June 12 Minutes — (Certified)

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee convened virtually at 10 a.m. ET on June 12, 2025.

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 11:07 a.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
• Elizabeth Hempowicz, American Oversight
• Shelley Kimball, Johns Hopkins University
• Frank LoMonte, CNN
• Marianne Manheim, Department of Health and Human Services
• Deborah Moore, Department of Education
• Joan Moumbleaux, Environmental Protection Agency
• Ryan Mulvey, Americans for Prosperity Foundation
• Richard Peltz-Steele, University of Massachusetts
• Sarah Weicksel, American Historical Association
• Nick Wittenberg, representing requesters in FOIA's commercial fee category

Committee members absent from the meeting:

• Scott Hodes, Department of Homeland Security
• Margaret Kwoka, The Ohio State University 

Others present or participating in the meeting:

• Kirsten B. Mitchell, Committee’s Designated Federal Officer, NARA

Opening Remarks from the Designated Federal Officer

Ms. Mitchell opened the meeting, noted that it was being recorded, and confirmed the presence of a quorum with 15 members in attendance. She also noted that since it was a public meeting she expected cameras to be on, but noted that Ms. Frazier-Jenkins was unable to have her camera on and Mr. Mulvey, while not on camera at that moment, would be on camera when it came time for him to present on the Statutory Reform Subcommittee. She noted that this meeting was on a new virtual platform. She thanked the National Archives Audio/Visual team for their support in livestreaming the meeting on YouTube and Kimberlee Ried, the alternate Designated Federal Officer.

Welcome and Updates from the Chairperson

Ms. Semo welcomed Committee members and noted that meeting materials were available on the Committee's website. She noted that the Committee’s three Subcommittees would present updates. The Subcommittees are working to develop concrete recommendations for statutory reform of FOIA; to examine the challenges of the frequency and volume of FOIA requests; and to increase the adoption and implementation of previous terms’ recommendations. Ms. Semo acknowledged the strong start, hard work, and diligent planning and deliberations of the Subcommittees.

She noted that the meeting operates under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and is public in accordance with FACA requirements, and that the minutes and transcripts from the previous meeting were posted on the Committee's website. Also online was the FOIA Ombuds blog, featuring a series of posts with short profiles of Committee members.

Ms. Semo noted two changes in the Committee’s membership. Since the March 6, 2025, meeting, Melissa Pickworth of the Department of Health and Human Services departed government service and thus resigned from the Committee. Ms. Semo thanked Ms. Pickworth for her service, and also noted that the following day, June 13, 2025, would be Ms. Moumbleaux’s last day as she is retiring from the Environmental Protection Agency. She thanked Ms. Moumbleaux for her service. 

Ms. Semo noted that Mr. Wittenberg had left his former employer but would be able to continue on the Committee representing the interests of requesters in the commercial fee category. 

Ms. Semo encouraged members to use the raised hand icon and asked for the virtual platform chat to be used only for procedural matters  since the chats are not recorded in the transcript of the meeting. 

She noted that members of the public may submit comments via the online Public Comments form. Comments that comply with the public posting policy would be posted as soon as possible. The one comment received so far had been posted to the website. The timeframe for today’s meeting would be flexible with a public comment period at the end of the meeting.

Ms. Semo asked if there were questions. Hearing none, she turned to the agenda.

Volume and Frequency Subcommittee Report 

Co-chairs: Mr. Wittenberg and Ms. Brock

Ms. Brock stated that Dr. Kimball would present on behalf of the Subcommittee.

Dr. Kimball noted that when the Committee last met on March 6, 2025, the group was focused on conducting a qualitative survey of access professionals and FOIA requesters to understand specific reasons for backlogs, how to define unduly burdensome requests, and potential solutions for streamlining the request process. The Subcommittee has paused those efforts until the fall due to the current state of flux in the federal FOIA community. A survey now would likely not provide the insights into the representative experiences of requesters and FOIA professionals that could be useful to developing recommendations. In the meantime, the Subcommittee is in the very early stage of working with some other Committee members to explore an idea to develop an oral history project of FOIA employees who have recently left service. There is a broader oral history project being conducted by the Organization of American Historians focused on federal workforce changes generally. The Subcommittee is in very early stages of planning and will ensure that any oral history project remains within the mission and goals of the Committee. 

Ms. Semo asked if there were questions for the Volume and Frequency Subcommittee. Hearing none, she turned to the Statutory Reform Subcommittee. She noted that the order of presentations had been adjusted from the order on the published agenda due to a request from one of the Subcommittee co-chairs. 

Statutory Reform Subcommittee Report

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

Mr. Mulvey presented and noted that the Subcommittee’s three working groups continue their work as presented in the previous meeting. 

The FOIA Processing Working Group continues to discuss and work on fees.

The Enforcement Models Working Group is working on improving FOIA enforcement beyond the current system of judicial review, with ideas that include an independent agency that would potentially operate as an independent information commission and a specialty court that would handle FOIA cases under Article III of the U.S. Constitution governing the judicial branch. 

The Transparency Obligations Working Group has 13 recommendations that Mr. Mulvey noted are not ready to unveil. The ideas are complete, he said, but the draft statutory language needs to be written. 

The 13 recommendations, which are documented in the Subcommittee’s March progress report https://www.archives.gov/files/ogis/documents/2025.03.06-statutory-reform-subcomm.-progress-report.pdf

are: 

1. The scope of the (a)(1) affirmative disclosure requirements (so called because of the section of the FOIA statute: 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1))
2. Disclosure of FOIA logs by every agency 
3. Court review of (a)(1) & (a)(2) affirmative disclosure requirements 
4. FOIA alternatives to high-demand records, including first-party request mechanisms
5. Change to the statutory definition of a record
6. Extension of FOIA to non-executive branch agencies to include some legislative branch agencies
7. Addition of sunsetting privileges would be added to other exemptions (other than Exemption 5, which has a 25-year sunset for records protected by the deliberative process privilege) 
8. Change to the foreseeable harm standard and a balancing test 
9. Elimination of FOIA Exemption 2 (which protects internal personnel rules and practices)
10. Reform of the deliberative process privilege 
11. Revisiting Exemption 3 statutes which protect information specifically exempted from FOIA
12. Revisiting Exemption 4 (which protects trade secrets and confidential and privileged business information)
13. Revisiting Exemption 7, in particular 7(F), which protects law enforcement records,“but only to the extent that the production of such records or information … could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.”

Mr. Mulvey invited review of the detailed progress report and feedback, especially from government representatives. 

Ms. Semo asked if there were any questions. 

Mr. Baron noted that the Statutory Reform Subcommittee's agenda seemed ambitious and that members of the Committee would appreciate having a conversation about the proposals when they are ready. He urged the Subcommittee to circulate draft proposals so that the Committee would have one or two public meetings to discuss ahead of any votes.

Mr. Mulvey noted that he and Ms. Frazier-Jenkins had passed Mr. Baron's comments to the full Subcommittee. He noted that the Subcommittee should be in a position to bring the recommendations to the full Committee at the next meeting.

Mr. Baron noted that presumably the Subcommittee's 13 recommendations were driven by things the FOIA process lacked. He noted that the recommendations seemed to fall into two buckets: some that can only be changed at a statutory level and others that seem to be problems in implementation (FOIA logs, for example) and there seems to be an overlap between those recommendations and the Implementation Subcommittee's concerns. That presents an opportunity for conversation so the two Subcommittees are not working at odds. 

Mr. Mulvey agreed that there can be beneficial conversations. He noted that the Subcommittee has already provided a narrative for the statutory reform recommendations justifying why a statutory change is required. With regard to FOIA logs, if agencies aren’t posting logs proactively, one way to ensure compliance is to make it a statutory requirement.

Mr. Baron noted that some of the past recommendations from previous terms of the FOIA Advisory Committee have not been implemented.

Mr. Mulvey noted that to the extent there are longstanding recommendations and they are not on the list for possible statutory reform, the Subcommittee should consider them. It is  good to start with more recommendations and whittle down than to have too few, he said.

Ms. Hempowicz noted that she supported the idea of intentionally synching up the Subcommittees because more discussion is good for the final product. She would like to see recommendations that have “been interrogated to death.” 

Mr. Baron noted that the worst case is that the recommendations from Statutory Reform and Implementation Subcommittees do not match. 

Ms. Manheim noted, as a member of both Subcommittees, that bringing them together would make sense. 

Mr. LoMonte noted that the Subcommittee did a very detailed progress report in March and encouraged everyone to read it to learn more. 

Ms. Mitchell noted that as DFO she would be happy to facilitate any collaboration between the Subcommittees.

Ms. Semo introduced the Implementation Subcommittee.

Implementation Subcommittee Report

Co-chairs: Mr. Baron and Ms. Manheim

Mr. Baron presented a draft recommendation: “We recommend that the Department of Justice Office of Information Policy continue to include a specific question in future agency Chief FOIA Officer (CFO) reports asking for updates on agency compliance with past recommendations of the FOIA Advisory Committee.” He noted that former OIP Director Bobby Talebian was receptive to continuing to include questions in a future CFO report about whether respondents are familiar with the Committee's recommendations and if they had implemented any or found any to be helpful. 

Mr. Baron reported that Subcommittee members had reviewed CFO reports that have  been published on the OIP webpage as of May 14, 2025, finding that the vast majority of agencies had responded regarding  which recommendations they had implemented. The Subcommittee would recommend that question continue in future CFO reports. The Subcommittee plans to discuss this potential recommendation with OIP staff before the next Committee meeting. He wanted to have feedback from OIP before finalizing the recommendation.

Dr. Cuillier asked if OIP had indicated it planned to drop the questions from future reports?

Mr. Baron noted that the Subcommittee was nudging OIP to include a more structured question rather than an open-ended one. This recommendation is not about a single year, but rather for OIP to include the question(s) every year. This would allow the Committee to do a longitudinal analysis. 

Dr. Cuillier noted that it was unclear who was in charge of OIP after Mr. Talebian’s departure in February 2025. Ms. Semo gave an update on the OIP vacancy, noting that an Associate Attorney General who oversees the Office of Information Policy among other offices, awaits Senate confirmation. After that confirmation, there is expected to be more clarity on staffing at OIP. She noted that the Committee  seat designated for the OIP Director or their designee is an important voice.  She noted that OIP staff is not likely to be in a position to commit to particular actions at this time.

Ms. Manheim introduced Dr. Moore to present on the Barriers to Implementation Working Group.

Dr. Moore reported that the working group planned to host focus groups to hear directly from FOIA professionals to gain insight into barriers to implementation. The working group has shortlisted 20 Committee recommendations from past terms that were directed to agencies. The shortlist would be circulated to focus group participants ahead of time to allow them to formulate their thoughts.

She noted the working group’s progress on the recruitment package, expansion of target population, and a timeline. The recruitment package is a set of communications that will be issued to participants along with a form. It is a complete view of how to contact and communicate with the focus group participants. The working group has asked impartial/outside reviewers for feedback to strengthen the process.

Previously, the working group had intended to  target current FOIA professionals. Now the population has been expanded to include those who have left federal service within the last three years. The group plans to use social media and seek help from Committee members to help recruit a good cross section of participants.  Recruitment would begin in mid-July to allow for time to conduct outreach.

In terms of the timeline, the working group would aim for the start of October to launch. This would give FOIA professionals time to close out the fiscal year and would give the working group enough time to analyze the findings and supplement it with information from the CFO  reports. Immediate next steps include seeking additional avenues for recruitment. 

Ms. Manheim thanked Dr. Kimball and Ms. Moumbleaux for their work.

Ms. Moumbleaux noted it had been a privilege working on this and she enjoyed it immensely. She also noted that FOIA is foundational to democracy.

Mr. Wittenberg also said a few words about Ms. Moumbleaux since they had worked together at EPA.

Ms. Moumbleaux said she would be a willing subject for both a focus group and oral history.

Ms. Manheim confirmed that there were no additional presenters.

Ms. Semo asked if there were any final questions. 

Dr. Cuillier made a comment asking about the role of the Committee in light of the departures of FOIA professionals across the government. He asked if some members should try to document what is happening since documentation could inform future recommendations. 

Mr. Baron noted that Committee members likely all shared Dr. Cuillier's concerns. He noted that they could examine barriers in the current environment that are preventing greater implementation of prior Committee recommendations. There would be another round of CFO reports in 2026, which would give the Committee a second data point during this term of the Committee (2024-2026) to track trends. He noted that the Committee should take the concern into account when they draft the final report.

Dr. Kimball noted as a continuation of Mr. Baron's idea that the oral history project would fill the gap between the volume and frequency survey and the focus groups.  The three efforts would document a snapshot of the current environment. 

Ms. Semo asked for additional comments, and hearing none she moved on to the public comments period. She noted they look forward to hearing from the public and that oral comments would be limited to three minutes per person.

Ms. Mitchell opened the public comments period. She noted that written public comments could be submitted at any time on the Committee's webpage. No one appeared to have any comments, so the comment period closed.  

Ms. Semo thanked Committee members for the creative discussions and Subcommittee co-chairs for their work organizing those discussions. The next meeting is scheduled virtually for Thursday, September 11, 2025.

She asked if members had any final comments, and hearing none, she adjourned the meeting at 11:07 a.m.

I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete on August 13, 2025. 

/s/ Kirsten B. Mitchell 

Kirsten B. Mitchell 

Designated Federal Officer, 

2024-2026 Term 

/s/ Alina M. Semo 

Alina M. Semo

Chairperson, 

2024-2026 Term