March 3, 2021 - Meeting Minutes (Certified)
The (Freedom of Information Act) FOIA Advisory Committee convened at 10 a.m. EST on March 3, 2021, virtually.
In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. §§ 1-16, the meeting was open to the public from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. and livestreamed on NARA’s YouTube Channel.
Meeting materials are available on the Committee’s website at https://www.archives.gov/ogis/foia-advisory-committee/2020-2022-term.
Committee members present at the virtual meeting:
- Alina M. Semo, Director, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) (Committee Chairperson)
- Roger Andoh, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Allan Blutstein, America Rising
- David Cuillier, University of Arizona
- Allyson Deitrick, U.S. Department of Commerce
- Kristin Ellis, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Jason Gart, History Associates Incorporated
- Alexis Graves, U.S. Department of Agriculture
- Loubna W. Haddad, U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Intelligence Agency
- Kel McClanahan, National Security Counselors
- Michael Morisy, MuckRock
- Alexandra Perloff-Giles, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
- Tuan N. Samahon, Villanova University
- Matthew Schwarz, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- James R. Stocker, Trinity Washington University
- Thomas Susman, American Bar Association
- Bobak Talebian, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Information Policy
- A. Jay Wagner, Marquette University
- Patricia Weth, National Labor Relations Board
Committee members absent from the meeting:
- Linda Frye, Social Security Administration
Others present or participating in the virtual meeting:
- David S. Ferriero, Archivist of the United States, NARA
- Kirsten B. Mitchell, Committee’s Designated Federal Officer, NARA
- Martha W. Murphy, Deputy Director, OGIS, NARA
- Sheela Portonovo, Attorney Advisor, OGIS, NARA
- Kimberlee Ried, Public Affairs Specialist/OGIS Detailee, NARA
- Daniel Schuman, Policy Director, Demand Progress and Demand Progress Education Fund
- Michael Lissner, Executive Director, Free Law Project
- Michelle Ridley, WebEx Event Producer
Welcome and Updates
Archivist of the United States David S. Ferriero welcomed the group to the third meeting of the fourth term of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee. He stated that March 3rd marks the 150th anniversary of Congress passing legislation regarding civil service reform and that the work done by civil servants and FOIA professionals is more challenging than ever. He thanked the Committee for working diligently and thoughtfully to strive toward a FOIA process that works better for all. He noted the FOIA Advisory Committee is exploring whether FOIA should apply to the judicial and legislative branches of government and he appreciates the thoughtful deliberation.
Mr. Ferriero invited the Committee and members of the public to the first virtual Sunshine Week event on Monday, March 15, from 1:00-3:00 p.m. with Senior U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth who will headline the program. He also noted the event will feature a panel discussion titled “U.S. Transparency Landscape: Where do we go from here?” with FOIA Advisory Committee member Alexandra Perloff-Giles. Last, Mr. Ferriero noted his desire for everyone to take care and stay safe.
Committee Chairperson and OGIS Director Alina Semo welcomed the group and thanked them for attending. She welcomed Kirsten Mitchell, the Designated Federal Officer and expressed her gratitude to the Committee for continuing to study the FOIA landscape. In addition, she noted the absence of FOIA Committee Member Linda Frye and dispensed with a roll call.
Ms. Semo stated there would be time at the end for public comments via Webex and the YouTube chat function; noted that meeting materials and other related information are available on the OGIS website; and invited the public to email comments to email@example.com. She noted that the transcript and video will be available after the meeting.
She asked that FOIA Advisory Committee members raise their hands to speak and identify themselves by name and affiliation when talking or use the “all panelists” chat function as appropriate. She stated that OGIS staff would monitor for non-verbal cues in the virtual format and noted there would be a 15-minute break at approximately 11:00 a.m.
Ms. Semo called for a motion to approve the December 10, 2020, FOIA Advisory Committee Meeting minutes. Mr. Stocker noted a correction regarding the term “declassified.”
Action Item: Tuan Samahon moved to approve the December 10, 2020, minutes with the noted correction. James Stocker seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Semo noted the FOIA Advisory Committee Recommendations Dashboard has been updated since the last meeting. She stated that earlier this calendar year, OGIS launched five cross-training projects within the National Archives to work on five previous FOIA Advisory Committee recommendations. She suggested that the FOIA Advisory Committee and the public could monitor the progress on the dashboard. She also thanked the Subcommittees for getting their mission statements written and finalized.
Process Subcommittee - Linda Frye and Michael Morisy, co-chairs
In Ms. Frye’s absence, Mr. Morisy reported that the Process Subcommittee team has been investigating the implementation and impact of prior recommendations to best determine where the subcommittee can steer its efforts to maximize impact and positive reforms. He stated that the subcommittee is working on developing a requester community survey to gather feedback on other areas of improvement.
He noted that the group is bringing in guest speakers to their subcommittee meetings to hear about how other jurisdictions (state, local, and international) manage the right-to-know experience as it relates to FOIA. Mr. Morisy stated that the Process Subcommittee would be inviting in some agencies that manage FOIA requests to better understand the internal life cycle of a request and identify challenges that may exist with current processes.
Mr. Morisy noted that the Process Subcommittee has been coordinating with the other subcommittees on several areas, including technology and ways to think about litigation.
He asked for feedback/assistance from the audience on the survey regarding questions it thinks should be asked of the FOIA requester community. He noted the Process Subcommittee is interested in gaining a clearer understanding of the frustrations, challenges, and opportunities within the FOIA process as well as examples of agencies or other governmental entities that are getting the FOIA process “right.”
Last, Mr. Morisy stated that the Process Subcommittee is interested in hearing from people who have pushed for reform and any reflections on that activity and/or how it has had a positive impact.
Ms. Semo asked if anyone had any questions or ideas to please share them with the Process Subcommittee. Later in the meeting, she asked Mr. Morisy if the Process Subcommittee was looking to partner up with any of the other subcommittees in regard to the survey.
Mr. Morisy noted that he had received feedback from other subcommittee members and would continue to like to hear from others on feedback or ideas.
Mr. Samahon added that the Process Subcommittee is also looking into the possibility of more affirmative disclosures outside of FOIA and a technological solution. He stated that he thinks there will be future discussions with the General Services Administration’s (GSA) 18F, the government’s digital services agency, and other technology specialists and perhaps the Technology and Process Subcommittees will come together on this issue in the coming months.
Technology Subcommittee - Allyson Deitrick and Jason Gart, co-chairs
Mr. Gart noted that the Technology Subcommittee is in the information-gathering phase in looking at best practices for federal agencies with the end goal of ensuring agencies have the up-to-date access and information on technology solutions. The group is speaking with various agencies and thinking through their final deliverable to the FOIA Advisory Committee.
Ms. Deitrick noted that the Technology Subcommittee is also working to make sure it has identified clear end goals in terms of what the technology for FOIA would look like, but still trying to keep in mind the needs of the various sized agencies, recognizing that smaller agencies have different needs as opposed to larger agencies.
Ms. Weth asked if the Technology Subcommittee was working with the Chief FOIA Officers Council Technology Committee. Ms. Deitrick responded that they are working together with the Process Subcommittee and had a conversation with the members of the Chief FOIA Officers Council Technology Committee. They are working to not duplicate efforts and recognize ways in which each group can learn from each other.
Classification Subcommittee - Kristin Ellis and James R. Stocker, co-chairs
Mr. Stocker noted the Classification Subcommittee is meeting monthly and is aiming to study the impact of classification on the FOIA process, the use of exemptions to justify withholding of national security information, and ways to improve communication between agencies and the public.
He noted their current area of focus is on “Glomar” responses in which an agency neither confirms nor denies that it has records responsive to a FOIA request. He stated that Glomar is often considered to be a loophole in FOIA as there are no agencies publicly tracking Glomar and that its use seems to have expanded over time. Mr. Stocker stated that the Classification Subcommittee is aiming to focus on two items. First, to collect publicly available documentation on Glomar responses and second, to survey agencies about their practices around using Glomar.
Mr. Stocker expressed his thanks to FOIA Advisory Committee members Bobby Talebian and Micheal Morisy for their help in finding documentation about Glomar. He noted the Classification Subcommittee is still in the process of drafting their questionnaire. Mr. Stocker went on to state the Classification Subcommittee is also looking at other issues such as drop dates for classified documents or when they automatically become declassified, but that their main focus remains on Glomar for the moment.
Mr. Susman asked about the ability to dig deeper into the legal aspects of Glomar in instances of when the courts reject a Glomar defense. Mr. Susman noted he worked on the first such case and would be happy to share more information with the Classification Subcommittee.
Mr. Stocker noted that information would be useful.
Legislation Subcommittee - Kel McClanahan and Patricia Weth, co-chairs
Ms. Weth stated that the Legislation Subcommittee established four working groups to focus on expanding the scope of FOIA; exploring ways to strengthen OGIS; funding for FOIA; and FOIA fees. Each group has a team lead and each has been conducting research and lining up interviews with fellow FOIA professionals. She noted that Mr. McClanahan has been working to organize meetings with folks on the Hill.
Mr. Weth stated that Mr. Susman helped identify the speakers for today’s meeting on expanding the scope of FOIA. She stated that the Legislation Subcommittee hopes to have a full recommendation at the June 10 FOIA Advisory Committee meeting regarding whether to expand the scope of FOIA to the legislative and judicial branches.
Mr. McClanahan added that some of the work of the Legislation Subcommittee is very timely at the moment, not just around reform efforts, but also in regard to appropriations and legislative options. He asked the FOIA Advisory Committee to consider ideas around appropriation efforts and targeted requests such as a FOIA fund or other creative solutions. He requested that those ideas be sent to the Legislation Subcommittee.
Ms. Weth also noted that they would be happy to collaborate with other subcommittees as they expect to overlap with all the other groups.
Ms. Semo asked if Ms. Weth or Mr. McClanahan wanted to discuss the other three areas that the Legislation Subcommittee is examining. Ms. Weth noted the first goal was to get a recommendation together for June 10.
Mr. Andoh asked if there are any thoughts about getting rid of fees altogether for all requesters instead of having a cap on the number of pages if a request exceeds that cap.
Mr. McClanahan noted that they expect to examine the fees since the money raised is very minimal.
Mr. Andoh asked about requests in which a legal discovery process is required rather than relying upon the FOIA process to obtain information. Ms. Weth noted the third term of the FOIA Advisory Committee examined that issue and noted that one recommendation was for agencies to find another avenue for first party requesters to obtain records. She stated that in the third term’s final report, there are two examples of agencies (Internal Revenue Service and Veterans Administration) who already do this, so first-party requesters do not have to file FOIA requests for their own records.
She noted a large percentage of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) requests are first-party requesters and this could be a win-win to avoid the FOIA process. Mr. McClanahan noted there are options but resources, such as staffing and time, often tend to be the issue.
Mr. Andoh also inquired about resources and using technology to properly assemble documents. He cited an example of a request in which records are dispersed across multiple agencies making it difficult to fulfill requests. He stated one central location or process would be a good step.
Ms. Haddad noted that while Mr. Andoh’s idea is practical, she wondered if centralization would violate Privacy Act issues or concerns as each agency collects information under different Systems of Records Notices (SORNs). Ms. Semo noted that SORNs are a tricky area and asked if others had any thoughts or suggestions.
Ms. Weth noted a source in University of Denver law professor Margaret Kwoka as a resource for Mr. Andoh’s working group around this topic.
Mr. Andoh stated he had been in touch with Ms. Kwoka as well as Emily Creighton from American Immigration Council, both former members of the FOIA Advisory Committee.
Mr. Talebian noted the FY 2020 Chief FOIA Officers Council reports specifically asked agencies to report an estimate of the first-party requests they received for this fiscal year and that all the reports would be available by Sunshine Week.
Ms. Semo noted that the FOIA Ombudsman blog has been highlighting several members of the Committee including Mr. Andoh, Dr. Cuillier, and Mr. Susman. Ms. Semo asked if anyone had any public Sunshine Week events to share.
Mr. Talebian stated that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is seeking nominations for departments and/or individuals for recognition of FOIA work.
Ms. Weth asked if the DOJ receives many nominations from the requester community.
Mr. Talebian stated they receive very few as most nominations are received from agencies.
Mr. Susman noted a D.C. Open Government Coalition program on March 18 at 1:00 p.m. focused on schools and policing and COVID in the District of Columbia. This event will include the director of D.C.’s Office of Open Government; he noted the link to register at dcogc.org.
Ms. Weth stated one of the previous FOIA Advisory Committee recommendations was focused on the importance of issuing agency-wide memos to educate employees on the importance of FOIA. She noted that Sunshine Week is an ideal time to do that type of work.
Ms. Semo agreed and stated that she and Mr. Talebian had this on their to-do list to remind agencies.
The Committee took a 10-minute break.
Briefing on Access to Records in the Legislative and Judicial Branches
Ms. Semo introduced Daniel Schuman, the Policy Director at Demand Progress and Demand Progress Education Fund; and Michael Lissner, the Executive Director at Free Law Project and welcomed them both to the meeting.
Mr. Schuman’s presentation noted that the legislative branch of government is more than just Congress. He stated that Congress is inherently political and very concerned about its own reputation and writes its own rules as independence is the hallmark of each office, committee, etc. Often the work is both proactively disclosed and “pre-decisional” and “deliberative.” Mr. Schuman noted that many laws do not apply to Congress.
He also noted the various aspects of congressional disclosure by type and shared a list of six categories, and the types of materials/records that align with each category that he created with regard to the disclosures: Mandatory Proactive; Voluntary Proactive; Mandatory Responsive; Voluntary Responsive; Quasi-Mandatory Responsive; and Involuntary Disclosure.
Mr. Schuman then spoke about enhancing legislative branch transparency such as requesting reports or emails from members of Congress. He stated that the further an entity is away from playing a deliberative role, the more likely it is to act like an executive branch agency in which FOIA could apply. He also noted that proactive disclosure is better than responsive disclosure.
Mr. Schuman stated that if information is available for purchase from a third-party vendor, the legislative branch should proactively disclose it and share it as data. In addition, he noted archival and access to records is inconsistent; for example: Committee records are sent to the National Archives but other materials (i.e., personal office files) can be tossed or burned. Last, Mr. Schuman noted that Congress does not know how to manage classified information and cannot classify information itself.
Mr. Schuman noted several suggested recommendations for legislative branch transparency:
Easier - proactively release legislative branch inspector general reports; provide historical Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports online and current reports as data; and congressional serial sets and enacted laws available online and as data.
Intermediate - develop a FOIA-like process for various legislative branch support agencies; share witness demographics and conflict of interest information as data; and engage historians and archivists to support congressional committees.
Harder - establish a legislative branch declassification office; centralize reports and letters that are sent to/from Congress; establish a central data coordination office; and add context to legislative activities.
Mr. Schuman wrapped up his presentation by noting that some of the recommendations could create political angst. Last, he referred to the weekly publication, the First Branch Forecast published weekly by Demand Progress, for more information.
Mr. Lissner’s presentation noted that at the moment it is very difficult to get anything beyond legal documents themselves from the judicial branch. He began by outlining the judicial branch structure and their locations along with the Federal Judicial Conference (FJC) which is the policy-making entity for the judicial branch. He noted the FJC handles judges’ training and research and statistical work for the judicial branch. The FJC produces a tremendous amount of data and manages a database of all cases, but judge information is retracted. Mr. Lissner also noted the public defender organizations, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and the Supreme Court are part of the judicial sector.
Mr. Lissner stated that the “status quo” is that the judicial branch is a secretive culture and materials are difficult to acquire outside of filed court records. He noted that in keeping with this practice many judges believe it keeps the judicial processes more neutral.
Mr. Lissner stated that currently the only way to request materials is through the common law right of access which he stated is used fairly frequently for court records but not for administrative materials. Mr. Lissner noted that with common law there are two tenets to consider: 1. Is the item a public document? and 2. Is the public’s need for information greater than government privacy? He stated common law right of access existed before FOIA, but there are no guidelines for this approach.
He spoke to three recent events: The first is the SolarWinds hack, instigated by Russia, in which judicial and court materials were affected but little else is known.
Mr. Lissner noted the second issue involves various sexual allegations against judges that have made headlines, but there is no information on how the courts are handling the accusations.
Mr. Lissner spoke to the PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Record system) fee skimming. He noted that although the fund is reimbursable, some funds have been diverted to other projects - approximately $40 million a year over a decade - based on a recent lawsuit. He stated there is not a way to examine the financial documents in the judicial branch as no information is available.
Mr. Lissner also spoke to the need for transparency of judges in general. He noted around 30-40 impeachments he was able to research going back to the 1800s with a variety of offenses such as public drunkenness or espionage as well as judges who were active in hate groups.
Mr. Lissner provided a “top ten” list of suggestions for release of judicial branch documents through the FOIA process:
- Disciplinary actions and complaints for judges and attorneys, whistleblower reports, disbarment proceedings, admission records
- Financial records and contracts
- Fines and fees levied
- AO (Administration Office) court guidance letters
- Security audits, recovery plans, and incident reports
- Public calendars of SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) justices
- Judicial Conference committee membership and minutes
- List of all judges past and present to include magistrate judges
- FJC (Federal Judicial Conference) integrated DB (database) but with judge information
- The next top ten list
Mr. Lissner spoke about what to include or exclude if there were public access laws for the judicial branch. He noted several examples: sealed documents, judicial papers, clerk selection criteria, and retirement letters to presidents as well as Foriegn Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) materials - all items that need discussion around how or what to include or exclude.
Last, he noted problems to overcome such as: How to appeal rejected FOIA requests? How to close to judicial proceedings and papers? Will judges sour on FOIA oversight? And last, what if a requester makes a large request “all filings, please” - Is the judicial branch ready for that type of request?
Mr. Schuman and Mr. Lissner then opened up the conversation for questions from the Committee.
Mr. Susman asked about enforcement challenges especially for Congress and whether without enforcement is the effort of FOIA still worthwhile.? He asked if this is a “fool’s errand” to think Congress or the courts could apply FOIA to themselves.
Mr. Schuman noted some enforcement does exist in the Copyright Office in the Library of Congress (LOC) and Government Accountability Office (GAO)which both have FOIA-like access procedures and that he suggests taking an approach similar to the Office of Compliance in the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights. He stated perhaps a congressional FOIA office could be established to deal with the process and policy around this issue.
Mr. Lissner noted in the judicial branch just having something codified or having a FOIA policy or law would be a start. He stated he has attempted to get content in the past and has spent days trying to find who has what materials or records. He suggested that for judicial materials deemed more controversial perhaps a panel of judges or some similar approach would work.
Mr. Samahon stated he is sympathetic to the need for greater transparency with the legislative and judicial branches, but he noted that pragmatism could lead to a policy tradeoff between the horizontal breadth of FOIA’s scope versus the vertifical depths of transparency. He asked if either Demand Progress or the Free Law Project examined that issue in two states that have such provisions in their state laws.
Mr. Lissner stated he has not examined that.
Mr. Schuman stated he has looked internationally at these issues, and has found bright lines and proactive disclosure works better across the board.
Mr. Samahon noted that if FOIA is tied up in the courts then FOIA itself will suffer.
Mr. Lissner stated he would note that and agreed something like a “public access law” might be a better way to approach it, rather than calling it FOIA.
Mr. McClanahan noted there is a lot of overlap between Congress and congressional agencies. He asked how to address the intermingling nature of various congressional components that are or are not subject to FOIA,
Mr. Schuman stated that this question addresses two issues: one is the nature of the [record] and the second is who holds it or is responsible. He stated, for example, attorney-client advice within the legislative branch should not necessarily be publicly available; a report that thousands of people can access should be publicly available. He noted that the Congressional Research Service (CRO), where he previously worked, does not like the public disclosure processes.
Mr. Schuman stated that whoever “owns” a document is the entity who can release it. He noted there are differences between “political aspects” (e.g., leaking a memo versus providing it publicly) and that the request mechanism must be considered.
Mr. McClanahan asked how to convince Congress that Mr. Schuman’s suggestions are correct and that whomever has custody of a document can release it.
Mr. Schuman stated Congress has an interest in making sure people either provide records voluntarily or comply with the subpoenas; and they're less likely to fight if Congress controls that aspect of the release mechanism, because it's closely tied up with legislation or oversight.
Mr. Gart asked about historical records and House Rule 7 and Senate Rule 474 in which the records are held by the National Archives for 30 and 20 years, respectively. He asked whether the stepping stone is for NARA to say we won’t accept them if the materials aren’t subject to FOIA.
Mr. Schuman noted the Government Publishing Office (GPO) also has the same process as NARA. He noted Congress does not have the physical space to hold materials. He stated in his opinion the time frame should be shorter. He said having professionals (archivists, historians, and records managers) hold the materials is safer and more secure.
He went on to note the personal office materials of congressional members do have value and should be provided to local organizations (colleges/universities/etc.). However due to the nature of more materials being created electronically, he noted it might be worthwhile to have materials made available online or digitally through local institutions.
Mr. Lissner stated he has not looked into what happens with judges’ personal records, but surmised they may be destroyed in many cases.
Mr. Gart followed up and commented that a stepping stone would be to further examine the role NARA plays with its Center for Legislative Archives and working with members of Congress on their papers.
Mr. Schuman noted that when Congressional members leave or die in office there is not a lot of support for the legislative branch in regard to managing the records and archival materials.
Ms. Deitrick inquired as to if FOIA were to be instituted in both Congress and the judicial branch, how would the interplay between those two branches work or could there be any sort of reciprocity?
Mr. Schuman stated he has been working on developing a bill that would allow things like mandated reports to Congress to be publicly available, but there would be a carve out for the FOIA process so agencies can redact information in accordance with FOIA. He further noted there are problems created when an agency sends a report to Congress and it goes to Staffer A, and no one else ever sees it, and when Staffer A leaves the report is gone. He stated this is a recordkeeping problem that is trying to be rectified via public transparency.
Mr. Lissner stated that by actually bringing public access laws into the government broadly it should create a better environment for sharing information amongst everybody.
Ms. Semo thanked the presenters for attending and sharing their expertise.
Ms. Semo opened the meeting for public comment.
Ms. Murphy noted that a YouTube viewer asked about the timeline for the questionnaire regarding Glomar.
Ms. Ellis stated they do not have an anticipated dissemination date yet on the questionnaire but hope to at the June 10 meeting.
Ms. Murphy noted that Mr. Robert Hammond previously submitted comments which will be on the OGIS website. He asked if an update could be provided on recommendation 19, which recommends that Congress engage in more regular and robust oversight of FOIA.
Mr. McClanahan stated that recommendation 19 is one of the reasons as to why the Legislation Subcommittee exists. He noted an oversight working group exists as a part of their subcommittee and they are working on a six-month timeline so they can hopefully make some concrete proposals to address the concern.
Mr. Alex Howard asked if all of the FOIA officers on the committee are hosting Sunshine Week events and inviting requesters to participate?
Mr. Talebian stated that the DOJ events are open to the public.
Ms. Deitrick noted that some of the Department of Commerce events are also open to the public.
From the phone, Mr. Hammond asked follow-up questions around recommendation 19. He stated that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed a good portal for requesters and stated that if all FOIA requests were to be publicly available that would help other requesters. He noted FOIAonline has a communication ability with requesters, but agencies can block the function. He asked if anyone was at the meeting from EPA?
Mr. Schwarz noted that EPA did develop FOIAonline but no longer manages it as it was passed off to an intergovernmental group. He encouraged Mr. Hammond to submit his comments to the FOIAonline help desk.
Mr. Hammond stated he had not received a response from the help desk. He then inquired as to if anyone was a part of the intergovernmental group that oversees FOIAonline?
Ms. Weth noted her agency (NLRB] is one of the partner agencies for FOIAonline and offered to pass along the recommendations from Mr. Hammond. Ms. Murphy stated she would be happy to pass anything from Mr. Hammond along to Ms. Weth.
Mr. Sean Moulton, a former member of the Committee, asked the Process Subcommittee if they thought about looking into FOIA changes that have been put in place by agencies due to the pandemic and the effect on FOIA processing. Mr. Morisy said he would welcome specific questions around this issue and anticipated new practices put in place as we go forward from the pandemic.
Mr. Talebian stated that the DOJ is doing some sharing of best practices and monitoring during the pandemic.
Ms. Semo thanked everyone for attending, reminded the attendees of the upcoming Sunshine Week events and noted the next meeting is on Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.
Ms. Semo adjourned the meeting at 1:02 p.m.
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete on June 1, 2021.
/s/ Kirsten B. Mitchell
Kirsten B. Mitchell
Designated Federal Officer,
/s/ Alina M. Semo
Alina M. Semo