Office of Government Information Services (OGIS)

Home > The Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) > Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee > 2024-2026 Term > March 5 Minutes - (Certified)

March 5 Minutes - (Certified)

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee convened virtually at 10 a.m. ET on March 5, 2026.

In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 10 (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.), the meeting was open to the public from 10:00 a.m. to 12:05 p.m. Meeting materials are available on the Committee’s website https://www.archives.gov/ogis/foia-advisory-committee/2024-2026-term.

Committee members present at the meeting:

  • Alina M. Semo, Director, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) (Committee Chairperson)
  • Jason R. Baron, University of Maryland
  • Nieva Brock, U.S. Department of Defense
  • David Cuillier, University of Florida
  • Whitney Frazier-Jenkins, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
  • Sean Glendening,  U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Information Policy
  • Elizabeth Hempowicz, American Oversight
  • Shelley Kimball, Johns Hopkins University
  • Margaret Kwoka, The Ohio State University 
  • Frank LoMonte, CNN
  • Marianne Manheim, Department of Health and Human Services
  • Deborah O. Moore, Department of Education
  • Ryan Mulvey, Americans for Prosperity Foundation
  • Richard Peltz-Steele, University of Massachusetts Law School
  • Nick Wittenberg, representing requesters in FOIA's commercial fee category

Committee members absent from the meeting:

  • Scott Hodes, Department of Homeland Security
  • Sarah Weicksel, American Historical Association

Others present or participating in the meeting:

  • Kirsten B. Mitchell, Committee’s Designated Federal Officer, NARA
  • Alexander Howard, public commenter

Opening Remarks from the Designated Federal Officer

Ms. Mitchell, the Designated Federal Officer, opened the meeting and confirmed the presence of a quorum, with 15 members in attendance. She welcomed the newest member, Mr. Glendening, Director of the U.S. Department of Justice, who had been appointed to the Committee the previous week. She noted Mr. Hodes and Dr. Weicksel were absent from the meeting. She asked that members keep their cameras on, and introduced Ms. Semo, the Committee Chairperson.

Welcome and Updates from the Chairperson

Ms. Semo welcomed participants to the sixth meeting of the sixth term of the FOIA Advisory Committee. She noted that meeting materials, including the agenda and slides, were available on the FOIA Advisory Committee page. She noted that the last committee meeting took place in September 2025, and since then, significant work had been done by the three Subcommittees focused on crafting recommendations for statutory reform of the FOIA, examining the challenges related to the increasing volume of FOIA requests, and increasing the implementation of previous Committee recommendations.

She noted several housekeeping items for the meeting, including its adherence   to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), guaranteeing public access to its proceedings. She noted that the meeting followed  the government shutdown that resulted in the cancellation of the December 2025 meeting and scheduling of an additional meeting for July 16, 2026, the final meeting for the term. The biographies of committee members, including newest member Mr. Glendening, were posted on the website. Committee members were encouraged to use the “raise hand” feature on the virtual platform for speaking or questioning. She noted the meeting's chat function was only for administrative matters to comply with FACA and that no substantive comments should be put in the chat. Participants were reminded to  state their names and affiliations when speaking to enhance clarity in the meeting minutes and transcripts. Members of the public were invited to submit written comments through an established public comments form. The meeting was allocated three hours but Ms. Semo noted flexibility regarding the duration. She noted that, per the Federal Register announcement, public comments at the end of the meeting would be limited to three minutes per individual.

Ms. Semo introduced the Implementation Subcommittee.

Implementation Subcommittee Report

Co-chairs: Mr. Baron and Ms. Manheim

Mr. Baron noted ongoing work on conducting focus groups among  government FOIA personnel and  introduced Dr. Moore. 

Dr. Moore noted that the goal of her working group has been to uncover issues that prevent federal agencies from implementing the 20 FOIA Advisory Committee recommendations that are directed to agencies for action and learn from agencies what strategies they have found successful for implementing recommendations. Over several months, the working group has conducted multiple focus groups of FOIA professionals across the federal government. There were four areas the questions focused on: 

  • agencies’ motivation for implementing FOIA Advisory Committee recommendations; 
  • obstacles and barriers they face in their efforts to do that; 
  • strategies agencies found successful in implementing recommendations; and 
  • a wish list of decisions, actions and changes agencies would like to see that would help them in their efforts to implement recommendations. 

The target audience of the focus groups was FOIA professionals active in the field anytime in the past three years. The working group sought to recruit very widely to reach the broadest audience possible, so the findings would accurately reflect the full variety of experiences and FOIA professionals from agencies of all sizes. Using 400 unique email addresses of FOIA professionals, they emailed invitations and augmented the outreach with social media postings. A three-question information collection tool checked eligibility and  agency size. At no point in the focus group recruitment establishment or implementation did members formally collect participants’ names or their affiliations. Throughout the process they were very clear with potential participants about what information was being collected, how it was being collected, how it would be used and how participants’ confidentiality would be protected at every step. The working group held 12 focus groups of 52 FOIA professionals representing all sizes of agencies with participants sharing their experiences and valuable insights.

Dr. Moore introduced Dr. Kimball, who noted that the focus groups were not recorded but there were notes taken during sessions, ensuring participant confidentiality. She analyzed the notes looking for major themes. The findings reflect the views of participants, not all FOIA professionals nationally. 

The first question focused on motivations for change in FOIA processes. The working group wanted to know if Committee recommendations were playing a part in agency plans. Most respondents indicated that they had been unaware of recommendations until they saw the read-aheads for the focus groups or until they saw questions in the Chief FOIA Officer report. Respondents said - often and repeatedly - that recommendations were used later in the process as leverage to gain leadership support rather than as initial change drivers. Changes were made in agencies because of the need for efficiency, backlog reduction, litigation and other risk avoidance, leadership priorities, and DOJ/OIP guidance. 

Obstacles to change included limited time, funding, staffing, employee turnover, government shutdowns, FOIA processing as a collateral duty, and FOIA being a low institutional priority. These factors, along with the slow pace of institutional change, made planning and implementing reforms challenging. Successful strategies for change involved using Committee recommendations as leverage to convince leadership that proposed changes were needed, presenting metrics to support change, emphasizing risk mitigation, and securing leadership buy-in. 

The final question in each focus group was what would clear the path to implement recommendations. Participants expressed a strong desire for increased funding, increased staffing, leadership support, appropriate technology for the size of the agency, well-organized systems to include internal processes and statutory reforms, more training, AI tools for redaction and analytics, and inter-agency coordination. 

Community building was repeatedly mentioned as a need, since many FOIA professionals sought connection and shared best practices. 

Dr. Kimball expressed gratitude to all federal workers, current and former, who contributed to the focus groups for the valuable insights they shared.

Mr. Baron thanked the working group for their hard work, noting the aims to produce findings and recommendations for the full Committee. 

Mr. Peltz-Steele noted that the Subcommittee has been working behind the scenes to organize Committee recommendations in a more practical and impactful way for FOIA Officers and agencies, moving beyond a simple chronological list. The aim was for a categorization by subject matter that emphasizes practicality and that would increase the recommendations’ impact for the agencies. 

Ms. Manheim noted the overwhelming nature of having 67 recommendations and noted the group’s efforts to distill these into a more focused list, which would identify the recommendations that were the most significant. They wanted to highlight significant recommendations to make a top list focused on practical implementation ideas to assist future Committees.

Mr. Peltz-Steele noted the synergy between the Subcommittee’s work and focus group data, which revealed low awareness of past recommendations but also opportunities to improve usability. 

Ms. Brock asked Dr. Kimball whether any surprising results arose from the focus groups. 

Dr. Kimball noted the sense of discovery is the value of focus groups. She noted her perspective reflected the requester community and that Dr. Moore’s perspective reflected the federal community. Dr. Kimball noted that one take-away from the focus groups was the strong desire for information and best practices among participants. This need reflected their motivation to enhance process efficiency, especially in the face of challenges such as backlogs. She noted the need to disseminate useful information about the Committee's work. She asked Dr. Moore for her thoughts as a federal worker. 

Dr. Moore noted that while there were few surprises overall, she was struck by the strong desire among FOIA professionals to connect with one another. Many individuals expressed interest in staying involved even when they could not attend meetings, asking to be connected with others or informed of future discussions. Dr. Moore also mentioned a surprising case in which a FOIA professional reported that their office was adequately resourced and able to manage its backlog, though the office handled a relatively low volume of requests. She viewed this as an encouraging example.

Mr. Baron asked for additional questions from Committee members. Hearing none, he used the opportunity to welcome Mr. Glendening to the committee. Mr. Baron noted his own long involvement with FOIA and the historic close working relationship between past and present directors of OGIS and the Office of Information Policy. He noted how helpful OIP has always been at messaging the work of the Committee, noting a recommendation taken up by former OIP leadership to incorporate committee-related questions into Chief FOIA Officer Reports. He expressed interest in maintaining ongoing dialogue with Mr. Glendening to ensure that the Committee’s recommendations continue to be communicated effectively and implemented across agencies. This is especially valuable, he noted, because agency FOIA Officers look to OIP for guidance. 

Mr. Glendening thanked Mr. Baron and the Committee for their work, stating that the recommendations produced by the Committee carry significant weight. He noted that OIP is committed to improving the efficiency of the FOIA process and welcomed continued dialogue about how OIP can help amplify the Committee’s work and improve processes.

Mr. Baron noted the importance of responding to public comments submitted during the meeting and turned the floor back to the Chairperson.

Ms. Semo thanked Mr. Baron and asked whether any other Committee members had questions or comments regarding the Implementation Subcommittee’s presentation. Hearing no responses, she introduced the Volume and Frequency Subcommittee 

Volume and Frequency Subcommittee Report 

Co-chairs: Mr. Wittenberg and Ms. Brock

Ms. Semo noted that Dr. Kimball would present on behalf of the group.

Dr. Kimball presented an update on the Subcommittee’s work. She noted that although the focus groups had closed, federal FOIA professionals still had an opportunity to share their experiences through a survey. The survey targeted current FOIA staff or those who have handled FOIA requests within the past three years and sought information on two main topics: the most challenging types of FOIA requests—burdensome, vexatious, or highly voluminous—and the growing impact of AI-generated requests on FOIA processing and how agencies recognized that requests were AI-generated. She noted that the survey included primarily open-ended questions so participants can describe their experiences. Dr. Kimball planned to review all responses to identify key themes that may inform recommendations for the Volume and Frequency Subcommittee.

Ms. Semo thanked Dr. Kimball for the presentation and asked whether Mr. Wittenberg or Ms. Brock had anything to add. 

Mr. Wittenberg noted there was nothing to add.

Ms. Semo noted that the  meeting slides were available on the Committee’s website. She noted that anyone unable to scan the QR code could later access the survey through the website. Ms. Semo thanked Dr. Kimball, Mr. Wittenberg, and Dr. Cullier for their work on the Subcommittee.

Ms. Semo noted that the meeting was ahead of schedule and proposed skipping the planned break and continuing to the Statutory Reform Subcommittee presentation. Committee members agreed.

Ms. Semo introduced the Subcommittee co-chairs, Mr. Mulvey and Ms. Frazier-Jenkins, and invited them to present.

Statutory Reform Subcommittee Report

Co-chairs: Ms. Frazier-Jenkins and Mr. Mulvey

Mr. Mulvey noted that the Subcommittee and its working groups had drafted three recommendations for the Committee’s consideration, which had recently been circulated. The presenters would briefly summarize them.

Mr. Mulvey presented the first recommendation, which proposed “Congress should amend the FOIA statute to establish the FOIA Advisory Committee as a statutory federal advisory committee” rather than a discretionary one. He noted that the Committee plays an ongoing and valuable role in improving FOIA compliance across the government and bringing together government and non-government experts to work on FOIA issues. Making the Committee statutory would ensure its continued existence and work. Mr. Mulvey noted that the recommendation was not based on any indication that the Committee might end, but rather it was based on the idea that the Committee should have already been incorporated into the statute.

Dr. Moore presented the second recommendation: “Congress should require executive branch departments and agencies to implement a funding model that requires them to allocate a portion of their operating budget to fund FOIA operations proportional to the size of the workforce served by the agency’s FOIA Office.” Dr. Moore noted that the proposal encourages Congress to ensure agencies fund their FOIA offices proportionally to their workforce size. The underlying concept is that larger agencies generate more records because they employ more people, thereby increasing FOIA workloads. She noted that ten years of historical data suggest FOIA request volumes are likely to continue rising.

Dr. Moore noted several considerations included in the proposal. The model includes a baseline funding level so that smaller agencies maintain a minimum FOIA budget. It also allows for adjustments in cases where agencies rely heavily on contractors who generate records but are not reflected in official staffing counts. She noted other complicating factors such as varied agency structures—centralized versus decentralized—would have to be considered.

Dr. Moore noted that the main idea of the recommendation was to make FOIA funding proportional to their workforce size, and make it a required element of agency budget to allow FOIA offices to keep pace with an increasing workload. The recommendation also sought to invest in technology, training, and efficiency improvements. She noted questions raised during discussions, including whether agency size should be used as a funding metric. The solution would be to look at five years of agency staffing rather than only the most recent one-year staffing plan. 

They also considered using backlog figures as the metric to determine funding, but that would reflect problems after they occur rather than preventing them. Instead, proportional funding could help agencies avoid backlog growth. Finally, Dr. Moore also noted that FOIA is rarely considered a core mission within agencies, making it harder to prioritize during budgeting despite being a statutory obligation.

Ms. Frazier-Jenkins presented the third recommendation: “Congress should amend FOIA to mandate regular publication of agency FOIA logs to contain13 fields generally maintained in agency FOIA tracking systems.” She noted that previous terms of the Committee had recommended increased transparency around FOIA logs. Publishing FOIA logs would help requesters understand what records agencies have already released and allow agencies to see how others handle requests.

Ms. Frazier-Jenkins noted that this recommendation proposes that agencies receiving 100 or more requests annually publish FOIA logs quarterly, while agencies receiving fewer requests publish logs semiannually. She noted that the Subcommittee carefully discussed which data fields should be mandatory, drawing from information agencies already collect for annual FOIA reporting. She noted concerns raised about frequency of publication being a burden on agencies and technological limitations; however, she noted that FOIA logs are valuable to both requesters and agencies.

Ms. Semo asked for comments from Committee members on the proposed recommendations.

Ms. Kwoka expressed support for all three recommendations. She noted that the materials circulated to the Committee included a chart showing that many of the FOIA log data fields are already maintained by agencies or required through existing reporting processes. Because of this, she noted the recommendation would not represent a major new burden. Ms. Kwoka noted that statutory requirements often prompt technology vendors to update their platforms, which could improve tools used by FOIA offices.

Ms. Kwoka noted that public availability of detailed FOIA logs could help requesters better understand agency records and submit more targeted requests, potentially improving efficiency for agencies. 

She noted the proposed funding model would not perfectly match resources to needs, but would represent a huge step toward more adequate FOIA funding and enable agencies to invest in better systems rather than simply keeping up with the ever-growing number requests. Finally, she supported the proposal to make the Committee statutory.

Ms. Manheim asked whether the Committee had examined how the funding proposal would affect agencies with the largest backlogs. She questioned what implementation might look like in practice, particularly whether it would require staffing increases in those agencies.

Dr. Moore noted that the recommendation intentionally avoided prescribing an exact formula. Instead, it is meant to encourage Congress and appropriators to consider agency workforce size when determining FOIA funding. She noted that the goal is to start a broader conversation about appropriate resourcing rather than create a governmentwide response.

Ms. Manheim expressed support for that strategy.

Ms. Hempowicz noted her support for the recommendations. The limited number of questions from Committee members, she noted, likely reflected the extensive discussion and refinement that had already occurred within the Subcommittee and working groups. She noted the proposals would likely bring significant improvements to FOIA administration.

Ms. Semo asked the Subcommittee whether they preferred that the Committee vote on the recommendations or wait until the next meeting.

Mr. Mulvey said he would welcome feedback from Committee members who had not participated in the Subcommittee discussions before deciding. However, he noted that he personally felt ready to vote and noted that the proposal to make the Committee statutory might be the most straightforward recommendation to consider first.

Ms. Frazier-Jenkins agreed to proceed with a vote if Committee members felt prepared, but also supported allowing additional review time if necessary.

Mr. Baron proposed that the Committee could vote provisionally on the recommendations while allowing minor revisions to the language before the final report is issued.

Mr. Mulvey asked whether provisional votes were permitted under the Committee’s bylaws and noting caution against approving recommendations and then modifying them afterward. He noted that if revisions were needed, it might be better to delay the vote until updated language could be drafted.

Mr. Baron noted his support of the recommendations. He noted he had not yet fully reviewed the exact wording, but that any suggested edits would likely be minor or grammatical rather than substantive.

Ms. Mitchell noted that the Committee would be voting on the recommendation language itself rather than the final report text, which would continue to be refined later.

Mr. Baron asked to review the three recommendations again.

Mr. Mulvey asked a procedural question about what exactly constituted the recommendation language in the circulated documents, noting that the distinction between the recommendation itself and its supporting explanation was not entirely clear. 

Ms. Mitchell noted that defining the precise wording of the recommendation was ultimately up to the Subcommittee.

Mr. Baron noted his strong support for the Subcommittee’s work and that his comments were not criticisms but suggestions to ensure the wording of the recommendations aligns with the Committee’s past recommendations.

Mr. Mulvey noted that revisions might be appropriate and expressed concern about voting on recommendations before clarifying exactly what text constituted the official recommendation versus supporting commentary. Mr. Mulvey noted that the circulated documents appeared to contain both the recommendation language and explanatory details, which made it unclear what the Committee would actually be approving.

Mr. Baron noted that historically the Committee has treated the recommendation itself as the formal statement, while the accompanying commentary functions similarly to advisory notes that can be revised later. 

Mr. Mulvey replied that in some cases—such as the FOIA log recommendation—the detailed elements appear in the supporting document rather than the slide summary. Mr. Mulvey suggested postponing the vote. 

Ms. Semo noted that it would be beneficial to give members time to review the materials more closely and refine the recommendation language before voting. She encouraged all Committee members to review the posted materials, including a detailed log prepared by Ms. Mitchell.

Ms. Semo proposed delaying the vote until the next meeting unless there were objections. No Committee members disagreed.

Mr. Baron asked whether the Committee had previously used provisional votes.

Ms. Semo noted that it was possible that provisional votes had occurred in the past but that voting on finalized wording is generally a better practice.

Mr. Baron noted his belief that the recommendations would likely receive unanimous or near unanimous support once finalized.

Ms. Semo confirmed that the committee would continue refining the recommendations and revisit them at the next meeting in April.

Ms. Kwoka asked how additional feedback would be collected before the next meeting. She noted that because the recommendations originated in the Subcommittee, other members would need a structured way to propose revisions so the Committee would not be drafting changes during the next meeting itself.

Mr. Baron suggested routing feedback through the other Subcommittees so that each group could discuss the recommendations and present consolidated input through their co-chairs. 

Ms. Semo agreed to this approach and asked if members were comfortable with that. Hearing no objections, she noted this would be the mechanism.

Mr. Mulvey noted that a “draft” label on one of the posted documents was likely a leftover from an earlier version.

 Ms. Mitchell confirmed that the most recent version available had been posted.

Ms. Semo noted that because the Committee would not be voting at this meeting, there was no need to review voting procedures as originally planned. She asked whether members preferred to continue or take a break. 

Mr. Baron recommended taking a break, and Ms. Semo proposed a 10-minute break, and members agreed.

After the break, Ms. Semo confirmed that a quorum was present.

Ms. Semo noted that the Committee was seeking volunteers to serve on the final report working group and that traditionally, the group has included two government and two non-government members. Participants would meet every two weeks initially and more frequently toward the end of the term to draft sections of the final report based on Subcommittee work and approved recommendations. The goal would be to launch the working group in early April.

Dr. Cuillier noted that Sunshine Week would take place from March 15 to March 21, 2026, and would feature numerous events and discussions about public access to government information. He announced the Sunshine Fest conference in Washington, D.C., which had already sold out but would have some sessions streamed or recorded. He noted people could visit the Sunshine Week website for more information.

Mr. LoMonte noted that the Committee members would host an open-mic session during Sunshine Fest on March 17, allowing stakeholders to provide feedback and discuss in-progress Committee ideas.

Ms. Semo also noted that NARA would not host its usual Sunshine Week event this year but hoped to return to full participation the following year. She asked Mr. Glendening about OIP’s plans.

Mr. Glendening noted that OIP would announce awards recognizing FOIA professionals and teams, with winners revealed through a virtual announcement on the OIP website.

Public Comments

Ms. Semo opened the public comment period. She noted that comments would be included in the meeting transcript and that oral comments were included in the YouTube recording, and would be limited to three minutes.

Ms. Mitchell addressed several questions that had been entered into the chat. She noted that NARA had recently switched platforms [to Zoom for Government] for meetings. She also noted that members of the public may submit written comments at any time or provide oral comments during designated comment periods.

Ms. Mitchell addressed questions regarding how FOIA Advisory Committee recommendations are shared with policymakers. She explained that OGIS communicates recommendations through its statutorily required annual report to Congress. 

She noted that Dr. Kimball’s survey includes questions about the use of artificial intelligence in FOIA requests.

Ms. Mitchell addressed questions about FOIA staffing and agency capacity. She noted that  fiscal year 2025 FOIA annual reports were still being released and that a centralized website maintained by OIP allows the public to track those reports. She noted that since the annual reports are just coming out, agency capacity hasn’t been studied yet. She asked that any additional comments be submitted via the written public comments portal.

Ms. Kwoka addressed a question about whether fees collected from commercial FOIA requesters could meaningfully support FOIA offices. Based on her research, she noted that agencies collect very little revenue from FOIA fees overall. Although commercial requesters pay more than other requesters, the total revenue remains small. She noted that while facilitating commercial requests could have benefits, it was her belief that significantly increasing fees could create incentives for requesters to conceal commercial interests or use intermediaries, making administration more time consuming and onerous. 

Mr. Mulvey noted that a public comment submission would be forthcoming containing draft legislation related to transparency within the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The proposal would introduce a FOIA-like disclosure process for certain judicial branch administrative records, building on previous Committee discussions about extending transparency requirements beyond executive agencies.

Ms. Mitchell confirmed that OGIS would be on the lookout for the comment.

Dr. Cuillier noted that the draft legislation had been posted on the Sunshine Week website. He followed up on Ms. Kwoka’s comment noting that research shows FOIA fees recover less than  1 percent of the actual costs associated with processing records. He argued that public records access should be viewed as a fundamental part of civic engagement rather than a service funded through user fees, comparing it to voting or attending public meetings, which are not subject to participation fees. Being informed citizens and voters requires having the ability to see what the government is up to, he said. FOIA funding needs to be considered, but fees are not likely to be the solution.

Mr. Howard, a former Committee member, made a public comment. He noted his preference for the Committee to return to hybrid meetings combining in-person and virtual participation. He suggested that a public comment period happen after each recommendation is brought forward, and that oral public comments not be limited to three minutes per person. He noted a lack of follow-up to a question he asked last year, and that OIP should post the answer on its website. He noted that FOIA does not apply to the legislative branch. He noted a lack of public awareness of the Committee and its recommendations, and  suggested that Congress create a Cabinet-level or independent agency position of information commissioner. He asked about the impact of AI on FOIA.gov’s ability to host agency FOIA logs.

Ms. Mitchell noted that Mr. Howard’s three minutes had expired and that his comments could also be submitted in writing for further consideration.

Mr. Glendening responded to questions that had been posed to OIP, noting that many answers would become available through upcoming FOIA annual reports. He noted that improving and standardizing FOIA technology across agencies is a major priority and noted the upcoming NexGen FOIA Technology Showcase and the importance of collaboration between agencies.

Ms. Mitchell noted that upcoming meetings of the Committee would continue to be held virtually to comply with updated federal advisory committee regulations encouraging agencies to use virtual meetings as a cost-saving measure. She noted there were four upcoming meetings of this term: April 2, May 7, June 11, and July 16, 2026.

Ms. Semo noted the NexGen FOIA Technology Showcase 3.0 would take place from May 12 to May 14. The event will allow vendors to demonstrate to federal attendees  technology that supports FOIA processing and transparency initiatives. 

Ms. Semo asked if Committee members had any final comments. Hearing none, she thanked Committee members and the six co-chairs of the Subcommittees.

Ms. Semo noted that the committee’s next meeting would be held virtually on April 2, 2026.

Ms. Manheim noted that the meeting date coincided with spring break week. Ms. Semo acknowledged the conflict but expressed hope that members would attend if possible.

Hearing no further comments, Ms. Semo adjourned the meeting at 12:05 pm.

I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete on March 26, 2026. 

 

/s/ Kirsten B. Mitchell

Kirsten B. Mitchell

Designated Federal Officer,

2024-2026 Term 

 

/s/ Alina M. Semo

Alina M. Semo

Chairperson,

2024-2026 Term

Top