Office of Government Information Services (OGIS)


FOIA Advisory Committee Meeting (Virtual Event)
Thursday, June 9, 2022
10:00 a.m. (ET)

Michelle [producer]: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. And thank you for joining today's FOIA Advisory Committee Meeting. Before we begin, please ensure that you have opened the Webex participant and chat panels by using the associated icons located at the bottom of your screen. Please note, all audio connections are currently muted and this conference is being recorded. You are welcome to submit written comments throughout the meeting, which will be addressed at the Q&A session of the meeting. To submit a written comment, please select “all panelists”from the drop down menu in the chat panel, then enter your comment in the question box provided and send. To ask a question via Webex audio, please click the “raise hand” icon on your Webex screen which is located above the chat panel on the right. This will place you in the question queue. 

If you are connected to today's meeting via regular phone audio, please dial #2 on your telephone keypad to enter the question queue. If you require technical assistance, please send a chat to the event producer. With that, I will turn the meeting over to Debra Wall, Acting Archivist of the United States. Debra, please go ahead.

Debra Wall: Thank you so much. So good morning, everybody. I'm Debra Wall, the acting archivist. It's good to be with you again. Welcome to the committee members and members of the public to the final meeting of the 2020 to 2022 term of the Freedom of Information Act Advisory Committee. To members of the public, since September 2020, the committee's four subcommittees have looked at FOIA through the lenses of classification, process, technology, and legislation. Committee members have approached FOIA's challenges with curiosity and open minds, deliberated possible solutions and found common ground.

The result is a package of 21 far-reaching recommendations, all previously passed by the committee. Twenty at the last three meetings in March, April and May, and one in June 2021. To committee members, I look forward to your final deliberations today and to receiving the final report later this month. I'll give each of your recommendations very close consideration. 

Were we meeting in person, as was the norm pre-pandemic, I'd present each of you with an OGIS NARA challenge coin, a certificate of thanks and a handshake on stage in the McGowan Theater. Instead, we'll mail the challenge coins and email the certificates, and until they arrive, please accept my gratitude and a virtual handshake for all of your hard work. You've all exemplified that working together, FOIA requesters and agency FOIA professionals, results in robust ideas for making the FOIA process work for all. To OGIS staff, thank you for your exceptional work, supporting the FOIA committee and for all that you do. Small, but mighty. Before turning the meeting over to Chairperson Alina Semo, I wanted to let everyone know, if you don't already, that we're soliciting nominations from both the federal requester community and from agencies for the 2022 to 2024 term of the committee, so that's the committee's fifth term. I look forward to appointing members this summer before the term's first meeting on September 8th. So with that, I'll turn the meeting over to Alina Semo, and thank you all again for your hard work and for your dedication to the cause. Alina?

Alina Semo: Thank you so much, Debra. I really appreciate it. And hopefully you can stay for a little bit and listen to our deliberations. If you can't, we'll fill you in later. As the Director of the Office of Government Information Services, OGIS, and this committee's chairperson, it is my pleasure to welcome all of you to the final meeting of the fourth term of the FOIA Advisory Committee. We have made it. Woo. I hope everyone who's joining us today has been staying safe, healthy, and well.

I want to welcome all of our committee members who are able to join us today and extend my immense gratitude for all of your hard work and commitment to studying the FOIA landscape in order to develop recommendations for approving the FOIA process, government-wide. I know how much work has gone into the astounding 21 recommendations, and the final report is a reflection of all that hard work.

I am looking forward to discussing and finalizing the final report draft today. I also want to welcome our colleagues and friends in the FOIA community and elsewhere who are watching us today, either via Webex or with a slight delay on NARA's YouTube channel. I have a few housekeeping issues to go through so bear with me and then we'll get to the matters at hand. First, I am advised that committee members, Alexandra Perloff-Giles and Tuan Samahon are unable to join us today. I also am advised that Linda Frye is with us today on the telephone, unable to join us by video. Linda, I just want to check in. Can you say hello?

Linda Frye: Hello. I'm here.

Alina Semo: Okay, great. Also, Kristin Ellis is also joining us by telephone. Kristin, can you hear us?

Kristin Ellis: Yes, I can.

Alina Semo: Great. Good morning, Kristin.

Kristin Ellis: Good morning.

Alina Semo: We have Kirsten Mitchell. Have you taken a visual roll call? Can you please confirm we have a quorum?

Kirsten Mitchell: We do indeed have a quorum.

Alina Semo: Okay. Terrific. Meeting materials for this term, along with members' names, affiliations and biographies, are available on the committee's webpage. Click on the link for the 2020 to 2022 FOIA Advisory Committee on the OGIS website. Please also visit our website for today's agenda, PowerPoint presentation and related meeting materials. We will upload a transcript and video of this meeting as soon as they become available.

During today's meeting, I want to encourage committee members to use the all-panelist option from the dropdown menu in the chat function when you would like to speak or ask a question. You can also chat me or Kirsten directly. However, in order to comply with the spirit and intent of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, committee members should keep any communications in the chat function to only housekeeping and procedural matters. No substantive comment should be made in the chat function as they will not be recorded in the transcript of this meeting.

If a committee member needs to take a break at any time, please do not disconnect from either the audio or video of the web event. Instead, mute your microphone by using the microphone icon and turn off your camera by clicking on the camera icon. Please send us a quick chat to me and Kirsten to let us know if you'll be gone for more than a few minutes, and join us again as soon as you can.

I have not planned on taking a break today, as the plan is to wrap up early as per our posted agenda. A reminder to all of our committee members, please identify yourself by name and affiliation each time you speak today. This will help us down the road with both the transcript and the minutes, both of which are required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Transcripts and minutes from the March 10th and April 7th committee meetings are in the works. Transcripts from the March 10th and April 7th meetings have now been posted on our website.

We will post transcripts from our May 5th meeting and today's meeting as soon as they are ready. You may access all of our prior meetings this term on the NARA YouTube channel. And we provide links to each meeting on our website, under meetings for the 2020 to 2022 terms. In compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Kirsten and I have reviewed and certified minutes from our March 10th meeting. We have posted those on our website.

If any committee member has any edits or changes to suggest, please let us know at this time. Okay, no one has spoken. Silence is golden. Therefore, no one has any minutes. The minutes stand. Kirsten and I will continue to review, certify and post minutes from today's meeting, April 10th meeting and May 5th meeting, within the FACA-required 90-day period from the meeting date.

A few words about public comments. We have received several written comments in advance of today's meeting, as we in the past. We believe we are up to date and have posted all of them in advance of today's meeting. We have also alerted committee members and have invited them to view the public comments on our website. If anyone wishes to submit any additional written public comments regarding the committee's work you may do so by emailing, and we will consider posting them to the OGIS website. Since this is our last meeting, this term, I want to pause here and ask if any committee member has any comments, responses, or feedback to any of the public comments that have been received so far? Kel, is that you raising your hand?

Kel McClanahan: Yes, I'm blurred out so you can't see my hand. Hi, this Kel McClanahan. I just wanted to reiterate one of the comments and I don't have it right in front of me right now, but it made a very technical suggestion for clarification, the recommendation that handles FOIA logs and says that the agency should post their FOIA logs, should also include appeals. I think that's a great idea. I think that, if nothing else, it should have a field for if it's under appeal. And if there is an appeal number, as most agencies have a separate tracking number for their appeals, that would be very useful to it on there. That's all.

Alina Semo: Okay. Can I ask Jason and Allyson from the Subcommittee for Technology co-chairs to comment on that? Or is that something we've already talked about in the past? I feel like we've discussed this before.

Jason Gart: Yeah. This is a Jason Gart, History Associates. I also think that's a good idea. Allyson?

Allyson Deitrick: Yeah. I don't recall if we discussed it in our subcommittee meetings or why or why not, but it is something that's an interesting idea and makes sense. And I don't know why we didn't think about it.

Jason Gart: Yeah. And I'm not sure we did discuss it.

Allyson Deitrick: Yeah. I don't think we did, either, and I don't know why.

Alina Semo: Okay. Someone else on the subcommittee want to comment? Anyone else on the committee want to comment?

Kel McClanahan: This is Kel again. I would just simply suggest that when we get to approving the report and making any last-minute changes to the report, we stick something in to that effect, into that recommendation when we get to it. Sort of stick a pin in that right now.

Alina Semo: Okay. That's fair.

Patricia Weth: Hi, Alina. This is Patricia Weth, from EPA. I'm not sure about the procedure, but haven't we already approved all the recommendations as is? And perhaps, and there's lots of great ideas out there, but perhaps this is something for the next committee to explore. It's just that at our last meeting, we had approved all of the recommendations that were on the table at that time. Anyway, that's my suggestion.

Alina Semo: Okay.

Jason Gart: This is Jason. And point taken, Patricia and Kel. I think if you look at our recommendation on G, we say, "Status of requests, pending, closed, et cetera." I think that would cover appeal.

Alina Semo: Okay. It sounds like that's a good way to move forward. We'll leave it as is. And it can be revisited in the next term, but I understand Patricia's point. We have voted on the recommendations already. It's the 13th hour that we're in now so a little difficult to move the machinery back. Okay. Anyone else have any other comments or concerns or questions? Dave Cuillier.

David Cuillier: Thank you, Alina. I'm Dave Cuillier. I'm from the University of Arizona. I just want to thank the folks who have submitted public comments. I mean, I read all of them and I think a lot of them informed what we did, at least what I wrote up on the OGIS recommendations, what we all came up with as a working group and subcommittee. So thank you for everyone who did that. I think it's kind of a long-term process. We talk about things, people comment on it, we cogitate, maybe we come up with some recommendations, maybe we're focused on some other things, but I think a lot of these ideas will indeed probably come up here in the next term. I hope so. I hope the next committee looks at these as well and continues the conversation. So I want to thank people for doing that and encourage people to submit even more on the next term. I think they were extremely helpful. Thank you.

Alina Semo: Thank you, David.

James Stocker: This is James Stocker-

Alina Semo: Yeah. James, go ahead please.

James Stocker: ... from Trinity Washington University. I just had a question. Are we going to go through the recommendations one by one or will we just vote on the report as a whole?

Alina Semo: My hope was to just vote on the report as a whole, unless anyone has an objection.

James Stocker: Well, this is James again, I certainly understand that. I wanted to make a suggestion and I don't see it necessarily as a substantive change. It's more as just a change in kind of the way that we are presenting what we've done. It's not a big change, but this is in regards to the recommendation number seven, written by the Technology Committee, which has a list of 16 pieces of information that they're suggesting that agencies post on their website.

In recommendation number three, which was written by the Classification Subcommittee, we suggest that agencies post information about circumstances that will likely result in a Glomar response, or a neither confirm nor deny response. We also recommend that they post advice when possible on how to avoid such a response. This is the type of information that also would fit very neatly into recommendation number seven.

So I was wondering if we could somehow incorporate that text into recommendation number seven, just because it seems like something that would make it easier to follow up on. So instead of future versions of this committee having to go back and look at two different recommendations, they could look at one. I mean, they could effectively be combined together, but that may also be something that takes more time to discuss than we have right now. So I'll leave it up to others. Does that make sense, what I'm suggesting?

Alina Semo: I'm a little fuzzy on what you're suggesting. Are you suggesting that you incorporate into 2022-07 one of the Classification Subcommittee recommendations?

James Stocker: Yes. The recommendation itself, number three, by the Classification Subcommittee, says that it "Recommends that agencies post information on circumstances that will likely result in a neither confirm nor deny response."

Alina Semo: But it doesn't talk about logs, in particular.

James Stocker: "Include suggestions on how to avoid such a response." We suggest that this should be posted on agency websites. And ultimately what recommendation number seven is doing is providing a list of things that should be added, a list of information that should also be included on agency websites. So it's only now at the final report that we see that these things are very similar, that they could be effectively combined. Now, this takes away a recommendation that we've created, but it also is going to make it easier down the road for it to be followed up on.

Allyson Deitrick: This is Alison Dietrick from Commerce. Could we just maybe, would it be easier just to add a footnote for each recommendation from the Classification recommendation and from the Technology and just say, "This overlaps or similar to," and then cross reference the other one? So we're not substantively changing our recommendations, we're just adding a little bit more context and then it would at least put people on notice to check the other recommendation without having to redo them completely. We could put that in the comments section so it's not actually part of the recommendation. And then just maybe "This overlaps with, or similar to, a recommendation from the other subcommittee."

Patricia Weth: Right.

James Stocker: This is James Stocker. I'm not opposed to that. I was just thinking that it might be worth taking a couple of minutes to do this right now, to save trouble down the road. But if the committee doesn't want to touch the language of the recommendations as they are, I think that would make a lot of sense, what you've suggested, Allyson.

Patricia Weth: This is Patricia Weth with EPA. So a couple things. The recommendations were approved by the full committee. I know sometimes there's going to be overlap between recommendations, but that's why the report was put together in the way that it was. I mean, if you look at it up front, you have the at-a-glance. And then as you get further into the report, there's more of the meat and potato. And the report working group worked really hard to make sure that we properly captured the recommendations as they were approved. So I don't think that there's going to be any confusion and I would recommend that the report stands as it is. And I'm somebody who always goes to this report and pulls out information for my leadership to make recommendations at my agency, so I don't see there being any confusion here.

Alina Semo: I know Kel is waving at me, but I really would like to... And I don't mean to put Bobby on the spot, but I would like to ask Bobby, if you could just share your thoughts, because recommendation 07 is directed to OIP. Do you have any reaction to what we're talking about?

Bobby Talebian: Yeah. Obviously, I'm very familiar with all the recommendations so there won't be any confusion on our end for considering the recommendations. And I understand both points of view, but I also understand it's kind of hard to change things last minute.

Alina Semo: All right. Kel, go ahead. Thank you, Bobby.

Kel McClanahan: This is more of a point-of-order question for Alina or Kirsten. If we're not talking about the language in the reports and the report, singular, and better ways to make it easy to read and accomplishing its goal, then what exactly are we voting on today, grammar? I mean, is this something that we're supposed to discuss, whether or not we like the way the report is written, or are we just going to do an up or down vote for the record without being allowed to offer any amendments?

Alina Semo: The whole idea of circulating a draft a week in advance was to give all the committee members an opportunity to comment, to raise issues that have just been raised today. I'm just going to be very candid and say I'm a little frustrated that this is coming up now. I understand Patricia's point of view on both counts. We've already voted on all of these recommendations and the working group did work very hard to try to pull all these together and pull a report together.

So as a point of order, I'm going to say, today is a vote on the final report as it has been presented and as the committee has had a chance to consider for the past week. We have incorporated all the comments that we have received. Grammar, yes. Substance, absolutely. And what I was going to do was just quickly walk through some of the substantive comments that have been made just to flag that for the committee members, although they have already been flagged in previous drafts that I've circulated. So I think with that, I'm just going to move on, unless anyone else has anything they would like to add.

Okay. Just a few comments about our public comments section of our meeting today. We are switching up the order a little bit. In addition to the written comments we have received, we are also going to allow for oral comments before we take a final vote on the report. And after the committee finishes discussing any other comments on the report, we posted in our March 21st, 2022 federal register notice that public comments will be limited to three minutes per individual, and they must relate to the recommendations the committee's considering today. I want to remind our public commenters about that, and there will be opportunity in due course.

So at this point, I do want to thank all of the working groups and subcommittees for the hard work. And I definitely want to recognize the committee members who volunteered to be on the working group to bring this final report together: Allan Blutstein, David Cuillier, Deon Stearns and Patricia Weth. So before I open up the floor to any other specific comments, I do want to point out that I certainly didn't flag for anyone missing commas, extra spaces. The working group decided that hopefully you trust us that we put in the Oxford commas and that we deleted the extra spaces, but I do want to flag a couple of things.

One is that, for the table of contents, and if I could ask Michelle, our event producer, to please just go back up to the table of contents, we will insert the page numbers for the table of contents once the report is finalized. But I think you can all see that. There we go. There is a specific comment that the working group decided not to accept. And that was to add the definition of metadata in the glossary.

We decided against it because footnotes 25 and 26 both reference documents that define that term already. I just wanted to make that clear. And the other changes are highlighted, in particular in recommendation number 09. Allyson, thank you so much for pointing out that we changed the word "conflict" to "challenges," and that was per Bobby's suggestion. I appreciate that change. And we also added a paragraph and I'm just cursing down and I'm hoping I could ask Michelle to also get to that. So Michelle, if you could please work your way down to page 16.

Michelle [producer]: You're on page 16, Alina.

Alina Semo: You are on page 16? Okay. Because it's not displaying it. Does anyone else-

Michelle [producer]: You're not able to see it?

Alina Semo: I'm still seeing Recommendation 07.

Michelle [producer]: Okay. It's on page 16.

Alina Semo: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Yes, absolutely. You're absolutely on the right page. If you could go down a little bit further on that page. Okay. This big yellow part. I wanted to alert everyone to that. Again, thanks to Allyson for keeping us on the straight and narrow and reminding us that there were some additional elements to this recommendation that were added as a result of the committee discussion and vote. So that is reflected there.

Allyson Deitrick: Alina, this is Allyson. I just wanted to clarify that the main addition was breaking up 11 into 11 and 12, and then 13, 14, 15, and 16 were pre-existing, but we just re-numbered them. That's why they're highlighted.

Alina Semo: Thank you. And then, Michelle, if I could ask you to please go to page 24, that's recommendation 14.

Michelle [producer]: Does everyone see that?

Alina Semo: Yes. Okay. Here we go. So what I wanted to note here is that, in the first draft that we circulated, we, the working group, we did not stick to the actual language of the recommendation that was passed. And so what we did was we went back, double checked, and the language that you see here is the language that was actually passed by the committee. So therefore that's reflected in the strikeout and in the red lining. And then, Michelle, if you could go to the next page, please. We added a paragraph that we received, courtesy of Alexis, thank you, Alexis, clarifying what this assessment would look like. And we found that explanation very helpful so thank you for that, Alexis. I just wanted to flag that for everyone.

Thomas Susman: Alina, can I make a comment?

Alina Semo: Yes, please. Who is this?

Thomas Susman: Tom Susman.

Alina Semo: Thank you, Tom.

Thomas Susman: I think there was discussion during the course, on this issue, about the need for specifically providing funding. My concern is that the first draft just said that DHS should commission a study and clearly we wanted outside, independent view and not something that was initiated by our control, by DHS. But it sort of comes forward like this is just going to come out of the head of Zeus, full blown, there's a group doing the study. And I think in the explanation it might be worth a sentence, and I don't believe this is a substantive change, that says that, "To the extent that the agency is unable to provide funding for such a study, Congress should provide specific appropriations," or something that contemplates that they're going to need... This, it's not in the government world of appropriations. It's going to be fairly trivial, but in an agency that has a lot to do and is already stretched thin in this area, I'm concerned that we should acknowledge the need for additional resources.

Kel McClanahan: This is Kel. I can second that concern. I actually talked to a DHS official about this after the recommendation, when we were trying to put together specific proposals last time and said, "How much would this cost if you were to do it?" And they said a good estimate would be about $4 million for doing this project. So while, in the DHS, for allotment of cash, that seems like a drop in the bucket, for the FOIA office that is kind of a lot of money. So I think it would definitely be worth calling out. This is not just a problem for DHS to figure out a way for we're recommending that Congress get behind this, the way Tom said.

Thomas Susman: Yeah. This is Tom again. If I can be so bold, our discussions with DHS early on, suggest that they think things are under control. They're not particularly... I mean, they understand there's a problem, but they didn't share our concern that it should be addressed quickly and substantially. And so that also makes me believe that they're going to be unwilling, as Kel said, to allocate scarce funds to something that they're really not terribly committed to.

Alina Semo: Okay. Tom, thanks for that concern. I appreciate it. I have a couple of thoughts. One is I want to just ask Alexis and Michael, as the subcommittee co-chairs, if you're in agreement with this, in terms of adding a few sentences in the body of the explanation?

Alexis Graves: Alina, this is Alexis, USDA, I would be happy to add just a few sentences here. I think that's something that we can tweak relatively quickly.

Alina Semo: Okay. Tom, if you have ideas for one or two sentences that we could insert, perhaps you could share that via the chat, but we'll read it out loud since it doesn't get captured in the chat. Would you be willing to do that? Okay. I think I got a thumbs up from Tom. Okay. I believe that is it. I'm going to ask my working group members to make sure that I didn't miss anything else, but those were the highlights, literally and figuratively, of what we wanted to bring to your attention. So I'm going to open up the floor at this point to any other comments or thoughts or concerns.

Kel McClanahan: This is Kel from National Security Counselors. Now that I have a grasp of how we're sort of making edits here, and making suggestions, I think that the idea of including appeals in the FOIA log would fit nicely into the explanation of recommendation seven. And so I think that we should revisit that. Even if we can't change the recommendation itself, we can change, apparently, the comment. And the comment near the bottom of page 17, sorry, not 17, 12, right? I looked at the wrong one. So recommendation 10, right? I'll find it eventually. When you have the comment on page, where are we, 21, about recommendation 10, where it says, "Our recommendation differs from the earlier one in the following ways," and then you get to "The release of the information is subject to the assertion of exemptions and exclusions."

I think that we could stick another short line in there before the committee approves and say, "Our recommendation also envisions that the et cetera in item G, where it says 'a request,' would include appellate status, if applicable, which we do not believe was envisioned by the previous recommendation." So I would suggest making that change there, since everybody seems to be on board with the need for appeals being included, but we're now unclear on how to go about doing it. I would put it here.

Alina Semo: Thanks, Kel. Allyson and Jason, do you want to react to that? Kel, can I just invite you, as I invited Tom, please put in the chat one or two sentences that you would like inserted, tell us exactly where it needs to be inserted, in your view, and I'll read it out loud as soon as you've sent it to me. Okay? That's the easiest way to go. A.Jay, were you waving to say something or... No. Sorry. I'm trying to look at everyone, making sure that I... everyone's concern. Jason, do you have any reaction to what Kel was saying, or are you-

Jason Gart: Jason Gart, History Associates. I would just, on page 20 of the working draft, item G, "Status of the request (pending, closed, etc.)." We could just add appellate status.

Allyson Deitrick: This is Allyson. I'm inclined to leave everything as it is. Because then my other thought was, well, for dealing with administrative appeals, should we also indicate if a request is in litigation? I feel like that just is getting a little bit further away from what we had originally discussed and we can leave it to a future term to reassess this, if they desire.

Alina Semo: So, Allyson, you're not in favor of adding even any explanatory language in the comment?

Allyson Deitrick: At this point, correct.

Alina Semo: Okay. Any other thoughts?

Jason Gart: This is Jason. I would just ask the other members of our subcommittee, their thoughts. That's how we've done it over the last two years. So Roger, Kristin, A. Jay, David.

Roger Andoh: Is this working?

Alina Semo: All right. Otherwise, we can just take a vote on a motion that someone could present about whether we're going to add a couple of sentences in the comment. That's the only other way I could think of handling it at this point.

Kel McClanahan: If you can give me about 15 seconds, I'm typing that thing for you.

Alina Semo: Okay.

Kel McClanahan: that you wanted.

Alina Semo: Although, I'm hearing Allyson opposed to even adding something in the comment section, right?

Allyson Deitrick: I am. But if the rest of the subcommittee is okay with entertaining Kel's proposal...

Alina Semo: Okay. And Roger, is that you waving? Oh, I cannot hear you.

Jason Gart: This is Jason Gart. I think Roger does want to say something, or maybe he doesn't, but, again, I agree with Allyson that it's up to the group. It's, I think,  consensus.

Roger Andoh: Can you hear me now?

Patricia Weth: Alina, this is Patricia Weth from EPA. I think we've heard from both the co-chairs of the Technology Committee and they spent two years working on these recommendations as well as their comments. And you did a great job, so I think you should go with their original recommendations. I mean, we can make changes to every committee's comments. And, really, the time for us as members to share comments with our fellow members was during the deliberation process and not here, where we're working with final recommendations that have been accepted and voted on by the whole group. That's my two cents.

Alina Semo: Okay. Roger. Thanks, Patricia. Roger. Michelle, anything we can do to help Roger be heard?

Alexis Graves: This is Alexis Graves with the USDA.

Roger Andoh: Can you hear me?

Alexis Graves: I just-

Michelle [producer]: Roger, we can hear you now.

Roger Andoh: You can hear me now? Okay. Yes. You can hear me? Okay. I think we should leave the appeals out, and I have a couple of reasons why. If you said, for example, "The operating divisions for HHS don't handle their own appeals. Things are handle by the department." Number two appeals can be on one case, can be appealed on a variety of issues. They can appeal, for example, a denial of appeal. They can appeal. So you can have a lot with the same case, with multiple appeals filed by a requester because they're disputing multiple issues.

So I think it's not as simple as you can just get the status on appeal. It's not as simple as that because they can appeal multiple issues at different times. And so I think if the next committee wants to take that issue on and figure out how best to do the reporting, they can do that. But I think at this point, I don't like to start tweaking or adding language at this point.

Alina Semo: Okay. Thank you, Roger. I appreciate it. Alexis?

Alexis Graves: Yes. Well, Roger, as he so eloquently said, I agree with his comments there. And I would just say that I would distinguish revisions to the first-party working group from this one, in that the first party is agency-specific. And we want to do those things that are going to further assist and facilitate the required revisions within the agency. And so if we can add some language to make it a little bit more helpful to the agency, I think that we should. Again, I think we can distinguish this one from this type of recommendation because it is agency-specific.

Alina Semo: Okay. All right. So what I'm hearing-

Kel McClanahan: This is Kel.

Alina Semo: Yes, go ahead, Kel.

Kel McClanahan: I'm just going to give sort of the closing remark on this, because I think that the debate has ended. This is also agency-specific. It affects all agencies. In fact, I think it's exactly the same. I think that we are setting a dangerous precedent, not in the legal sense, but sort of in the way the committee works since, if we start arbitrarily drawing lines between whether or not some amendments are allowed, not because they're a good idea, but because they're not meeting with the procedural whatever, of how it's going, if nobody agrees with it because they think it's a bad idea and they shouldn't lift appeals on FOIA logs, then vote it down. That's a perfectly valid reason not to accept the amendment. But if we're going to consider one amendment on the merits and another amendment, not on the merits, that is a double standard. And that's all I'll say on that.

Alina Semo: Okay. I just want to clarify that what I've heard from everyone so far is that we are not amending any of the language of the recommendations themselves. Okay. I just want to be clear about that. We're not adding or subtracting from any of the recommendations. What we are discussing is whether we add any language in the comment section, following the recommendation. I have heard, with respect to appeals, there are at least two people on the Technology Subcommittee who are against it, against even adding any additional language. Does the Technology Subcommittee wish to take a vote on this issue about whether to add any additional language? I'm happy to take a vote.

Allyson Deitrick: I'll... for the motion to put it on the table, or I motion for a vote.

Alina Semo: Okay.

Allyson Deitrick: This is Allyson from-

Alina Semo: So on whether to add any additional language in the comment section regarding appeals.

Allyson Deitrick: Correct.

Alina Semo: Okay. Do I have a second on that motion? We don't need it. A. Jay is waving.

Kristin Ellis: This is Kristin. I'll second it.

Alina Semo: Okay. Thank you for the second. So let's get the committee to vote on whether we're going to add any additional language regarding appeals in the comment section, following this recommendation. All those in favor, please say aye.

Kel McClanahan: Do you not want to read the recommendations? You said you were going to read that from the chat.

Alina Semo: Have you sent it to me?

Kel McClanahan: Yes. I sent it to all attendees.

Allyson Deitrick: No, I thought the question first was whether or not we were even going to consider language. And then if that motion passes, then we would address language.

Kel McClanahan: Is that what we're-

Kirsten Mitchell: That was my understanding, too. And I just wanted a point of order, Alina. You are calling for a vote just from the Technology Subcommittee, yes?

Alina Semo: The whole committee.

Kirsten Mitchell: The whole committee.

Kirsten Mitchell: Okay.

Allyson Deitrick: This is Allyson. If it was our committee's recommendation, shouldn't it just be a Technology Subcommittee vote to put it towards the full committee?

Alina Semo: Sure. We could certainly proceed that way, as well. Do we have the rest of the members of the Technology Subcommittee ready to vote, then, on this motion as to whether to add any additional language in the comment section? Can I hear those in favor? Please say aye.

Kel McClanahan: Aye.

Alina Semo: Okay. Who said aye?

Kel McClanahan: It's me, Kel.

Alina Semo: Kel, are you on the Technology Subcommittee?

Kel McClanahan: Oh, I'm sorry.

Alina Semo: That's okay.

Kel McClanahan: I was fixing the chat. I didn't realize it was only them. Sorry.

Alina Semo: It's okay. We're just taking a Technology Subcommittee vote. I've heard no ayes.

A. Jay Wagner: Aye.

Alina Semo: Did I hear an aye? A. Jay said aye. Any other ayes? All those opposed, please say nay. Nay.

Jason Gart: Nay.

Allyson Deitrick: Nay.

Alina Semo: I think the nays have it for the Technology Subcommittee. Kirsten, can you note that please?

Kirsten Mitchell: Yes. I will note that. The ayes have it. I mean, the nays have it, with A. Jay voting. Yes.

Alina Semo: Okay. So Allyson, how would you like to proceed at this point, now that the Technology Subcommittee has voted against this recommendation?

Allyson Deitrick: I would not put a vote to the larger committee because it didn't clear the subcommittee.

Alina Semo: Okay. All right. I think that completes our discussion. Anyone else have any other comments? Dave Cuillier?

David Cuillier: Thanks, Alina. Dave Cuillier from the University of Arizona. I personally support putting that in here, but I oppose doing that now. And maybe the next-term committee might want to talk about procedure for the next term, because this has been kind of something that's popped up a few times and it might be something that they really want to kind of all agree to early. Like any city council will put something on first reading, put it out there, let people cogitate, discuss, seek input, answer questions, and then come back and do second reading where they approve it.

And sometimes we've had, during this term, things sprung on the committee, either the day before or night before a meeting or during a meeting. And personally, that's the reason why I abstained on a vote last meeting, because I just didn't have enough information. I wanted to ask more questions, and certainly we didn't have time. So that might be something that the committee talks about because that might avoid confusion and consternation. It's just an idea. Thank you.

Alina Semo: Thank you. I appreciate that comment. Okay. I'm going to circle back now to the first-person issue and to the process subcommittee. I'm going to ask Alexis and Michael. Let's follow the same procedure. Let's take a vote on whether we add any additional language to clarify who is going to be funding the study for DHS. Michael? Alexis?

Alexis Graves: Sorry about that. I couldn't get myself off mute. Yeah. Are we going to take a vote in the same way, Alina?

Alina Semo: I think, to be fair and equitable, I think we should do the same thing.

Alexis Graves: Okay.

Alina Semo: I've not seen any language from Tom, but let's at least tackle the issue first, as to whether we would be adding any language. So the Process Subcommittee, are you guys ready to vote on whether to add any language clarifying the DHS-specific recommendation?

Alexis Graves: Yes.

Alina Semo: All right. So let's please take a vote at the Process Subcommittee. All those in favor of adding additional language to clarify the DHS-specific recommendation, please say aye.

Roger Andoh: Aye.

Alexis Graves: Aye.

Michael Morisy: Aye.

Alina Semo: I heard three ayes. Did I miss anything?

Thomas Susman: I just sent a paragraph out in the chat.

Alina Semo: Okay. I have not received it, but first, Tom, we're just voting on whether we're going to add it. Are you an aye or-

Alexis Graves: Alina, Tuan is also a part of the group, but I think he's away today.

Alina Semo: He is not here, correct. So unfortunately we cannot have his vote count. Tom, are you an aye for including language? Yes. Okay. Kirsten, are you taking count of that vote so far?

Kirsten Mitchell: Yes, I am. And it sounds like it is unanimous. I did not hear any nays.

Alina Semo: I did not ask for any nays yet, but let me.

Kirsten Mitchell: Oh, okay.

Alina Semo: All those opposed, please say nay.

Linda Frye: I'm going to say nay, because I feel like we should be handling things in the same manner. If we're going to make changes to one thing, I don't think we should be able to just deny that we're not going to make changes on anything else.

Alina Semo: Okay. Thank you, Linda.

Kirsten Mitchell: And that was Linda Frye?

Linda Frye: Yes. Sorry.

Kirsten Mitchell: Yes.

Alina Semo: Okay, Dave.

Kel McClanahan: If you send it to all attendees, the panelists won't see it.

Thomas Susman: Oh.

David Cuillier: Yeah. Alina, Dave Cuillier here. I think the difference here is this was distributed ahead of the meeting, right, Alina? 

Alina Semo: Correct.

David Cuillier: And so, to me, I'm fine with making decisions on things where we had a chance to see it ahead of time and talk and that sort of thing. Well, it was still a little short notice though, right? I mean, this is the kind of thing that probably we should distribute at least a week before the meeting, in the future. So that's how I see this different from our previous discussion and vote, if that makes sense.

Alina Semo: Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Thomas Susman: Yeah. David, I dare say that there may be a difference between adding new thoughts and clarifying what was discussed in the subcommittee, but not ultimately incorporated in the report language. I mean, the subject of this independent study, as I said, has been evolving from... I think we were fairly clear there needed to be some outside voices. And in fact, I think we specifically discussed that Congress should direct such a study, but that didn't come into the final language. It's a nuance and I suppose that's what votes are for, if for the full committee to establish its will, does it want to change or add something or not?

Alina Semo: So Tom, you have the floor, would you please go ahead and read your suggested additional language?

Thomas Susman: Yeah. "The subcommittee acknowledges that, given the challenges CIS is currently facing, that include complying with stringent court orders, transitioning to a new access platform, and what appears to be another record-breaking year of new FOIA requests, the commissioning of an independent assessment by an outside entity will require supplemental funding. We therefore recommend that DHS seek, and Congress provide, specific funding to CIS to support this assessment."

Alina Semo: And CIS refers to USCIS, right?

Thomas Susman: Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Subject to editorial clarification, as necessary. I mean, it's hard to wordsmith while I'm trying to listen and write and-

Alina Semo: Understood.

Thomas Susman: ... drink my coffee at the same time.

Alina Semo: So can I ask the Process Subcommittee members to comment on that language? Anyone have any concerns or questions about it? Otherwise, we should take a vote.

Alexis Graves: In the chat, Alina?

Alina Semo: It's in the chat.

Alexis Graves: Okay.

Kirsten Mitchell: Alina, point of clarification. This language that Tom just read would come immediately after the "to reduce delays" that is up on the screen right now, correct?

Thomas Susman: Correct. The end of the yellow paragraph.

Kirsten Mitchell: Yep. Just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.

Alina Semo: I was going to ask the same thing, but yes. Thank you.

Kel McClanahan: Are we just hearing from the Process Subcommittee right now?

Alina Semo: Correct. Michael, I haven't heard from you. You've been very quiet today. Any thoughts? Oh, Michael's audio is off. Okay.

Michael Morisy: Can you hear me now?

Alina Semo: Yes, we can hear you.

Michael Morisy: Oh, I thought everybody was just talking over me this whole time. This is Michael Morisy from MuckRock and I apologize. Yeah. I think this language just codifies what we intend all along. We do know that there's a lot of unfunded mandates that we put on our FOIA offices, and I think that's the challenge of dealing with Congress, et cetera. But I do think that this kind of, isn't adding something new, but kind of, I think, along with the intent that we had throughout this process, and I think would help actually make sure that this happens because otherwise I think that this is going to be really tough to pull off because it will require dedicated funding that's going to be hard to find. I think it'll also give Congress a chance to provide oversight if they're earmarking specific funding for this, as well. So I heartily endorse this addition and recommend that.

Alina Semo: Okay. Thank you. Michael and Alexis, should we go ahead and take a subcommittee vote first on this language and then we can put it to the whole committee? Yes?

Michael Morisy: Yeah. Can we go ahead and just say changing CIS to USCIS, just for clarification, so we don't have to do as much wordsmithing later?

Alina Semo: Yes. Agreed.

Michael Morisy: And thank you. Thank you, Tom, For that. That was [inaudible 00:56:51]

Thomas Susman: I also noticed that subcommittee isn't capitalized in my... I mean, I say subject to Congress-

Alina Semo: Working group can fix that.

Thomas Susman: Free to revise any [inaudible 00:57:04]

Kirsten Mitchell: Both of those are fixed and added. This is Kirsten.

Alina Semo: Thank you, Kirsten. All right. So the Process Subcommittee members please vote on this language that Tom is advancing, that has already been read out loud. Kel would like to propose a minor change.

Kel McClanahan: I would just take out "DHS seek and..." That's sort of implied and I would like Congress to do this, even if DHS doesn't ask for it. And if we put in "DHS seek..." and we miss this year's appropriation markup, which is next week, whereas ideally some member of Congress reading this tomorrow could say, "Oh, that's a great idea," and put it into the bill, but not if we only propose that they do it if DHS asks for it.

Thomas Susman: I thought about that, Kel, when I was doing the drafting and I kind of went back and forth. And I guess I suggested that out of courtesy because DHS ought to be invested in this, ideally, but it leaves room for if they don't seek, we're still recommending that Congress provide it. It's not a conditioned precedent to congressional appropriations.

Michael Morisy: This is Michael Morisy from MuckRock. I agree with Tom. I think giving DHS and USCIS kind of a mechanism and kind of a mandate to ask for something, is helpful in this case, because I think a lot of times it's challenging to kind of put a request in. And so if we give them a mechanism to sort of say what they need and provide some clarification, what will be helpful. I think that'll make this recommendation work better.

Kel McClanahan: Okay. I don't think we need to vote on this change. I just wanted to throw that out there. I think that they're going to read this, the appropriators are going to read this as "Well, we'll do this in the future, once we learn that they're just on board with the need for this." But I'm not going to force this [inaudible 00:59:31].

Thomas Susman: I mean, Kel, they're going to ask DHS's views anyway. They're not going to come up with money and put it down their throat. We're not giving DHS a chance to exercise a veto by adding this language.

Kel McClanahan: That's fair.

Alina Semo: Okay. Well thank you for that discussion. Can I have the Process Subcommittee first vote on this proposed language that Tom has read out loud, please? And actually, can I have a motion first? I usually get a motion, right?

Thomas Susman: Move.

Alina Semo: Motion. Thank you. Second. Thank you. So all in favor of the Process Subcommittee on this language that Tom is proposing, please say aye.

Thomas Susman: Aye.

Michael Morisy: Aye.

Alexis Graves: Aye.

Alina Semo: I heard a lot of ayes. Kirsten, you got that? Okay. Anyone opposed, please say nay. Anyone abstaining? Okay. Kirsten, looks like it's got a positive thumbs up from the subcommittee.

Kirsten Mitchell: Indeed, it has.

Alina Semo: So let's go ahead and bring it to the full committee now. Can I have a motion from anyone on the committee to take a full vote on this in front of the full committee?

Thomas Susman: I'll move.

Alina Semo: So moved. Thank you, Tom. Do I have a second?

Alexis Graves: Second.

Alina Semo: Thank you, Alexis. Okay, so now we're going to vote as a full committee. So everyone else, please pay attention. All those in favor of this proposed language, please say aye.

Multiple: Aye.

Alina Semo: Kirsten, do we need to do a roll call?

Kirsten Mitchell: Call for the nays, and then I can tell you.

Alina Semo: Okay.

Kirsten Mitchell: And abstentions, please.

Alina Semo: Sure. All those opposed, please say nay. Any abstentions? I'm going to go on the record. Alina Semo, from OGIS, abstains. Bobby?

Bobby Talebian: Yes. I'm abstaining as well. I've abstained before.

Alina Semo: And did we hear from those folks go on the phone. Did we hear from Linda and Kristin?

Kristin Ellis: I'm going to aye, Alina. I don't know if you all heard me. Kristin.

Kirsten Mitchell: It was a yay.

Alina Semo: Okay. Who was a yay?

Kirsten Mitchell: It was Kristin Ellis.

Alina Semo: Kristin Ellis was an aye. Okay. And Linda is?

Linda Frye: I went ahead and voted aye, since everyone pointed in that direction.

Alina Semo: Gotcha. Okay. Just want to make sure we counted it for you guys. All right. So it sounds to me like we have all the votes in, right Kirsten?

Kirsten Mitchell: Yes. By my accounting, the vote is 16 to 0, with you and Bobby abstaining.

Alina Semo: Okay. So we will add that language in the comment section. And as we consider voting on the final report, please remember that language will be incorporated. Okay. Any other areas that we need to deal with in the final report, that we haven't already discussed?

Kel McClanahan: And we're taking the public comments before we do the final vote?

Alina Semo: Correct. If there's no other committee comments, I was about to open up the floor to public comments. I'm just waiting for everyone to gather their thoughts. I don't see anyone waving at me or sending me a chat. So if everyone's okay, we'll proceed with the public comment section and hear from any members of the public who wish to comment. I just want to remind those of you who would like to comment, this is not the appropriate venue to voice concerns about individual FOIA requests.

If you need OGIS assistance, please email us at Any oral comments are captured in the transcript of the meeting, which we will post as soon as it is available. And the comments are also captured in the YouTube recording and are available on the NARA YouTube channel. I'm monitoring both the Webex chat and the NARA YouTube channel chat. I'm going to ask Jessie Hartman from our OGIS staff first, if there are any questions or comments that have come in, either one of those chats.

Kirsten Mitchell: Pardon the interruption, Alina.

Alina Semo: Yes.

Kirsten Mitchell: Can we go to the phones first and then go to Jessie for the chat comments, please?

Alina Semo: Sure. We can certainly do it that way, too. I will pivot. Michelle, give instructions for anyone who wants to call in and make a comment.

Thomas Susman: Can I make a suggestion, Alina?

Alina Semo: Yes.

Thomas Susman: This is Tom. I know there are a lot of people who would like to chime in and, like David, I thought the comments we had in writing that were posted were terrific, but many of them really provide a roadmap, blueprint for the next study, what we should do further. And I guess, given the fact that most of us have other things to do in life today, if the comments can hopefully be focused on this report rather than what hasn't been done.

And I include a suggestion to you that perhaps the next advisory committee starts with a public crowdsourcing for ideas, not just the committee, as we've done in the past few, coming up amongst ourselves. But getting outside input on what we should do and then come together and plot the agenda, and that'll make it a little easier today. Not to say you guys missed the boat on these issues that you should have dealt with.

Alina Semo: Perfect. Fully noted. Thank you, Tom. I appreciate that. Okay, Michelle, could you please go ahead and give instructions for anyone who wants to call in on the phone?

Michelle [producer]: Absolutely. So ladies and gentlemen, as we enter the public comments session, please limit your comments to three minutes. Once your three minutes expires, we will mute your line and move on to the next commenter.

Alina Semo: So Michelle, do we have any callers in queue?

Michelle [producer]: Yes, we do have someone in queue. Ryan. Your line is unmuted. You may go ahead.

Ryan Milliron: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I just recently became aware of the advisory committee and its role, and I spent the last week looking through past recommendations, as well as the recommendations in this report. And I have to give you some honesty. As I am a requester, I put in approximately 160 FOIA requests, 120 of those are at the federal level, I would say. Forty of those were at state-level entities, and those 40 have all been processed. But of the 120 FOIAs I've put in through the federal government, through all various assortment of agencies, not a single one has been processed.

And I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I will respect your wishes that the comments are directed towards these recommendations. And with that, let me just say, I think none of these recommendations address any of the challenges or issues that I have come across as a FOIA requester. So I think you noted potentially a future meeting where we might have more of a dialogue or I have an opportunity to submit my suggestions through email request, but I would make this point. As you water down your recommendations, you're watering down your own influence. And I see some recommendations here, I think, as it relates to the Glomar terminology. Is that really the influence you're going for with the committee? I don't think so. We all recognize that there's a lot of issues with FOIAs and processing and I would just urge you all, as you continue in your work, to think more about us and think more about the holistic nature of the government and the issues that are present throughout multiple entities. So I will limit my comments to that and I really appreciate the opportunity to speak. Thank you.

Alina Semo: And Ryan, may I please ask for you to identify yourself by first and last name and your association with any organization?

Ryan Milliron: Yes. My name is Ryan Milliron. I'm just a regular citizen out there. No affiliations.

Alina Semo: Okay. Thank you so much for your comments. We appreciate it.

Ryan Milliron: Thank you.

Alina Semo: Michelle, anyone else on the queue, waiting?

Michelle [producer]: I do not see anyone else with their hand raised. I know that Mr. Hammond is trying to get through, but I do not see your hand raised, sir, so if you wouldn't mind letting me know your phone number so that I can unmute your line, if you are dialed in on regular audio. That would be good because I do not see your hand raised.

Alina Semo: Okay. While we're working for that issue, let me pivot back to Jessie to ask if there are any chat comments that we need to read out loud or any questions that need to be posed.

Kel McClanahan: Alina, can I respond to Ryan really quickly, before we move to the next comment?

Alina Semo: Sure.

Kel McClanahan: So I think that this is the reason that we have a very committee, and that was a very eloquent presentation. Apply. Not everybody on this committee has always been someone who works for a nonprofit, who works for an agency, who works for the media. There are slots for people who represent the interest of these sort of all other requests you can choose, none of those things. To everyone, I'm going to add to Alina's caseload here. But if this is something that you're passionate about, apply to be on it because we need different viewpoints, as you can tell. And if you think this committee didn't do something right, then put your name in to fix the next one.

Alina Semo: All right. Thanks, Kel. All right, Jessie?

Jessie Hartman: I was going to ask Michelle if she was able to, if there was any other callers, but if not-

Michelle [producer]: Yeah. I don't see anybody at the moment.

Jessie Hartman: Okay. Thank you. So yes, in the spirit of that, we did have a comment that says, "If you have a passion for improving FOIA and want to join with extraordinary leaders in the field, please consider nominating yourself for the next term of the FOIA Advisory Committee."

Alina Semo: Okay.

Jessie Hartman: And I think that is all that we have for right now.

Alina Semo: Okay. All right. Well, thank you. I believe we have finished our public comments period, and thank you for that exchange. I appreciate it. And I believe we're now ready to vote on the final report. Let me pause for a second, make sure that none of the committee members have any other questions or issues that they want to raise at this time. All right. I'm hearing crickets, so let's go ahead and take a final vote on our final report and recommendations, with the additional paragraph added under the recommendation that we discussed previously, that has been voted on unanimously. So may I please have a motion?

Patricia Weth: This is Patricia Weth.

Kristin Ellis: This is Kristin. I move-

Patricia Weth: Sorry.

Alina Semo: Okay. I'm sorry. That was Kristin or Patricia? Who's moving for a vote on the final report?

Kristin Ellis: This is Kristin. I'm moving for a vote.

Alina Semo: Thank you. Do I have a second?

Patricia Weth: This is Patricia Weth. I second.

Alina Semo: Okay. All right, so let's get ready to vote. Kirsten, listen up. We'll take a voice vote first. All those in favor of the final report and recommendations with the additional language that we just finished discussing, please say aye.

Multiple: Aye.

Alina Semo: Okay. Anyone opposed, please say nay. Any abstentions?

Bobby Talebian: Hi, it's Bobby. I'm continuing abstaining.

Alina Semo: This is Alina. I will also abstain.

Kirsten Mitchell: Okay. This is Kirsten. Motion carries on the final report and recommendations as amended with the paragraph. The vote is 16 to 0, with Alina and Bobby abstaining.

Alina Semo: Okay. All right. Well, we will finalize the report. We plan to post it as soon as possible. I want to thank all of the committee members again for all your hard work this term. And I particularly want to thank my hardworking OGIS staff and our NARA detailees and our other NARA staff who assisted the committee behind the scenes during the past two years. It really does take a village and I'm very grateful for all the support that we've received. 

I know we've already spoken about it a couple of times, but I just want to remind everyone again, there is a call out for nominations for the next term. The federal register notice was published yesterday. The deadline to either self nominate or nominate another individual is June 30th. Please review the federal register notice for additional details and instructions. The Acting Archivist of the United States will review the nominations and make final appointments prior to the first committee meeting of the next term, which is Thursday, September 8th, which will be here before you know it. OGIS will notify appointees in writing. Okay, I'm going to pause again, ask if anyone else has any comments or parting thoughts. This is our last meeting. It's a little sad. Yes.

Kirsten Mitchell: Alina, this is Kirsten. I think the folks on our team are asking if we can read out one comment.

Alina Semo: Oh, sure. Is that Jessie who's asking?

Jessie Hartman: Yes. So the one comment we have is, "I asked DOJ/OIP and OGIS to identify in this meeting, the dollar funding level needed for fiscal Y 2023 to effectively perform in all their statutory missions. OGIS is likely underfunded 10 to 20-fold." That is the comment.

Alina Semo: Okay. Thank you for the comments. Tom, please go ahead. Can’t hear you.

Thomas Susman: Good. You graciously thank your staff with appreciation for assistance, but it seems to me that thanks also is due to you. This is obviously, while part of your day job, it takes an awful lot of time, I've learned, because it takes the rest of us a lot of time and you need to be in the middle of a hub for all of the various entities. So you've done a great job, I think, shepherding the recommendations and herding the butterflies. And so I want to express, I think on behalf of all my colleagues, thanks to you for your leadership.

Alina Semo: I really appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you for the applause, James. I appreciate that. It's been a pleasure to work with all of you. It's been a really very active and very thoughtful committee term, and the members have all been wonderful to work with, so it's been really great. I think we should all be proud of the report that we're putting out. Okay. Any other thoughts or questions? Parting remarks? Going once, going twice. Thanks again to all of you joining us today. I hope everyone and their families remain safe, healthy, and resilient. I hope everyone enjoys their summer, and we stand adjourned. Have a great day.

Roger Andoh: All right, thank you.

Thomas Susman: Well done.

Kel McClanahan: Thank you.

Kirsten Mitchell: Thank you, Alina.

Michelle [producer]: That concludes our conference. Thank you for using Event Services. You may now disconnect.