Sarah Kotler, Food and Drug Administration, FOIA officer.

>> Semo: Margaret or Lynn Walsh?  Going once, going twice?  Okay.  They are not here.  So, they will not be getting their coins.


>> (inaudible)

>> Semo: Let's hear from those of you sitting at the table today start with end of the table to my right David please introduce yourself your name and affiliation

>> Yes, David Pritzker, Deputy General Counsel of the Administrative Conference of the United States.

>> Hi Raynell Lazier, FOIA manager.

>> Chris Knox, forensic managing director, Deloitte.

>> Mike Bell, public liaison, public health and human services

>> Tom Susman, director of governmental affairs, American Bar Association.

>> Melanie Pustay, office of information policy DOJ.

>> Sean Moulton, Open Government Manager, Project On Government Oversight.

>> Logan Perel, attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel at the offices for Foreign Asset Control, Department of the Treasury.

>> Nate Jones, director of the FOIA project, National Security Archive.

>> Mike Bekesha, attorney at Judicial Watch.

>> Alina Semo: Okay.  Great.  Thank you for introducing yourselves.  I will try to remind you the folks on the phone there has to be a pause between the time they turn the mics on for the folks on the phone and turn our mics on or something along those lines just count to 10.  It gives them a chance to pipe in and we can come back in.  So, let's talk about the fact that this committee provides a forum for public discussion FOIA issues offers members an opportunity to provide feedback and ideas for improving the process.  At the end of today's meeting we will have an opportunity for public comments we look forward to hearing from any noncommittee members with comments to share, we are monitoring the live stream.  If you have any comments you may submit them and we will read them during the comment period at the end.  While this is the last meeting of our current term the archivist plans to renew the committee's charter for another two‑year term.  We recently yesterday published a call for nominations the nomination deadline is June 1.  So, please consider nominating yourselves or have someone else nominate you. 

To promote openness transparency engagement we post updates to the website blog on Twitter at FOIA underscore ombud the URL for the site is on the slides behind me.  Stay up to date on the latest OGIS news and information by following us on Twitter.  Information about the committee including members biographies committee documents are available on the OGIS website.  As I stated earlier, we are live streaming this meeting.  We will make the video transcript materials available on the committee's web page as soon as possible we expect to have all of the material available on the website within 30 days so please bear with us.  Thank you in advance for your patience and understanding.  We will take a 15‑minute break halfway through the meeting at approximately 11:30 I remain committed to end by noon.  During the break you may wish to purchase food or drink from charter's a cafe as a reminder no food or drink is allowed in the theater.  Note there are restrooms outside the theater and another set outside at the cafe.  So, a couple more housekeeping matters and then we will get right into business.  Let's turn first our attention to the approval of our January 16 meeting minutes.  I understand that everyone on the committee has had a chance to review and comment on the minutes.  All comments have been received and incorporated I have certified the minutes.  So, I was going to take a minute now just to remind everyone about the voting procedures.  And I can also do it later just in case.  Amy tells me in your packets, there is a handy dandy guide for voting.  There are basically several rules but essentially any member of the committee can move to vote on a recommendation, it does not ‑‑ sorry the motion does not need to be seconded.  Although we have tended to do that in the past because it feels better right?  The vote can pass by unanimous decision every voting member except abstention is in favor of or opposed to a particular motion.  General consensus less ‑‑ at least sorry 2/3 of the total votes cast in favor or opposed to a motion or majority are in favor or oppose today a particular motion in the event of a tie, we will reopen discussion and the committee will continue to vote until there is a majority.  Reminder any member can make a motion to vote unfortunately it doesn't have to be seconded if you feel lying it please go ahead.  Since we ‑‑ since we have members on the phone for going to take voice vote.  Voting the minutes.  It's if I can have a motion in favor of moving for the minutes to be entered into the record?

>> So move.

>> Thank you.

>> All ‑‑

>> Thank you, Sean.  All in favor?

>> AYE.

>> On the phone?

>> AYE.

>> Alina Semo: Okay.  All opposed?  Any abstentions?  Thank you.  Unanimous votes on the minutes.  Minutes have been approved and will be available for public inspection on the committee's website.  So, our primary order of business today is to discuss and voted on the committee's final report and recommendation.  And I believe approximately one week ago we went ahead and posted the draft report on the website, I do want to take a minute this is one ‑‑ to thank the working group who did a really out standing job to try to get everything together and that would be Nate, I am looking around the table to help me Michael Bell, Ginger McCall, Pritzker and Chris Knox, thank you to all of you.  I know it's a hard job but we you will pulled it together.  Before we get into the heart of the report I know we have one order of business to be held over from the last meeting.  As you may remember we had a rigorous discussion regarding one of the recommendations the proactive disclosure subcommittee.  We decided to postpone the vote on that recommendation until the committee had time to conduct research and discuss the proposal.  I do understand the subcommittee has come to agreement regarding the recommendation.  And they are ready to ask the full committee to vote on the proposal.  So, would anyone care to summarize the issue or do we want Amy to summarize it?  Amy you are on.

>> Alina Semo: Great.  Thank you ‑‑

>> Amy Bennett: Thank you to the subcommittee and Ginger McCall for revisiting the issue again.  Reminder, there were concerns about a recommendation that as a best practice agencies post a full contact information for all employees.  There was a particular concern about potential privacy and security issues with that best practice.  Ginger McCall did additional research to find out how agencies handled this issue she shared it with the subcommittee after discussion the subcommittee determined they would go ahead and recommend that as a best practice agencies should post an organizational chart with contact information for the individual agencies, of course if agencies do want to post all contact information the committee is in support of that they do understand that agencies face a variety of concerns and that they should have discretion in how they treat all of their employee information.  Anybody want to add to that or disagree with my summary?

>> Alina Semo: Sarah, do you want to add anything to that

>> Sarah Kotler: No, that was a perfect summary of that, thank you Amy.

>> Sean Moulton: I will just ‑‑ this is Sean.  I will just jump in and say, I think that's a good summary of where we came out, although, I would disagree with that last point about there was agreement that agencies should have discretion around posting of the information.  There were members of the subcommittee who still felt the recommendation should be that all contact information with certain subdivision should be posted.  I think there was just a lack of agreement on getting to that point.  There was agreement on what the best practice we put in to the draft which is organizational chart and contact for all offices.

>> Semo: Okay.  Thanks Sean.  All right.  Anyone else want to comment on the proposal.  David?

>> David Protzker: I am going to offer an amendment that the appropriate ‑‑ at the appropriate time, I don't know whether that's now or later about the way this is worded toward the end of the draft report.  I can tell you what it is.

>> Semo: Are we talking about this particular subcommittee recommendation.

>> Pritzker: We are talking about this subject.

>>Semo: Sure.

>> Pritzker: Let me just tell you what it is.

>>Semo: Yeah, um‑hmm.  We are all yours.

>> Pritzker: This is on page 25.  Near the top of the page.  And as proposed apparently by Melanie the way it would read is during discussions the full committee examined agency practices with respect to the release of employee contact information.  While some agencies routinely publish contact data for all employees official at several agencies identified concerns that made them unwilling to post contact information about their individual employees.  Then it's the rest of the sentence that I want to amend.  Thus the committee decided not to include a recommendation on the treatment of contact information.  Well we do have a recommendation on contact information it's just not for individual employees.  So, my suggested further amendment is to add at the end of the sentence "for individual employees."

>> Semo: Yeah, that's good David.

>> Pritzker: May I move that?

>> Yes, please move.

>> Done.


>>Semo:  All right.  With that, anyone else have any other comments?  Okay.  So with that amendment, should we go ahead and vote on this particular provision?  All in favor?

>> AYE.

>> All those on the phone?

>> AYE.

>> Do I have any opposed?  Do I have any abstentions?

>>Pustay: I will continue to abstain.

>> Pritzker: Okay.  So, great that was done.  The rest of the report is going to go very smoothly.  So, let's go ahead and turn our attention now to the report.  Amy did include a red‑line copy, in the folders beautiful color so you can tell the color differences.  And Amy will now be listening and making changes as we go along to make sure that we can try to get to some consensus on all of these edits that we received no we are not doing that.

>> I was just going to ask if you could please put the brief in the report, thank you very much.  Thank you.

>> As we make our way through the report, we will try to resolve all of the edits today that is my goal.  And if you obviously have any other edits that you want to suggest today is the day.  Speak now or forever hold your peace.  Once we completed discussion and have consensus on the language I will entertain a motion to vote on the final report and recommendation.  Any questions before we begin?  Questions?  Questions on the phone?  Okay.  Amy, tell us when you are ready.

>> I am ready.

>> Do you want to drive?  Do we want me to start going through we will go line by line if we have to it sounds a little painful.

>> It is painful.

>> It's a necessary evil.

>> Let's turn our attention to page ‑‑ I don't think anyone have comments on the first or second page.  Table of contents.  I am just doublechecking.

>> Bennett: Just to be clear we know there are issues with the page numbers once the committee finishes its discussion today it will go back and make sure the pages are correct and we will give another read through for any typos that are created.  And before we publish the final report.

>> Semo: Okay.  So, page 3 executive summary.  Everyone okay with taking out the quotes, is that what the change is?

>> Bennett: It was just a question of consistency we had quotes around some of them and not around others.

>> Semo: We are voting for no quotes, everyone okay with that?  All right.  Next change is on next paragraph the administration on the first line.

>> Pustay: The archivist one who made the announcement (inaudible) maybe archivist instead of administration since it's the same person.

>> Yes, that would work.

>> Alina Semo: That's fine, that's good.  Everyone okay with that?  Folks on the phone did you hear that?

>> No, sorry, didn't hear.

>> Alina Semo: Okay.  Moving right along, third paragraph.  During the 2016‑2018 term we have from where to in which.  And strike and take action, everyone okay with that?

>> Yes.

>> Alina Semo: Okay.  Next paragraph the committee identified, and approved 7 recommendations for the archivist.  Everyone all right with that?

>>Susman:  Um, given Amy's definition of what you ‑‑ the reason unanimously approved what struck was because of the abstentions unanimously actually defined as everyone who voted voting in favor not counting abstentions we can actually leave unanimously approved in.

>> Pustay: So ‑‑ I think we should then note the abstentions.  Like in a footnote

>> That would be fine with me.

>> Alina Semo: That's fine.

>> Just for clarity.

>> Alina Semo: Yep, I agree.  Everyone okay with that?  Amy, are we going too fast.

>> Bennett: No.  It will take me just a quick second to add a footnote.

>> Alina Semo: Sure.  And do we want the word supported back in or approved?

>> Approved.

>> Alina Semo: Everyone is good with approved?  Okay.  Great.

>> Alina Semo: Amy, can I go to the next paragraph?

>> Bennett: As long as you are okay with me saying insert.

>> Semo: Yes.  I am sure it will be fine.

>> Alina Semo: Yes, next paragraph, the committee also recommended that the Archivist consider everyone all right with that?  Next sentence, to advance adoption of these practices was struck.  And instead replaced by specifically.  Everyone all right with that?  Last line in that paragraph identify procedures.  We struck strategies and methods to improve compliance.  Everyone all right with that?  Okay. 

Can we take a break now?

>> Pustay: These two pages are the most.

>> Alina Semo: Now, first bulletted practice improving exposure the committee identified and was struck identified and it would now read the committee recommends that the archivist direct OGIS to publish as a best practice that agencies proactively post ‑‑ everyone all right with that change?

>> I think silence means people agree.

>> Alina Semo: Folks on the phone, make sure you speak up if you are concerned about anything okay?

>> Okay.

>> I propose edit to add identified categories.  Specific identified categories.  There is a list (inaudible).

>> Alina Semo: Yes, there is a list.  Where do you want to add this, I'm sorry.

>> Perel: Proactively post specific, specific identified categories of record or specifically identified?

>> (inaudible) identified and post.

>> You already it already said the specific categories.  You are trying to get it ‑‑ I mean ‑‑

>> You want it identified?

>> I am just trying to add the fact the subcommittee has identified what agencies should post.

>> Categories of records identified below including calendars

>> or about identified in (inaudible).

>> What about we have a list there including calendars top officials reports to congress we could FOIA logs and other categories identified (inaudible)

>> That's it.  Logan, is that okay with you?

>> Yes.

>> Are you referring to identified in the recommendation or identified by the agency?

>> Alina Semo: In the recommendation

>> Well then let's say so.  Below is fine, below is fine.

>> It shows in this report.

>> Alina Semo: It's in the report.

>> Yes.

>> Alina Semo: Okay.  Are we good for that sentence, the next sentence we struck the committee, we struck committee.  So it would read:  The best practice also offers methods to ensure FOIA logs are most useful and provides conversation considerations for agencies when identifying additional areas for proactive disclosure.  Everyone is good.  I am seeing a lot of nods Okay.  Great. 

All right.  Next bulletted paragraph.  Starts with balancing proactive disclosure.  The changes will now read:  The committee recommends the archivist directs OGIS to publish as best practice that agencies avoid the removal of documents already posted on agency's website because the records are not compliant with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  I will skip the cite.

>> That's fine.

>> Nate?  I want to make sure you are okay with that.

>> Yes, I am okay with that.

>> Alina Semo: Okay.  David?

>> I would prefer on the fourth line of this paragraph, keeping that are not currently compliant.  I don't think it's a matter of cause.

>> Well, that's (inaudible) take those documents out.

>> Well that's outside the scope of what we are recommending.

>> (inaudible)

>> I'm sorry, I don't have it.  This is Raynell.  I'm sorry Raynell, do you want to defend yourself?

>> No, it's fine.  I just, I thought there would be other reasons people would take those records down just a suggestion that they don't maintain that discretion.

>> Where I am coming from I thought the whole thrust of what we discussed and concluded was if it's already there, don't take it down if‑‑ just because somebody is saying it's not compliant.

>> And I think the point is just because of (inaudible) there is another issue unrighted to FOIA they mean to take it down.

>> That's outside the scope of what we are talking about.

>> Which is why the recommendation was to say because the records are not compliant (inaudible).

>> This is Ginger ‑‑

>> Now I understand your point, I withdraw.

>> Can you hear me?  Can you guys hear me?

>> Sure, Michael?

>> With Melanie's changes we encourage recommends we have a discussion that we want to make, quote, legal recommendations.

>> Can you hear me Ginger?

>> Yeah, I can hear you, but you I don't think they can hear us.

>> I don't think they can, which is a big problem.  I have big objections.

>> Does it make sense?  (inaudible)

>> Recommending to the archivist OGIS publishes best practice.

>> That is right, our line is muted.                        (People on the phone discussing that they can't be heard and when they talk Captioner cannot hear the room.)

>> The next would be to review the documents

>> Alina, can you hear us?

>> I don't think they can hear us.  I just ‑‑ we just sent E‑mails.

>> If they can't hear us, we can't meaningfully communicate.                                                (Hello, the captioner can't hear when the people on the phone talk.)

>> We need to go back and redo the section on 508, I was trying to participate and no one was hearing me.

>> (inaudible) this is Ginger.

>> You want us to go back to the beginning of that paragraph?

>> Yes, I mean, I am not even clear where we are right now we have been trying to sort out the issue of whether we are being heard could we have the discussion again, please?

>> Sure.  The first sentence the committee recommends that the archivist direct OGIS to publish as direct practice agencies avoid removal of documents I think that was no disagreement there.  And then we had a little bit of a scuttle button the striking out there are ‑‑ that are not currently, and right now change is to say because the records are not compliant with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.  Ginger, is that okay?

>> Just a second.  I am just reading over it.  Yes, I ‑‑ you know, we have been over this before, and the problem is we don't want to be making a legal recommendation that agencies keep things up on their website that is not compliant with 508.  And this again goes back to sounding like a recommendation that agencies keeps things up on their website.  Even if they are not compliant.  The discussion ‑‑ I heard what David said.  I strongly disagree with that.  What we went over here what we ended up agreeing to was agencies shouldn't take things down and use 508 as an excuse.  But I mean as a lawyer I have to say if you are an agency you can get sued for monetary damages, for having continuing to have this on the website something that is not compliant with the law you shouldn't be ‑‑ we shouldn't recommend that agencies keep things up on the website.  I understand don't use 508 as an excuse to take things down when it's just a front.  But I just can't make this recommendation if we are going to ask agencies to keep things on up on the website not compliant.

>> I am not quite reading the sentence that way.  I am reading what the committee is asking the archivist to direct OGIS to publish a best practice.

>> the agencies avoid removal of documents already posted on websites because the records are not compliant with Section 508.  Yeah that's just not a recommendation that I as a lawyer would get behind the archivist cannot make a legal recommendation that agencies continue to violate 508.

>> (inaudible) publishing best practices not publishing recommendations.

>> That's not a best practice.  Section 508 is actually an important piece of legislation that protects people with disabilities.

>> I am concerned about Mike had the same concern about the ‑‑

>> Obviously in any form or capacity we don't want to be suggesting that agencies violate Section 508 or condone the violation of 508, so even though we have it now it's down to it's a best practice it still is saying avoid removal when they are not compliant, if you are required to remove them because they are not compliant

>> You are not required to remove them but required to make them compliant leave them up when you remediate the very next sentence ‑‑ that still exposes

>> That exposes them to liability I ‑‑ with the compromise we came to but I am not okay with these things.

>> I have a suggestion.  What if we condense this down instead of having the first sentence saying, because the records are not compliance ‑‑ merge that with the second sentence about remediate.  So that it's very clear from the beginning is the recommendation is ‑‑ or the best practice would be ‑‑ it would be like instead of saying avoid removal the committee as a best practice that agencies remediate documents that are not compliant with 508 rather than removing them from the website.  So you get remediate.

>> That's an excellent idea

>> Nate Jones I don't think I can go for that.  My constituents see it's a hot topic the removal of documents we saw that client data was removed climate data was removed due to 508 we had congressional hearings congress people were upset documents are not posted due to 508 concerns.  We had several votes on this and hashed out language that we all had consensus on in the drafting committee.  So, as a worst I would go ‑‑ I am okay with these changes generally as a worst I would go back to what we drafted in the committee rather than tweaking or reopening the issue of what clear recommended about removing undue burden et cetera we spent a long time coming to consensus on.

>> This is Ginger.  I absolutely agree with that we went through the ‑‑

>> Anyone on the phone want to comment?

>> This is James Hershberg.  I do not think 508 should be used as a reason to ever remove documents and I think historians are particularly concerned because there are many nonelectronic originating documents that are not easily convertible to electronic form so I strongly endorse Nate's comments.

>> This is Ginger.  Can you hear me?

>> I can hear you Ginger, it's Sarah, but I am also on the phone.

>> Captioner, can you hear me please?

>> We can all hear you in the room.

>> Great.  Thank you.  I agree with Nate, I think we spent a lot of time hashing out the consensus language we should particular with it instead of changing it now.

>> This is Sarah Kotler, I agree as well.

>> This is Stephanie Carr, can we get a reminder of what the language was ‑‑ can we get a reminder of the language.

>> The language originally before Melanie ‑‑

>> My edit is nothing substantive.  My edit is just making it clear it's a best practice.  Not to the merits of the ‑‑

>> This is Sean.  I think the point is that the drafting committee made some changes from the orange language when they put this together into a full report.  I don't have the original subcommittees kind of agreed upon language.

>> The original language as written by the working group is the committee, the committee encourages agencies to avoid the removal of documents already posted on agency websites that are not currently compliant with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act as amended to get at your edit Melanie, do you think that we could instead of just starting with the committee encourages agencies we can say as best practice the committee encourages?

>> Well, the ‑‑ that's the ‑‑ the committee isn't directly doing this the committee is making a recommendation to the archivist to include as a best practice, that's the ‑‑

>> As a best practice to be published by ‑‑ by OGIS?

>> Right.  So, I mean, my edits don't go to the merits of the ‑‑ this ‑‑ don't go to the substance they are more to the procedural implementation of this.  In some ways it seems like we are back to it's okay as it is with my procedural edit.

>> I think so.

>> Well, I think the language is taking on encourage ‑‑ that's the problem.  Why don't we have the archivist directs OGIS to publish as best practice.

>> That agencies ‑‑

>> Best practice ‑‑

>> Encourages agencies

>> That encourages agencies ‑‑

>> Can anyone speak up to struck encourages agencies, Raynell was that in part of your edit ‑‑

>> I think it would have been me as part of mine.

>> Would you be willing to go back to ‑‑

>> Add encourages?

>> Right.  To publish as a best practice.

>> That encourages agencies.

>> To publish a best practice that encourages or publishes a best practice that agencies are encouraged?

>> Could we just this is Sean could we just have the archivist direct OGIS to encourage agency and leave it up to OGIS to figure out whether it's a best practice or memo?

>> Yeah, but the best ‑‑ it doesn't go with what ‑‑ advisory committee can do ‑‑ the construct here is that it's recommending that OGIS publish a best practice.

>> We are trying to be clear that we are making a it ‑‑ we are recommending ‑‑ this is a best practice, not recommendation.

>> Why don't we have to publish a best practice encouraging agencies.  Instead of that encourages using ‑‑ use encouraging.

>> Yes.

>> That's good Michael.  Everyone okay with that?

>> on the phone?

>> The last part of the sentence we still need to resolve are we okay with Raynell's change because the records are not compliant?  Versus what we had before that are not currently?

>> This is Ginger.  I am not okay with that change.

>> Raynell would you be willing to concede

>> (inaudible)

>> Lee it as ‑‑

>> All right.  We are going to go back, Ginger you won that point on agency website that are not currently compliant with Section 508 of the Rehab Act everyone good with that?

>> One second.

>> Sure.

(Discussion off record.)

Okay Ginger, are you okay with that sentence?

>> Do you want us to read it to you?

>> Could you read it?

>> The committee recommends that the archivist direct OGIS to publish a best practice encouraging agencies to avoid the removal of documents already posted on agency websites that are not currently compliant with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act as amended and then a long cite.

>> Yeah, that's fine.

>> As after publish?  Published as a best practice or ‑‑

>> if it's encouraging it's a best practice

>> Okay, everyone good with that seeing a lot of nods.  Ginger are you good with that?

>> Yes, I am good with that.

>> All right.  Anyone else on the phone?  James?

>> Yes, that's fine with me.

>> All right.  Next sentence so, we have a change from ‑‑ well, the sentence as change would read instead best practice would be to remediate such documents nice and simple sentence.

>> I couldn't hear whether you say "a" in there insert a or the.

>> The.

>> My preference is the.

>> Mine too.

>> Instead the best practice would be to remediate such documents everyone okay with that?  Folks on the phone

>> I think beginning ‑‑ this is Ginger I think that's a good change.

>> As long as the second change goes through as well.

>> All right.  Let me know cue me when.  Okay.  Next sentence.  So, we are striking the beginning of the next sentence so it's going to start with when the agency concern about the practicality of remediation the best practice would be to conduct an undue burden analysis.

>> When an agency?  Was concerned?

>> Yeah?  Good point.  Is everyone okay with that change?  I am seeing nods.  Is that a yes?  Yes?

>> Yes.

>> Folks on the phone are you guys good with that change

>> Yes.

>> Yes.

>> Okay.  We made it through the bullet.  All right next bullet improving FOIA searches.  The first sentence is going to read the committee recommends that the archivist address the lack of public information about FOIA programs search methods.  And technologies.  Programs apostrophe? 

>> It's about multiple ‑‑

>> Multiple sections.  How do folks feel about that?  Raynell, this is your edit?

>> My ‑‑ I am a little bit worried that the general thrust was that necessarily FOIA ‑‑ maybe I can be swayed part of the problem was that search technology need to go beyond FOIA programs.  So, maybe if someone has an E‑mail system that can't be searched it doesn't mean it's the FOIA program's fault is my concern.

>> That's a good point.  You don't want to limit it to FOIA programs anywhere in the agency.

>> I would say agencies would be better, maybe.

>> Raynell?  Can you live with the more general iteration of that?  So, can we go back to current agencies whatever was struck can we go back to that struck language?

>> Yes.

>> All right.  Everyone good with that?  Everyone on the phone?

>> Yes.

>> The way it reads now:  The committee recommends that the archivist address the lack of public information about current methods and technologies agencies use to search for responsive records by, colon, we haven't gotten to the rest yet.

>> Right.

>> Yeah, I could tweak what Raynell suggested as well, but that's okay with me.

>> Raynell, you are okay with this?

>> That's fine.

>> Thank you.  Next sentence in that paragraph that's been affected is little further down, under number 2, we are talking about the CFO, the chief FOIA council work with the CIO with the Chief Information Officer's council to explore the technological issues related to searches.  And to promote best practices.  We are striking a better understanding of and the word surrounding.  Supposed to add it.

>> Okay.  Raynell.

>> How do you feel about it that's good everyone likes it on the phone.

>> Yes, that's good.

>> Okay.  Next sentence, we have picks up in the middle after the federal acquisition regulation tone sure that all agencies consider FOIA obligations when acquiring electronic records management software.

>> (inaudible)

>> That's a Tom edit.  Everyone is good with that

>> Yes.

>> Okay.  Everyone on the phone good with that?

>> Yes.

>> I am okay with that.

>> Incorporate FOIA obligations?

>> Something beyond ‑‑

>> You want something stronger than consider?

>> I considered it but it's too costly, we are not going to incorporate it in (inaudible).

>> All right.  Address?  I like address is good.

>> How do you feel about "address" folks on the phone we are going to consider be modified and changed to address so it would say address FOIA obligations when acquiring records management software.

>> "Consider" seems to work for me this is Stephanie.

>> We are now on address.  Yeah, I'm sorry when.

>> When we tell people to consider privacy considerations they know what that means without having to tell them to address.  I think that the government is very sensitive to the word "consider" that would cause them to take appropriate action.

>> Compromise we could have both words consider and address

>> Okay.  All right.  I can work with that.


>> This way I am making everyone happy.  All right?

>> I like "consider."                                           >> You like consider.  Logan are you dying.

>> No.

>> We are going back to consider.  It's one big mediation.  Okay.  And the very last line of that bullet point we are changing from striking the word "in" changing it to "for" federal employees and striking appraisal records and workplan.  So, let me just read the last phrase it would read:  The archivist also direct the OGIS to examine and report on the use of appropriate FOIA standards for federal employees, period.

>> (inaudible).


>> All right.  Everyone good with that?  Folks on the phone?

>> Yes.

>> Yes.

>> Yes.

>> So, the next paragraph lots of changes here.  This is Raynell's changes would you like to talk about your ‑‑

>> (inaudible).

>> I'm sorry, I skipped right over the last bullet I apologize thank you making efficient use of agency resources the sentence as amended would read:  The committee identified and recommends that the archivist direct OGIS to publish as best practices a number of strategies to ensure agencies (inaudible) use of available ‑‑

>> We need the word "resources."                                   >> I think that was the place when I was carrying over ‑‑ (inaudible).

>> Me edit.

>> Everyone okay with that change?  Folks on the phone okay with that change?

>> Yes ‑‑

>> Yes ‑‑

>> Yes.

>> Do you want to talk it through for a minute.

>> I have a comment here.

>> She changed it to maximize the use of available resources.

>> You have to move the identify.

>> Instead of maximize the use of the resources that they have available.  So it's just a much cleaner way I think to say.

>> Amy, do we have a comment on the last bullet?  Do we need to go back?

>> On making use efficient use of agency resources?

>> Yes.

>> The ‑‑ do you have a problem with ‑‑

>> Logan pointed out that the committee identified and recommended (inaudible).

>> The place to put "identified" is before a number of strategies.  The committee recommends that the archivist direct OGIS to publish as best practices a number of identified strategies.

>> Identified strategies.  That's good.

>> Recommends the OGIS to publish best practices a number of identified strategies.

>> That's good.

>> Great.

>> Thank you, David.  Good with everyone?  Okay.  So, are we good with that bullet?  Going once going twice?  Folks on the phone do you want me to read the bullet or is everyone good with those changes?

>> I am good.

>> Good.

>> We are on to the next paragraph.

>> Just to make it concise so it's ‑‑ it shouldn't be substantive.

>> I am okay with that I would actually prefer the last line increasing proactive disclosures and promoting transparencies.

>> Stay in.

>> But I would prefer that stands.

>> I would (inaudible).

>> I have two votes in favor of not striking it.

>> Right.

>> Okay.  Other folks?  Neutral?

>> I say leaving that in but it seems to me that thoughtfully is rather a peculiar word to put in this.

>> Yeah or and also the ‑‑

>> (inaudible) (Everyone speaks at once .)

>>  I would prefer to have endorses is stronger than ‑‑ we could draft something and not pass it.  So.

>> We have a problem with the prior language the committee strongly endorses.

>> No, I actually would prefer that strongly endorses how do you guys feel about that.

>> I prefer it or only say endorses strongly.

>> I like endorses without.

>> On the phone we are going back to the original language.

>> Strongly is fine but without is fine too.

>> I'm sorry who was that on the phone?

>> James Hershberg.

>> James, I'm sorry, go ahead.

>> All right.  The language currently is the committee strongly endorses these recommendations and best practices and is confident agencies implementing them see measurable improvement to the administration of FOIA then it would help to be (inaudible) promote transparency.  (inaudible).

>> Did you hear that formulation do you want me to read it again?  Everyone good with this the way it reads now?  Great.  All right we are done.  Background.

>> It gets easier I think now.

>> Those were the worst cases.

>> We are on to page 5 background.  I believe we have one change the first paragraph from this to the.  Everyone I think could agree to that.

>> No, no, no way.

>> A lot of uproar to that change, okay good second paragraph, we have in the middle of the paragraph we have a change or we have addition administration.

>> It's the same issue.

>> It's the same issue we are going to strike that.

>> Tom suggested archivist.

>> Announced.  Right.

>> I have got that.

>> We are going to say the archivist announced the appointment of.  Right Tom?  Okay the last sentence.

>> Give me a second (inaudible).

>> I'm sorry.

>> The archivist announced the appointment, thank you.

>> (inaudible).

>> Okay.  Last line, the last sentence, the committee may recommend legislative action policy changes or executive action among other matters.

>> (inaudible).

>> Okay.  Is everyone good with Tom's edit?  Okay.  I think we have consensus.  All right next page on page 6.  We have big addition.  Under recommendation section suggested by Tom do you want to talk about that?

>> Yeah, the executive summary makes clear that we have got we are doing two separate things we have got specific actions and recommendations the recommendations going through OGIS from the archivist and I just I didn't I think the way it was originally written it looks as if the specific ‑‑ the best practices were sort of secondary and less important rather than simply in a different category.  And I ‑‑ this sort of says what we are doing and how we are doing it.  We got recommendations and best practices.

>> I am seeing a lot of nods.

>> That's fine we change some of the language we can't go back.

>> To conform.

>> Yeah.

>> All right.  For exactly the same reason, I would like to see a either larger print or different type style for the two subheadings specific actions on this page and best practices a couple of pages later.

>> Okay.  All right should we spend time trying to make sure that we are in conformance or is that something that you could rely on us to do.

>> I just went and grabbed the language from (inaudible).

>> Okay.  Thank you.  Maybe someone could read it out loud.

>> It says the committee identified and unanimously with a footnote approved 7 recommendations for the archivist for actions to improve the implementation of FOIA addressing search technologies FOIA accessibility and FOIA standards the committee recommends the archivist consider a number of best practices that can assist agencies in bolstering the FOIA programs specifically the committee recommended the archivist direct the office of information service OGIS, I am going to take out ‑‑

>> The committee recommends?  Because we have been keeping in the present right?

>> Committee recommends.

>> Yeah.  Everyone agree with that.

>> Sure.

>> Recommends that the archivist direct OGIS to publish and promote these best practices as part of the statutory responsibility to review FOIA policies and procedures and identify procedures and methods to improve performance.

>> We need to change the first line there.  The committee also recommends.  Right?  We can leave also ‑‑ instead of recommended.

>> Also recommend.

>> Should be recommended you.

>> You still need an S on recommend.

>> Then change it back to the original location.

>> Back in (inaudible).

>> Okay.  With those changes.

>> On the top line, can we change the word ‑‑ the first paragraph 7 recommendations to the archivist.

>> Instead of for the archivist.

>> Yes.

>> To?  Everyone okay with to?  Okay.  All right.  Does anyone everyone okay with that, Tom this is a good addition.  Thank you.

>> Go back and change it.

>> I was waiting for consensus over here and over here.

>> Folks on the phone do you want us to read it out loud again or are you following?

>> We are following.

>> We are following.

>> I am following.

>> Just a sec.  (inaudible) so, specific actions we will duly note it will be shown in a different font of our choice.  The committee so again these are changes is this another Tom this is Raynell?  Okay.  Not picking on anyone in particular I am trying to follow along.

>> It's a couple of people.

>> Okay, then.

>> This is just to make it compliant nothing substantive.  Striking FOIA advisory starting with the committee recommends that the archivist take the following actions to improve agency processing of FOIA requests.  Period.

>> Thank you.  Tom.

>> Everyone okay with that?

>> And on the second sentence a number of people have suggested edits but they were all edits were addressed by adding in Tom's section above so I just made the executive decision to cut the sentence in its entirety.

>> James Valvo, just want to make sure you are heard on this you were part of these edits.

>> Yep, I am good.  Thank you.

>> All right.  It says 508 stuff is there that's not processing a FOIA request.

>> They didn't just say take the following actions.

>> to improve agency administration.

>> Administration and the FOIA request.

>> Do we need it?  I mean can't we say action ‑‑

>> Actions colon ‑‑

>> Less words is always better.

>> and strike to improve agency processing.

>> (inaudible).

>> Everyone good with that striking to improve agency processing?  Okay.  Okay.  We are moving on to search technology at the bottom of page 6.  We have a comment anyone want to own up to the comment.

>> This was me.

>> Melanie?

>> I added in the sentences on describing the information that has been collected in chief FOIA officer reports on searches and use of technology to improve searches as a predicate to the recommendation.

>> Melanie I am just curious are those comprehensive and official descriptions?

>> Yep.

>> The committee missed that, the subcommittee ‑‑

>> No, we talked about it, we talked about it.

>> There was a little discrepancy on we had a hard time finding it so every agency does a chief FOIA officer report some of them may have it in an ad hoc way to put in search, when we searched it was hard to find and not uniform throughout agencies, I guess I would say.

>> It was in ‑‑ there is a distinct section of the chief FOIA officer report where we asked agencies over and over the past six years to describe use of technology to improve FOIA administration.  So, I was looking at just again this morning over and over again agencies are saying, well we are using discovery platforms we have a new system for re‑duplicating.  So there is a lot of information about searches.

>> I think it's not as comprehensive as we were looking for we could put ‑‑

>> Yeah, I am willing to ‑‑ but that's ‑‑ there is a difference between using FOIA technology and what are you doing to search how is the search conducted.

>> the sentence could be there nonetheless appears to be no comprehensive or uniform description of how agencies conduct FOIA searches.

>> Yes.

>> Um‑hmm.

>> Comprehensive or uniform.

>> Okay.  So he is proposing.

>> For the sentence I was striking out.

>> Put it back in.

>> Leave your description in but add back in ‑‑ (inaudible).

>> Tell me what that would be then?

>> Well, off the top of my head it was nontheless there appear to be no comprehensive or uniform descriptions of how agencies conduct FOIA searches.

>> Okay.

>> Okay.

>> That's fair.

>> That's okay.  I think that gets at what ‑‑

>> Is that good?

>> I just have one question Melanie do chief FOIA officer report themselves collect information I just wonder if we have to fix that.

>> Oh, um ‑‑

>> We could say the departments collected.

>> (inaudible).

>> (inaudible) yeah, you are right.

>> Okay.  Folks on the phone do you want us to read the sentence to you again?

>> I would, thank you.

>> Amy you, you want to read that?

>> Yes.  Okay.  So it currently reads:  For the past six years 2012‑2017 the Department of Justice directed through chief FOIA officer reports information related to agency use of technologies that facilitate processing of requests including improved searches the Department of Justice summaries and assessments of these reports highlight examples of such effort such as agencies that use discovery tools and platforms to facilitate searches.  (inaudible) how agencies conduct FOIA searches.

>> That's fine.

>> Thank you.

>> Is that good with everyone shaking their head.

>> This hangs because ‑‑ because we are (inaudible).

>> Oh, is there a way to ‑‑

>> We have to make it super tiny.

>> Where does the sentence begin nonetheless?

>> Right here (indicating).  On the second page.

>> Read it to you one more time David?  Please just give me a moment to read it.

>> Sure.

>> Okay.  I am okay on that, though I have a question about the footnote.

>> Okay.  The footnote says:  Office of information policy conducted.  Is there a typo in the ‑‑ in the cited item is it when leveraging digital tools or is it leveraging tool?

>> Oh, I am sure it's just a typo, it needs to be tools.

>> Okay.  Everyone good with the footnote?  I guess footnote 1 very exciting.

>> We added a footnote earlier.

>> It will change to 2.

>> Okay.  The next sentence, sorry two sentences down requiring chief FOIA officers to include additional information and their chief FOIA officer reports could enhance the ability of the government and the public to identify efficient search messages et cetera, et cetera.  Everyone okay with that change?

>> I prefer "would."

>>  Input of (inaudible).


>> Maybe we could say "would" but take out greatly.

>> Would enhance the ability?

>> That's a good compromise.

>> That's good.  Is that good with everyone?

>> I do have one ‑‑ I don't know if we need it but we struck this information referencing back to the information on the search so now it's just requiring FOIA officers to include information, do we want to say this or ‑‑

>> It's supposed to say additional information.

>> I can add in additional.

>> There is additional there.

>> We already have some maybe I don't know what is looking what is up there now.

>> Additional is up there.

>> Sean you are suggesting that the word "this" is important in front of additional because ‑‑

>> (inaudible) (every you one speaks at one time.

>> or such additional ‑‑ we could actually put in search procedures or something like that additional information on and then say, what additional information we wanted or reference back to this.

>> (inaudible).

>> I think that would fix it is that okay with everyone?  Okay.  Next paragraph we have starting with paragraph 3, suggesting a modification to the FARS we have a change that three lines down that would read:  To consider instead of to take into consideration features that will help facilitate the agencies responsibilities under FOIA to provide access to federal agency records.  Folks are okay with that.

>> It's a grammatical thing.

>> Raynell, thank you.  Okay.  Comment we have a "the" on the second line.  Everyone okay with that?  Okay.  Moving on.  FOIA inaccessibility subparagraph, I am moving on to top of page 8.  In the comments section second line we have word "customers" is struck and replaced by "other individuals."

Everyone all right with that change?  Nod?  Yes, good?  I am also looking at the fourth line of that same paragraph we are striking the words in order.  So the phrase would read:  And other features that made the documents accessible to ensure that sensitive information cannot be obtained by reverse engineering everyone okay with that?  Folks on the phone so far so good.

>> Yep.

>> OGIS to highlight the issues we have a change all citizens are struck.  And replaced by everyone.  That seems pretty comprehensive.  And we have suggested striking of a sentence that starts with agencies should keep in mind to have flexibility to proactively disclose records while seeking to maximize accessibility.

>> That's my suggested deletions because I think it's legal advice on Section 508 so it's problematic to me because it's legal advice and it's also on Section 508.

>> Then could we regurgitate the line that we used before about pointing to 508's let me say the correct words.  The undue burden analysis in 508 could we point to that?

>> Are you on the top of page 4?

>> Yes point 3.

>> (inaudible) all the pages are different.

>> Yeah.

>> This is what I wanted to take out.

>> No, no, no I am going back to where he wants to insert.

>> I mean instead of ‑‑ I understand that agencies should keep in mind they have flexibility to (inaudible) disclose records if we don't want to give legal advice could we point to what the Rehabilitation Act says about their flexibility?  So, something along the lines of agencies should inform themselves about the undue burden standards.

>> You are on undue burden analysis.

>> Am I in the right place?

>> Yes he is trying to come up with a substitute sentence.

>> Agencies should keep in mind the 508 compliances.

>> How about agencies should balance their Section 508.

>> Very legalistic phrasing it that way.

>> a prior draft of this that the working group for this report had at one time had that kind of language here.  And the OGIS staff I wrote it ‑‑ the OGIS staff contacted me and urged that all be moved to the best practices area.  And that's why it's there now.  I leave it to the OGIS staff to explain why they wanted to do that but that's why it was taken from here.

>> It seems like if you wanted to add a sentence in here, the phrasing would have to be something like:  The Rehabilitation Act provides you know and then quote it.  Maybe that would address Nate's concern.

>> Yep.

>> and that also addresses my concerns we are not giving legal advice we are just stating a standard in the statute.

>> Nate would that be okay?

>> Yes.  So ‑‑

>> It would just have to quote it the retax act provides quote something something.

>> the agencies to, yes.  That's fine with me.  I am thinking that we would quote the undue burden standard.

>> Yes.  Is that all right with everyone?  Okay.

>> Then that will have to be its own sentence.

>> (inaudible).

>> And then congress should ensure.

>> Will be the next sentence right.

>> All right.

>> Before we leave this I am not quite sure what is going to be said about undue burden without seeing what the statute ‑‑ statutory language looks like I don't know if you can directly quote it and have it fit here.

>> This is James why don't we just get the sentence we used on page 4 copy the same language.  The last sentence of the first bullet point.

>> on page 4 the last sentence of the first bullet point page 4.

>> Well, we all agreed on that language already so let's just use it again.

>> That's true.  Would that be all right Nate?

>> Yes.

>> The last phrase of that page that's fine.

>> Do you still want Nate to conduct undue analysis burden too or are you Rehab Act allows to are not Section 508 compliant if it imposes an undue burden on the agency just that last part.

>> Yep.  Okay.  Everyone okay with that?

>> Can you read it out this is Ginger could you read it out as it will be?

>> (inaudible) including information access for everyone however agencies do not have the (inaudible) thus potentially preventing them to be able to post these records in their FOIA readings rooms the Rehabilitation Act allows agencies to release electronic documents that are not Section 508 compliant if rendering them compliant would impose undue burden on the agency.  Congress should ensure agencies have sufficient resources to meet accessibility and corrective disclosure requirements.

>> All right, good.

>> Even better.

>> Whoever suggested using that language in bullet 4, thank you.  I mean bullet on page 4 who was that?

>> James.

>> Thank you James.

>> You are welcome.

>> Okay moving on FOIA performance standards.  In the comments section we have in the first sentence the U.S. Department of Justice states that FOIA is everyone's responsibility.

>> That's just a link not edit.

>> Mine is blue.


>> Is there a problem with that?


>> Okay.  We are okay with that link?  Okay.  Good.  The next one is also a link.

>> Then it's just adding the word "the" ‑‑


>> The problem with links like this, is that people who have a paper copy won't see this information.

>> But that's always a problem we are going to post it ‑‑

>> We have got footnotes elsewhere with citation.

>> You would also want a footnote citation.

>> It's going to be a final document with links we wouldn't look at final edits.

>> Some people are going to see this on paper.

>> Oh, I see, I see.

>> We could do that everyone okay with that?

>> (inaudible).

>> Where there is a link.

>> We will put a footnote like an actual citation.

>> (inaudible).

>> I would add the obvious things they all follow the same standard.

>> Yes.  We will do that.  Okay.  So we have in the second line in the second paragraph rather in an attempt to address the problems DO J issued memorandum we will drop a footnote instructing the head I think everyone is okay.  The committee believes that instead of the.  Everyone okay with that?  Moving on to best practices.  OGIS has a responsibility to review policies and procedures and identify procedures and methods?

>> Yes, that's the statute.

>> Even though it sounds repetitive that's the statute.

>> Then we have to go with that.  Everyone all right with that?  Okay.  Is there an additional footnote 5?

>> Oh, yes that's me.  Sorry.


>> That's my big footnote, just putting in references to all of the DOJ guidance on so many of these different topics that are being addressed.

>> Everyone okay with that?

>> I am okay ‑‑ this is Sean.  I am okay with the footnote, I just think it's a little odd that it's an OIT injustice footnote content the sentence is all about OGIS.  And the archivist.  So I don't know if we want to add in a quick sentence ‑‑

>> or the other place ‑‑ it was trying to find a good place to put it.  Another place is right after the words best practices the little heading that's where it could go.  So it's completely separate.  Like right up here at the ‑‑ right where we say best practices the heading put the footnote there.

>> the concern that I had this is James the concern about putting it there it looks like we are recommending that whole list of things.  We are not doing that.

>> Doesn't OGIS identify best practices in its agency assessments?

>> Yes.

>> Maybe we should put a list of those in.  I mean this reads a little bit like an advertisement or OIT.

>> It's not an advertisement it doesn't make sense for a document containing all of these recommendations on best practices for FOIA to be completely silent as to existing DOJ guidance on this exact topic.  It's as if there ‑‑ the world does not exist, you can't pretend there is not guidance that supports the work of the committee that there is guidance on so many of these topics.  I have no problem moving the footnote to somewhere before, like I said, under best practices.  Hardly ‑‑

>> Most agencies already rely on OIT guidance I think to Mel knee's point we should leave it in not here but somewhere they are relying it we don't want to look like we are coming up with something new FOIA officers will tell you we already do this and this is why.

>> This is Jill Eggleston.  So, I ‑‑ I would have to agree that if the purpose of the recommendations the committee is making is to come up with new best practices, then we can't possibly list all of the existing best practices and references that are already in existence ‑‑ our recommendation here goes to OGIS.  Certainly OGIS is aware of the guidance that DOJ already has out there.

>> Yeah, this is James, I second that.  I don't know what is in all of these best practices and so I don't know that I want to say that we are recommending that agencies do this ‑‑ if we need to have it in there maybe a sentence that says:  OIP maintains a list of best practices link here they are.  But these aren't what the committee is recommending this is what OIP is recommending.

>> It's neither of that excuse me I don't need to sound harsh it's none of that OIP has to issue guidance to the agencies this is links to guidance this is applicable government‑wide addressing a whole range of issues that are exactly parallel to the best practices identified in the advisory committee report.  So this supports the work of the advisory committee that they are already these existing guidance article.

>> This is Jill Eggleston then I would recommend that OGIS provide that information to agencies and exclude the information from this particular report.

>> I'm sorry can you start that sentence again, please we missed the beginning.

>> Sure.  So, I would recommend that OGIS if they want to refer to existing best practices, that DOJ has recommended, that they do so separately and that this report not include that information.

>> I'm sorry but you keep misstating what this is this is not recommended best practices from DOJ.  These are a list of guidance, government‑wide policy guidance issued by DOJ that is currently in effect across the government.

>> Can we do this, this is Stephanie could we say under best practices something like:  While DOJ ‑‑ while the Department of Justice publishes best practices, whatever we want to say, then we say OGIS has the responsibility to review what is out there and to come up with additional ‑‑

>> People keep misunderstanding these are guidance articles.

>> Is there a place to put them maybe in a different place.

>> We could call them guidance articles we could say something ‑‑

>> No, I don't ‑‑ I mean they are ‑‑ I think.

>> (inaudible).

>> There is a connection problem.

>> I guess I am having a connection problem because FOIA professionals who are work with the ‑‑ with this law, are fully aware and follow DOJ guidance all of the agency reps are nodding their heads here.  It's not like it's some weird esoteric point to go at the end of this report.  Because the best practices all deal with these topics it's a relevant reference point.

>> I have a recommendation.  So, I think if right after the first sentence where we have OGIS has the responsibility to review FOIA practices and procedures et cetera, if we add in essentially a sentence that is the combined basically the first two sentences of the footnote and put it in there and say something like:  The Department of Justice through the office of information policy, and I would say issues and jumping to the second line of the footnote issues guidance to agencies, or government‑wide on a range of topics related to best practices discussed or best practices, period.  And then a footnote that includes essentially that list and the rest of the information.

>> Well I thought I was going to say exactly what Sean just said.  And I stopped before talking about the footnote with this whole list.  It seems to me what he has suggested, is appropriate ‑‑ I'd make that the footnote add to it available at with a link with the citation where all of this stuff is.  But the rest of this seems to me goes far beyond the scope of what we are supposed to be doing here.  And especially because as Melanie just said FOIA professionals are already aware of all of this and are guided by it.  So that says to me that that's not part of our recommendations for ways to improve the practice.

>> This is ‑‑

>> Take away detail that is supportive of the things that are suggested in the report.  I am just ‑‑ I ‑‑ I am confounded by that.

>> No, no, I ‑‑

>> Maybe we can work out, one, I think if we do this we should probably allow OGIS an opportunity to have a parallel footnote saying that their stuff that goings above and beyond what we have talked about I realize they ‑‑ it might not be technical guidance OGIS has background material they want to add in a footnote as well.  2 I want to issue James point maybe the government knows the guidance is gospel I haven't reviewed all of these I know there has been DOJ guidance previously that I haven't ‑‑ I wouldn't feel confident endorsing.  So, having not read through all of these to make sure that everything ‑‑ every sentence in all of these goes dovetails with what we are recommending, is tricky.  Especially ‑‑ especially this late date.

>> The committee is not this guidance is issued it's Department of Justice guidance this isn't up for people to vote on the committee isn't voting on whether they like the guidance.  This is to include factually the existence of the guidance.  And not act as though the FOIA world exists without this guidance.

>> If the objective here is to note the existence of the guidance, that was really the point that Sean was making and that I was making, let's in one sentence note the existence of this guidance.  The citation for where to find it.  And by the way I am not going to suggest that we also have the footnote for ACUS recommendations on FOIA.


>> All right.  How does everyone feel about Sean/David proposal.

>> Maybe if ‑‑ I would also say one more time and I will leave it I like that idea but also say OGIS give OGIS the opportunity to give their background information as well.  Understanding that it's different than guidance.

>> Well, why don't we ‑‑ it doesn't make sense is in the flow of the paragraph to have that sentence.  If we make it to the first sentence if you make it a footnote in addition, the justice department through OIP issues guidance, I mean that makes ‑‑ if you turn that into a footnote to that first sentence it makes more sense.  Because the second sentence or what is now the third sentence goes back to OGIS you have this random OIP sentence in the middle.

>> So you are more in favor of the footnote.

>> As a footnote but keep what Sean was saying so just have the footnote say whatever is now that sentence.

>> The footnote starts with, in addition DOJ through OIP has statutory responsibility.

>> Also have statutory authority.  And then it just makes ‑‑ yeah.

>> Issue guidance found that ‑‑

>> Yeah.

>> I would suggest the first line of the footnote to change has statutory authority to under its statutory authority.

>> So I think what I am hearing.

>> In the footnote.

>> Yeah.  So that first sentence is going to have ‑‑

>> I want to replace have ‑‑

>> You can remove ‑‑

>> Yeah, the first (Everyone speaks at once.)

>> Now we are moving the cite to back after.

>> After compliance.

>> Okay.  After ‑‑ before or after the OGIS statutory ‑‑

>> I would move that citation which is citation of the law to OGIS has the responsibility and then the citation of where that responsibility comes from.

>> I am fine with that.

>> Responsibility to here.

>> Data accomplishes ‑‑ that accomplishes putting in footnote 5 as per Michael's comment.

>> That's where it was ‑‑

>> I guess I had it at the very end.

>> He is trying to suggest a (inaudible) then the substance of the footnote would read:  In addition DOJ through OIP under its statutory I heard authority but everyone okay with responsibility?  To encourage compliance with the FOIA help me out what was the rest of the sentence that you wanted to say.

>> That's it.

>> I don't know what ‑‑

>> in addition like yeah I would say we can go with in addition the Department of Justice through the office of information policy, has statutory responsibility to encourage compliance with the FOIA and issues then I would jump down to government‑wide guidance on a range of topics related to best practices period.  This material is available on OIP's website is what it sounded like and then the very end.

>> Melanie?

>> I don't agree with it I think it's weak it weakens it to not list them when they are exactly the topics but doesn't make any sense to me to make it out.  We have two guidances on the importance of good communication with requesters that has items that exactly match the best practices listed in this report.  And so, why would we not want to draw attention to that to me it makes no sense.

>> This is Jill, I think the language that was recommended adequately addresses the fact that there is guidance out there relating to the best practices discussed in the report.

>> This is James I am fine with the compromise as well.  I like the approach of saying it's out there pointing people in the right direction, but not doing what I feel would be sort of incorporation by reference of these particular items because as Nate said we haven't reviewed them sentence by sentence the way we offered the rest of this.

>> Started to say the bad news is that if the committee found necessary to say the same thing some of the guidance says it's probable that the committee found that the agencies were not following the guidance.  And so, listen ‑‑ listing the guidance ‑‑

>> No as this discussion is revealing the committee isn't aware of the guidance.

>> Well the guidance ‑‑

>> This is interpreting ‑‑ it's just as susceptible to that interpretation.

>> They wouldn't have made the recommendations that they made if they thought the agencies were actually putting tracking numbers and notifying all of the requesters and following that aspect of the law why would you recommend that again if the agencies were doing it all oops it was OIP recommendation in 2014.

>> It was a recommendation but guidance.

>> Guidance.

>> People have been saying they are not aware of all of the guidance.

>> The agency ‑‑

>> It supports.  Let's get back to the notion here that we have agencies implementing the FOIA.  They have ‑‑ they are guided by guidance issued by OIP, the committee is recommending whole series of actions to improve FOIA it's not as if this is a parallel universe it's all of the same people doing the same work mutually supportive efforts.

>> I think I have a compromise solution I would like to offer if we were to keep the more general footnote as we talked about and just citing generally what if we were to tie I know it's going to get uncomfortable for folks like Nate if we drop footnotes to I am not picking on you I am just noting it as a fact.  Every time that there is something parallel to each one of these policies dropping a footnote "see also."  It's directly correlated.

>> I don't know.  I mean it would have been way more amenable to that like a long time ago rather than this late in the game.  I mean, I really feel I am ‑‑ I am aware of the guidance, I read it all the time as James says I wouldn't want to ‑‑ we haven't given it the same eagle eye we are clearly giving this.  So I would have a hard time doing that.  I am willing to see what my colleagues think about it but since I was singled out that's my thinking.

>> I thought that it was easiest to have it here as a construct like the report is going to the archivist, and to the world, anybody reading it here is the guidance that's on these various topics that relates to this.  So I thought actually just keeping it in a footnote where I didn't even ‑‑ in a footnote and just in one stop I thought was kind of the smoothest way to do it.

>> Hi this is ‑‑

>> I actually think the best compromise is the one that we have now, saying OIP has lots of guidance on this stuff this very stuff here is the link without I mean I just looked at the website there is some other stuff on the website that may apply that's not in this list.  So personally I would say the best compromise would say OIP has a wealth of guidance on this information here is where you find it.

>> Won't OIP update their guidance?  By telling people look you can go to the website they can go and see new guidance this is going to tell people they maybe not know there is new guidance they may not go to the website to look for it.

>> Very good way to argue it.

>> So by giving the website.

>> Isn't it appropriate to bring it to a close.

>> I think that's fine.  That's fine.

>> Okay.

>> I think we have sort of a ‑‑ come to a good resolution over here.

>> Okay.  So know we are a little bit past the breaking point should we take one minute reread footnote 35 to make sure we are clear on the language?

>> Could we see what is looks like now?

>> I want to make sure before I cut anything so the agreement at this point is to say, in addition the Department of Justice through the office of information policies has statutory responsibility to encourage compliance with the FOIA and to issue government‑wide guidance on a range of topics related to the best practice discussed above this material is available on OIP's website at and then cut the rest of the footnote.

>> FOIA in other places?

>> if we are not citing OIP's statute we shouldn't say the OGIS statute.

>> That's a footnote 4?

>> (inaudible).

>> I abstain from that.  David wanted to make a comment?

>> Once this settles I have a couple of wording suggestions in this sentence.  In addition ‑‑ what I propose is in addition the Department of Justice through the office of information policy and if we are going to say OIP we need to put in OIP there.  Comma, under its statutory responsibility to encourage compliance with FOIA, comma, issues and then the rest of it as you have it.

>> How does ‑‑ I prefer the formulation that Melanie suggested how does everyone else feel?

>> I think the way it is now is fine.

>> The way it is okay (inaudible) all right everyone on the phone are you guys clear about the way footnote 5 is now reading?

>> Yes.

>> Yes.

>> Yes.  That's fine.

>> Okay.  So ‑‑

>> DOJ we have had ‑‑ I mean ‑‑

>> Several times it will be DOJ's realm and OIP let me have ‑‑ Tom go ahead.

>> Best practices discussed below instead of above.

>> Yes.  Good point.  Thank you.  All right.  Anything else on footnote 5 I want to just take a 15‑minute break I know we have been working very hard reminder the charter's cafe is available restrooms on this floor no food or drink back here in 15 minutes it's now 11:45 let's return by noon, thank you.  We stand a adjourned for 15 minutes.

>> I thought we were going to be done by noon.


(Short recess taken.)


(Meeting will resume at 12 noon)

>> Hello?

>> Welcome back.

>> Okay.  Have they started?

>> No.

>> Okay.  Thank you.

>> Everyone back on the phone?

>> Yes.

>> Yes.

>> Yes.

>> Okay.  So, let's just go on to our little chart.  FOIA inaccessibility.  It's my page 10.  Look good to everyone?  I don't see any edits there.  Agreed?  Turning over to page 11.  I see a change in striking the benefits column, the first paragraph provide the opportunity to focus a requesters request.  So, we are striking greatly narrow.  Everyone okay with that?  I see nods.  Yes?  Enterprise data inventories is a link.


>> All right.  Moving on to page 12.  I see a change on recommendation side promote collaboration among it's a good change whoever made that suggestion.  Tom, thank you.  Everyone okay with that?

>> Yes.

>> The right‑hand side benefits engenders knowledge sharing.

>> Just a hyphen.

>> Oh, just the hyphen.  Thank you Tom.

>> This is Sean I had one suggestion for the first bullet in the square below that where it says:  Benefits creates teams.  It's also the recommendation to create teams I kind of feel like it's strange to say the benefit is that you are creating a team.

>> Should we move it?

>> My suggestion was same plea, I like it's talking about the familiarity and experience.  So I was thinking leverages experiences and familiarity with requests of a certain type which is kind of the second half of the sentence to for efficiently process requests.

>> So, the sentence would start with leverages.

>> Yes.

>> Familiarity with ‑‑

>> Experience and familiarity.

>> Experience

>> And familiarity.

>> And familiarity

>> With request of a certain type that's ‑‑

>> With request of a certain type period

>> To more efficiently process requests.  That looks good.

>> Got it.

>> Amy you got that?

>> Yes, ma'am

>> Everyone good with that?

>> Good.

>> I am hearing nods everyone okay on the phone so far?

>> Yes.

>> Yes

>> Yes.

>> I don't see anything on my page 13.  Everyone agree?  All right?  Nope?

>> Um ‑‑

>> Don't agree?

>> Similar kind of problem is the second set of boxes under expanded use of tracks the recommendation is encourage simultaneous processing of simple requests and then the benefit is ensures both simple and complex or ‑‑ are being completed in a reasonable amount of time.  I think if we under the recommendations, the first box, if we get rid of ‑‑ if we stop that sentence at "request."

>> Okay.

>> Get rid of the so that.

>> So that.  Essentially turn the benefit into the so that.  I mean, you know something along the lines of:  Ensures that processing requests in either category are not unduly delayed.

>> (inaudible)

>> All right.

>> (inaudible)

>> Oh, okay then that's fine.

>> So, then the change we are talking about is just on the left‑hand side under recommendations we put a period after request.  Encourage simultaneous processing of simple and complex requests, period.  Benefits on the right side stays the same, yes?  Okay.  All right page 14.  I don't see any changes there.  Oh, no I'm sorry.  Wrong.  (inaudible).  I see a change on the left box of recommendations, consider creating programs to expose ‑‑ changing young and newer.  Maybe that's not politically correct whoever suggested that, thank you so much.

>> That was Raynell.

>> Thank you very much Raynell.

>> Before we move off 14, Sean again, in the bullets in the boxes just above this is for the recommendations where appropriate centralize processing.  The fourth bullet is increases collaboration across agencies.  I wasn't sure the recommendation was for interagency centralization of processing.  So, I thought maybe this would make sense to say, collaboration across offices.

>> Okay.

>> or components or ‑‑

>> Yes.

>> Great.

>> Is that good with everyone crossed out agencies and say offices increases collaboration of ‑‑

>> (inaudible)

>> Across offices which results in expanded shared knowledge and processing techniques.  Good with everyone?

>> Yes.

>> Okay.  Good with everyone on the phone?

>> Yes.

>> Then on under intern details contractors we have a couple of changes on the benefits side.  We have suggested strike out of the first bullet.  This suggested language for the second bullet is starts with frees up time for more experienced personnel to focus on complex tasks, like giving temporary staff work that requires limited training

>> So the first bullet is incorporated into the second bullet

>> Right.

>> Makes sense.

>> Everyone all right with that.?  Okay page 16.  I don't see any changes on page 16.  Page 17.  Under tracking systems.  We have in the benefits column the second to last bullet from the bottom we have a suggestion for striking continues maintenance and access to technical support the sentence would start with:  Addresses issues encounter ‑‑ in use encountered in use by providing for continuous maintenance and access technical support.  You flipped the sentence

>> Trying to make these ‑‑ through are a few the same most start with increases lays impresses simplifies and then every once in a while you find one that says, starts with the a ‑‑ a declarative statement.  I tried to make them parallel.

>> the workers got a little tired is that fair to say?  Thank you for catching that everyone good with that change?  Okay page 18.  Under practice disclosures.  Disclosure.  Benefits the second paragraph, we have several comments in the bullet section the first bullet is edited to read relieves pressure on the FOIA process by making a report (or at least the title if the report must be withheld because of privacy issues:) that is the subject of many requests proactively available.  Whose change is that Tom you parallel issue?

>> Yes, unintended change.  In fact, I sort of ran out I think my cover E‑mail said, et cetera.  Because on the next page you have got the same sort of thing.  There is already the committee urges OMB already, and I didn't take the time to go through each one of those.  But it's pretty easy to do.

>> Yes

>> Simply starting allows for inform instead of there is already.  I would be more than happy to commit to staff drafting the parallelism on the remaining boxes.

>> Okay.

>> (inaudible) unclassified before testimony.  Unclassified testimony.

>> (inaudible)

>> All unclassified reports

>> And all unclassified ‑‑

>> Unclassified testimony submitted to congress.  Is everyone good with that change?

>> Yes.

>> Is the "the" in or out?

>> It is suggested to strike.

>> Well it's ‑‑

>> (inaudible)

>> Classified reports agencies provide to congress.  It's out.  Deleted.

>> but what I am not so sure about here is whether we are talking about reports provided to congress be proactively disclosed or whether it's ‑‑ it should be disclosed in the present tense as it's actually happening.  Don't we not want to address that issue because congress may want a few hours to read the testimony before ‑‑

>> That's why I said they should be in.  That really is where I am going with this I want it in.

>> Well I think I put the D in

>> (inaudible) (Several people speak at once)

>> I wasn't sure whether it was in or out.  (Several people speak at once)

>> I think we will leave it in.  That is the consensus.  Folks on the phone we are leaving in provided the "D" stands.

>> Okay.

>> Then we added the word unclassified before the word "testimony."

Okay page 20.  I don't have anything on page 19 I'm sorry.

>> Other than the carryover from Tom's comment.  Page ‑‑ I do I'm sorry I was trying to ‑‑ let's see.  Page 20.  I have the first comment is Office of Management and Budget.

>> Excuse me, on 19.  The box mentioned OMB on the left certainly isn't parallel to everything else in that column.

>> It's just a different pagination than the one you are about ‑‑

>> That's exactly.

>> I am talking about the this (indicating).

>> I'm sorry bottom of page 19 your bottom of page 19 I apologize.  I printed out my version so I could read it it's a little bigger print.


>> So ‑‑

>> Just a small thing it looks like the box lines are different too.

>> We will fix that.

>> Maybe that's just me.

>> Yes, as ‑‑ as the things get kicked over sometimes it will take off the top but I will ensure that ‑‑

>> We will fix it.

>> Yes.

>> So, I think the solution here on this OMB issue is to solve also the ‑‑ the uniformity and consistency and just say ‑‑ start as proactively disclose statements of administration policy and enrolled bill memoranda.  It's only going to be OMB but our recommendation is whoever has it should post it.

>> Disaster that work for everyone.

>> ‑‑ does that work for everyone we are striking the Office of Management and Budget.  Should, and we are going to start with proactively disclose statements and enroll bill memoranda and the bullet on the right is okay?

>> We are going to have parallel it but other ‑‑ other recommendations sometimes call out a particular agency if they are already taking action so I think leaving a mention of OMB by posting it it's fine to talk about it on the benefits side

>> Everyone okay with the benefits side?  Okay.

>> Is OMB staying on the benefits side or not?

>> Yes.

>> There are other things on this page in the right‑hand column that aren't structuring in a parallel way.

>> Yeah, we are going to have it ‑‑

>> Tom suggested that he is in favor of having OGIS staff address parallel issues.

>> Without changing the meaning I trust.

>> Yes.  Without changing the meaning.  Is that all right with everyone?  Okay.

>> This is Stephanie I have a question ‑‑

>> (inaudible)

>> Hello?

>> Someone on the phone?

>> Yes this is Stephanie I have a question that first in the first box where it says post an agency organizational chart and a directory listing contact information can we just say for offices do we have to say for all offices?

>> I am confused about where you are Stephanie.

>> (inaudible) on the top of page 19.

>> So the question was for the left‑hand side recommendation post an agency organization chart and (inaudible) information for all offices do you have a question about offices

>> Do we have to say "all" or can we just say for offices.

>> How does everyone feel about that?  David is shaking his head no.

>> I thought that was part of what we all debated for some time and we settled on if we are not going to endorse listing all of the employees at least it should cover the offices it never occurred to me it meant some of them.

>> Yes, I think that's consistent with what we discussed.

>> Okay.  As long as ‑‑ but somewhere we have that discretion right?

>> with regard to the office of information with regard to individuals?

>> (inaudible)

>> I think this recommendation is supposed to be at a higher level.  And the hierarchy stuff ‑‑

>> Okay.  Then that's fine I am fine with that then.

>> This is Ginger

>> We are all in.

>> I did notice as we look back at this the bullet the right‑hand column should not say contact federal employees for assistance it should be offices probably.

>> Yes.  Do we want ‑‑ do you want to leave in the word federal and say federal offices

>> That would be my recommendation

>> Is that good with everyone?

>> Okay.

>> This is Ginger that's good with me I was actually just going to point that out.

>> The right‑hand side bullet will read:  Ensures the public can identify (inaudible) public office for assistance.  I am on to the next block which is I am going to make sure I am following this.  It's now on page 20.  Or 21

>> 20.

>> Agencies ‑‑

>> This is just these are my suggestions beginning for parallelism it's just the same thing that we have been saying before

>> All right.  Is everyone all right with these parallelisms?

>> Yes.

>> Yes?  Okay.  We are starting with the words proactively in those blocks.  And then on the right‑hand side we are changing some recommends to the committee includes as part of the best practice details of the proposal with FOIA logs which is consistent with earlier changes we have been making everyone okay with that yes?

>> Yes.

>> the next block publish the calendars parallelism everyone okay with that?

>> Yes.

>> All right.  Page 21, top again starting with the word proactively, taking out the word agency should.  Someone wanted us to spell out million.  I am fine with that everyone okay with that?

>> Yes.

>> Okay.  The public has an interest in and right to know how the government is spending its money on the right side how is everyone with that change is that good?

>> Yes.  I do have one change in that bullet.

>> Yes.  The next sentence says:  And I know this is probably going to be reworded slightly to be parallel in structure.  But proactively publishing it shouldn't be the top contracts because the ‑‑ we are doing more than contracts it should be, proactively publishing award documents associated with largest expenditures.  It's a little longer but ‑‑

>> Nice wording

>> The Word documents and I'm sorry can you ‑‑

>> Word documents associated with largest expenditures.

>> Oh, thank you.

>> And then promotes accountability.

>> Here is a perfect example of what I was thinking about when I said, before I hope I trust without changing the meaning.  So, I think where this is going is the leading ‑‑ deleting the first sentence that changes ‑‑ that eliminates something that the committee ‑‑

>> I don't think anyone was deleting the first sentence

>> Where is the parallelism?

>> The second sentence

>> (inaudible)

>> Right.  The second sentence Sean on the right‑hand side Sean is editing it to say proactively publishing instead of ‑‑

>> I got all of that that's fine

>> Promote accountability (Several people speak at once)

>> By proactively publishing a awards documents with the largest expenditures for parallelism it will read like this.

>> Is that good with everyone?

>> Yep.

>> Is that good?

>> Yeah.

>> Okay.  All right I am going to keep moving.

>> So that sentence that begins the public still in or not.

>> Yes.

>> It's not just going to lead off the bullet because the bullet is going to start ‑‑

>> Even though there is nothing else like that in the right‑hand side column.  I don't object to leaving it in ‑‑ in fact I am in favor of leaving it in this was just my example of ‑‑

>> Parallelism issues.

>> Okay.  Next are again parallelism, we want to start the sentence with two to the greatest extent possible.  Right‑hand side there is an edit would not add an undue burden on to agencies but it would reduce FOIA request already reviewed by the agency everyone all right with that?  Okay.  I have best practices rubric added to right before detailed FOIA log recommendation.

>> Just for clarity.

>> For clarity everyone all right with that?  Okay.  First sentence to expand upon the above best practice that agencies post FOIA log the committee offers the following specific recommendations.  Everyone all right with that change?  I don't hear in nays going on number 1 publish FOIA log in electronic reading rooms offered referred to as FOIA libraries on an ongoing basis everyone all right with that?

>> Yes.

>> Okay 2 (C) name of the requester provided it's not a first party requester IE someone asking for records on himself or herself.  Everyone all right with that?

>> Yes.

>> Okay.

>> (inaudible)

>> Yes.

>> What about if it's an attorney asking about a client?  Does that include as a first party requester?

>> Yes, that request the client would be considered the first party

>> Okay.  Not always.

>> But I take your point Michael not all agencies some agencies will list the attorney as the requester.

>> When the attorney is not the requester

>> Right.  Because the person is sending in that's where they are sending a fact to I just want to ‑‑ I don't know if that's covered I am just saying that

>> It's a fair question.  So everyone what does everyone think about that.  (Several people speak at once)

>> They are not the requester so this is technically correct that it's the requester.  Let's just think of what we are trying to say here FOIA log should ‑‑ I mean

>> I mean, if it's the attorney and it's not listing their client then that's perfectly okay.  Because you are not listing that first party.  Okay I think the way it's written is okay I do take your point.

>> The only problem you have is for some reason if it's listed as the attorney not the requester when you get to subject matter of the request it's identifying the client and what the client is interested in.

>> Right.

>> Everything combined you ‑‑ you are disclosing information that this seems to suggest that you don't want to disclose.  Which is, the first party requester type

>> (inaudible)

>> Say that again?

>> It doesn't really solve this issue of the attorney

>> Well, what ‑‑ usually what people do in that instance is redact the name of the requester.  I mean the underlying (inaudible) people people

>> Yes, I think what we probably have to do is make a change to E the subject matter of the request to make a note that ‑‑

>> To not include the first party requesters name that's great.

>> Okay.  All right.  Everyone okay with that

>> I am still trying to get the high pen out

>> This is Jill ‑‑

>> I noted it I will make sure Jamie takes it out.

>> I'm sorry this is Jill I ‑‑ at the middle.

>> (inaudible)

>> We have in addition to the categories of for inclusion as part of the best practices, pore practice disclosure.  Discussed above.

>> Again, it's just to make clear what we are talking about.

>> The committee offerors is everyone all right with that change

>> All right.

>> 1 (A) we are starting the sentence with consider this is parallelism.

>> (Several people speak at once)

>> Maybe we could move if everyone is okay with that could I ask you to read quietly to yourself for the next two minutes all of the rest of the edits that are suggested for parallelism.  That would take us through page top of page 24.  Right?  Okay.  Anyone need another minute.

>> I actually have one.

>> Sean.

>> Suggested edit not problems to any of the suggested parallels but on I guess it's 1 (D) um which now would begin weigh the burden of disclosure.

>> Yes.

>> My suggestion would be to ‑‑ because right now it says the way the burden of disclosure against the benefit of the public I would reverse it weigh the benefit to the public against the burden of the disclosure including necessary ‑‑ I just think the "against" you don't wanted the benefit to be the against.

>> Yes.  So we will flip it weigh the benefits of disclosure against the burden ‑‑

>> The benefits to the public.

>> To the public.

>> If it's the public against the burden of disclosure.

>> Yes.

>> And then the rest of that.

>> Then leave in including necessary review and ‑‑ everyone okay with that?  Is everyone continuing to read silently to the top of page 24?  All right.  I have no changes on subcommittee methodology.  24.  On top of 25 first full paragraph.  There is suggested edit the committee decided not to include a recommendation on the treatment of contact information.

>> And then I think we decided at the beginning of the meeting today to add four individual employees.

>> Four individual employees right. ‑‑ for individual employees

>> Regarding ‑‑ regarding individual employees

>> Okay regarding.  Is everyone all right with that change?  Efficiency and resources rubric I have got a change striking bringing in talent, sand replacing with recruitment.

>> We have left the phrase bringing in talent intact in at least two other places as a heading and in the summary.  You want to change that to recruitment in both of those places?

>> I personally like bringing in talent what does everyone sells think about do you feel strongly about this edit.

>> (inaudible)

>> All right.  Recruitment is struck we are putting in bringing in talent.  Next paragraph we start with to make informed recommendation.  Everyone all right with that?  All right.  On page 26 FOIA searches.  There is a Tom Susman edit oh, adding a hyphen between non and government.

>> Taking out okay hard to tell.  Tom is suggesting taking out the hyphen between non and government second line.  The second full paragraph ‑‑

>> Note there is a hyperlink too.

>> Yes published thank you we will make sure.

>> Another one page 24.

>> (inaudible) second full paragraph while conducting research, apart from the data collected an agency chief FOIA officer reports on improvements made for search procedures and technology used to facilitate them.  The subcommittee was unable to locate detailed data collected by the government regarding FOIA search methodologies or capabilities.

>> Well that makes it, I would suggest that we essentially do what we did earlier.  Because we did ‑‑ if makes it sound like we didn't review we did.  The issue was that the data contained while useful, wasn't ‑‑ didn't specifically say how every agency did their searches and what the ‑‑ and it wasn't consistent from agency to agency.  There is something that would work well there.

>> Something in uniform.

>> Yes.

>> I think the word apart from.  That was the ‑‑ my phrasing was so that apart from who is there, you ‑‑ you are ‑‑ the committee wanted more data.  Or they ‑‑

>> This is where we added the word "nonetheless" do you remember where that was?

>> (inaudible)

>> Thank you.  Here, here.  Anyone have any idea of the specific language?

>> (inaudible)

>> (inaudible)

>> Sorry Tom what was that

>> if it stays in it needs to go on to the end of the sentence unable to locate the data collected rather than the committee apart from.  Apart from refers to data.

>> Oh, you would put it at the end while conducting its research, the subcommittee was unable to locate detailed data regarding apart from the data collected in agency chief FOIA report Nate would that be okay?

>> I would propose (inaudible)

>> Then we before we had on the top page 7 we have that wording.

>> Yes.

>> Okay.  And then, I would say limited is a fair description.

>> It's six years worth of data that's the only ‑‑ I am only saying limited

>> (inaudible)

>> (Several people speak at once)

>> Scatter shot.

>> the none comprehensive or uniform

>> How about nonuniform

>> from the data collected comma, (inaudible) and then have the which appears not to be comprehensive review.  It's long but ‑‑

>> It's limited, limited implies all of that.


>> More limited, apart from the more limited data.

>> You don't want to say it's nonuniform data.

>> Is nonuniform acceptable?

>> Yep.

>> apart from the nonuniform data, yep.

>> (inaudible)

(Several people speak at once)

>> Why don't we say noncomprehensive uniform then we are consistent.

>> I think we used the word uniform before

(Several people speak at once)

>> We did both.

>> (inaudible)

>> Oh, I see.  Nonuniform noncomprehensive?

>> apart from the noncomprehensive, yeah.  Review.

>> It sounds really ‑‑

>> We could just say limited

(Several people speak at once)

>> apart from the data actually going back to how the data which is out there.  You wanted more.  That way you are just saying the data it's also just captures it you don't need a little phrase in front of it.

>> (inaudible)

>> (inaudible)

>> The data.  It's clean.

(Several people speak at once)

>> I'm sorry to interrupt I know we are all eager 12:35 I got two committee members who need to leave.  Is there a chance we could either table this or work it out in the rules subcommittee we will form right after this

>> This is just one sentence we can do it.  Let's do it.

>> Do we want to say how it reads right now?

>> Yes the data is fine.

>> the data.  I see.  Thank you.


>> Okay.

>> That's a good compromise.

>> (inaudible)

>> (inaudible)

>> in the interest of time I am going to move forward ask everyone silently read pages 27, 28, 29, nothing substantive on 30 or 31.  Can't mess with the charter.  So, I think we are going to take a grand vote since I have a couple of folks who have to leave.

>> (inaudible)

>> So moved I don't need a second are we ready to vote all in favor please say AYE.

>> AYE.

>> All opposed?  On the phone folks all in favor?

>> AYE.

>> AYE.

>> AYE.

>> Did we lose James?  I didn't hear James or James

>> I said yes AYE.

>> Anyone opposed?  All right.  And any abstentions?

>> I guess I will continue to abstain just to be consistent with the view I took on the actual recommendations

>> I am just going to add I will continue to abstain on those matters on recommendations particularly addressed to OGIS since I don't want to wear multiple hats it looks like we have the final result.  So, congratulations everyone.


>> Are we supposed to sign something as we did two years ago.

>> I am not sure we are going to sign it we didn't contemplate doing a cover letter this time we are just going to send up to the archivist once it's all dressed up finalized and cleaned up.  Before everyone leaves we do need to take the opportunity to give folks public comment time.  I don't want to miss out on that.  So, I want to just turn my attention to the audience.  If anyone has any comments or questions that they would like to make at this time I invite you to not step up to any microphones that are not available just take one of these Kirsten monitoring our live stream anything to report?  All quiet on the western front we exhausted everyone.  Okay.  Any public comments?  Going once going twice.  All right.  It looks like we are ready to adjourn anyone have any other questions.  Oh, one important matter before we do adjourn that I want to ask everyone.  As I announced earlier we are going to review the next term of the committee, and I would really like to encourage all of you to think about ideas for the next committee to take up.  If there are any particular topics that you think we didn't cover thoroughly enough this time deserve more attention or deserve more drilling down on I am very open to receiving those you can give those to me now you can give those to be later.  Ideas or subcommittees very open to that.  Anyone have a burning desire to throughout out now Nate?

>> I would recommend in general I think ‑‑ I recommended it before and didn't catch on.  We spent a lot of time discussing high‑level very technical and in many ways agency oriented which is very good aspects of FOIA, I think the actual updates on challenges with actual FOIA requests were missed.  So, I think some type of quarterly update of FOIA in the news or current issues with FOIA or something that brings actual requesters would probably bring them into the room more a and the actual success stories of what is getting released in actual challenges that we can collaborate and work on to fix.  Bringing in the actual things that agencies and requesters are dealing with.

>> Would you envision that would be sort of a kick off part of the meeting?  Maybe the first one just to generate ideas about what the issues are?

>> I would envision it as a quarterly update.

>> You want quarterly update as part of the meeting itself.

>> Sure.

>> Oh, okay.  All right.  I am just trying to understand where you were going with that Okay.  Great.  Anyone else?

>> We spent excuse me we spent a little bit of time during the last two years talking about implementation or lack thereof of the first term's recommendation.  And I suggest at the third term group at the very least trying to monitor and encourage implementation of now two sets of recommendations.

>> Okay.  Great point.

>> We are wrapping up I would note for the record that we had FOIA hearings on Capitol Hill and the centers interested in FOIA were praised the last committee's recommendations haven't been acted on OMB they are doing the leverage they have to say what is going on so for the record the struggle continues to get OMB to listen to the FOIA Advisory Committee.

>> but we are not giving up.  Okay.  Any other ideas or thoughts?  Anything anyone else wants to share

>> I think that we never really talked about or felt it was appropriate to trust government‑wide funding for FOIA programs.  I think everybody agreed there needed to be an increase in resources overall.

>> This is Ginger I absolutely agree with that.

>> Great.  All right anyone else.  Anyone on the phone have any great ideas for the next term of the committee?  Unless anyone has any questions we will finalize this report put a ribbon on it post it on the website and send it up to the archivist.  I cannot thank everyone enough it's been a great term and thank you everyone for all of your hard work.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you ‑‑

>> Thank you.


>> All right.  We stand adjourned.

>> Someone should respond in kind and thank the staff at OGIS.

>> Yes.  Amy has been wonderful.

>> Absolutely.

>> Yes, thank you.

(End of meeting.)