Office of Government Information Services (OGIS)

Home > The Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) > Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee > 2024-2026 Term > September 11 Minutes — (Certified)

September 11 Minutes — (Certified)

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee convened virtually at 10 a.m. ET on September 11, 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 12:02 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
  • Elizabeth Hempowicz, American Oversight
  • Scott Hodes, Department of Homeland Security
  • Shelley Kimball, Johns Hopkins University
  • Margaret Kwoka, The Ohio State University 
  • Frank LoMonte, CNN
  • Marianne Manheim, Department of Health and Human Services
  • Deborah Moore, Department of Education
  • Ryan Mulvey, Americans for Prosperity Foundation
  • Richard Peltz-Steele, University of Massachusetts Law School
  • Sarah Weicksel, American Historical Association
  • Nick Wittenberg, representing requesters in FOIA's commercial fee category

Others present or participating in the meeting:

  • Jay Trainer, Chief Operating Officer, NARA
  • Ben Worthy, University of London
  • Kirsten B. Mitchell, Committee’s Designated Federal Officer, NARA
  • Kevin Bell, Public Commenter and former Committee member 

Opening Remarks from the Designated Federal Officer

Ms. Mitchell, the Designated Federal Officer, welcomed attendees to the September 11, 2025, federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee meeting. She confirmed that there were 15 members present constituting a quorum. (Ms. Kwoka joined the meeting shortly thereafter.) Ms. Mitchell noted that the meeting was virtual and being recorded. She reminded Committee members to keep their cameras on, but noted one member, Ms. Brock, could not do so. Ms. Mitchell noted the meeting was on a new virtual platform, and she asked participants for patience and noted that the National Archives was livestreaming the meeting on YouTube. 

Welcome from the Chief Operating Officer

Mr. Trainer, NARA’s Chief Operating Officer, welcomed everyone to the fall 2025 meeting of the FOIA Advisory Committee. He noted that the Committee's purpose is to create dialogue between FOIA professionals and requesters to find ways to improve the FOIA process. Mr. Trainer noted that the Committee is one year into its two-year term and has made significant progress, with several recommendations emerging. Every day, FOIA professionals across the government handle over 1 million requests from the public, and the success of the process relies on good records management, strong leadership, sound management practices, and trust between requesters and those who process requests. 

He noted that according to a survey by the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, trust in the government has increased to 33 percent in 2025, a rise of  10 percentage points from 2024. Each interaction between FOIA professionals and requesters provides an opportunity to enhance trust further. NARA's Office of Government Information Services works daily to build trust in the FOIA process by assisting with disputes and reviewing compliance. The Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) recently celebrated its 16th anniversary as the FOIA Ombuds. 

Mr. Trainer noted the date, September 11th, marking the 24th anniversary of the attacks in 2001, which generated numerous FOIA requests and highlighted the significance of records in understanding our nation’s collective national history. Mr. Trainer turned the meeting over to the Committee's chairperson, Ms. Semo.

Welcome and Updates from the Chairperson

Ms. Semo began the sixth meeting of the 2024-26 FOIA Advisory Committee term thanking Mr. Trainer and Ms. Mitchell. She noted that meeting materials, including the agenda and slides, were available on the FOIA Advisory Committee page of the OGIS website. She reminded everyone in attendance that this term of the Committee, which started in September 2024, has three Subcommittees: Volume and Frequency to examine challenges in administration of FOIA; Statutory Reform to look at potential legislative improvements; and Implementation to increase the adoption of past recommendations.

Ms. Semo noted the Subcommittees and their working groups had done much work since the last meeting on June 12th and thanked Committee members. She noted the meeting was public under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), with minutes and transcripts from the June meeting and Committee member biographies available online. She noted that the chat function was for procedural matters only, not substantive comments. Written public comments can be submitted via the form on the OGIS website, and oral public comments could be made during the public comment period at the end of the meeting, with a three-minute limit per individual. Ms. Semo noted the schedule's flexibility, suggesting a possible break based on Committee members' preferences. She introduced Committee members Dr. Cuillier and Dr. Kimball, and Dr. Worthy, and noted that their collaborator, Dr. Piotrowski of Rutgers University, a former Committee member, was unable to attend. They would discuss their work on vexatious requests. Dr. Worthy, a reader in politics and public policy at the University of London, has expertise in transparency and freedom of information.

Presentation: “A Request Too Far: A study in mitigating burden of unduly burdensome public record requests without restricting the flow of civic information”

Dr. Cuillier began the presentation noting that links to the preliminary studies are in the meeting materials on the FOIA Advisory Committee website, and he requested audience input because the work is still ongoing. He noted that the four presenters had been working as a group on the study for nearly two years, planning to conclude in June 2026. The main focus of study is how to protect government agencies against burdensome requests while protecting the free flow of information. He noted a surge in public records requests following the 2022 elections. Many requests aimed to uncover information about potential election fraud, which placed significant strain on public offices, particularly state election offices. This led to proposed state laws aimed at slowing vexatious requests. He noted concern about laws passed hastily, prompting the need for a thorough examination of the situation.

Dr. Cuillier noted the research conducted so far includes a review of existing literature, an analysis of how various states handle public records requests, and an examination of public records requests logs, including those at the federal level. The team has conducted surveys of election officials and records custodians in both the U. S. and the U.K., in addition to interviews and discussions with experts. He presented some of the findings so far. The terminology used to describe vexatious requests varies widely. Also, the perception of vexatiousness varies; it can refer to the workload involved, the vagueness or broadness of requests, or the perceived intent of the requesters to harass agencies. The researchers looked at how state governments handle this. States in the U.S. typically use fees to discourage large requests, often quoting high costs that lead requesters to modify or abandon their requests. Some states grant time extensions for agencies to respond to the requests, while some allow agencies to deny vague or unreasonable requests. He noted the term “extraordinary” is used in Nevada. There is also growing discussion in the U.S. on whether government entities should have the power to fine or ban individuals who habitually file vexatious requests. 

Dr. Cullier noted the importance of understanding what public officials think about this issue, and he introduced Dr. Kimball to speak about that point.

Dr. Kimball began by touching on the methodology of the survey. They asked quantitative questions to the Reed College Election and Voting Center’s Local Election Officials Survey that goes to election officials across the U.S. in jurisdictions of a variety of sizes and geographic locations. The survey was administered during the fall and winter of 2024. Their questions aimed to explore the depth and breadth of the issue, and to present potential solutions to local officials to gauge their preferences.

Dr. Kimball noted that participants noted an increase in the number of requests, which are taking longer to fulfill compared to previous years; 64 percent agreed that public records requests are now more time-consuming than in 2020. Additionally, there appears to be an “iceberg effect” with 72 percent of respondents reporting that a small number of requests consume a large amount of their time, and 62 percent reporting that unduly burdensome requests significantly impede their work. The survey tested solutions, asking respondents to rate various recommendations that had been gathered from literature, state analysis, and expert discussions. The preferred solution was charging fees for unduly burdensome requests. 

Other suggested solutions included improving technology, educating citizens, training staff, denying requests, proactively posting material, fining or banning requesters, and increasing staffing levels. Interviewees explained that fees could be a way to test whether requesters are truly interested in the information. Technology was viewed as a means to streamline processes. Opposition was highest to punitive measures, like banning or fining requesters. Respondents experiencing heavier workloads were more inclined to support these harsher solutions, she noted. The group also considered solutions from the U.K., and Dr. Kimball introduced Dr. Worthy to explain that part of the work.

Dr. Worthy presented on the situation in the U.K.  He noted that they polled FOI offices and received 81 responses. He stated that after the U.K. FOI law came into force in 2005, records processors are not required to comply with requests deemed “vexatious” under section 14(1). Initially, the law did not define “vexatious,” but the U.K. information commissioner later defined it as “disproportionate, manifestly unjustified, inappropriate, or improper use of FOIA.” A ruling from 2013 mandated that FOI offices need to consider four areas: burden on staff, the requester's motive, the purpose and value of the request, and any potential harassment to staff. This ruling was clear that these were not hard-and-fast rules, but that requests should be evaluated based on their individual context. 

Dr. Worthy noted some positive findings: only a small number of requests in the U.K. are labeled vexatious. The U.K. central government’s latest figures from 2024 indicate about 3 percent, while local government levels are even lower, estimated at 1 percent. He noted challenges with proving a request is vexatious, because the process can be complex and burdensome. This complexity is due to the challenge of identifying the requester's motives. He stated that many U.K. FOIA officials find the term “vexatious” to be problematic. When a request is labeled as such, it can escalate tensions between officials and requesters. Thus, some information commissioners believe “vexatious” is not applied as often as it could be, because there may be less contentious ways to handle requests. 

He noted ongoing challenges in the U.K. FOIA. A survey indicated that 91 percent of U.K. FOIA offices reported having to spend more time now on FOIA requests, and nearly 79 percent reported that a few requests consume disproportionate amounts of time. The estimates vary when asked what percent of requests are burdensome, but the largest cluster of respondents reported 20 percent of requests were “unduly burdensome.” The average of all responses was that 22 percent of requests are burdensome. The effect of burdensome requests is disproportionate and affects smaller organizations like police forces and universities more than larger departments. 

He presented the responses to various solutions. U.K. FOIA offices broadly match their counterparts in the United States in terms of preferred solutions. However, U.K. FOIA offices are less supportive of fees for requesters, especially upfront fees. Currently, making requests is generally free in the UK, with authorities rarely using their authority to charge for costs associated with processing. There has been considerable debate about introducing fees, but such proposals have repeatedly been rejected. Many FOIA advocates believe that fees would not achieve the intended goals. 

Additionally, he noted  the survey included a question about whether FOIA offices suspect that any requests were written with the help of artificial intelligence (AI). Approximately one-third of the offices said they had, while another third said no, and nearly 20 percent were unsure. However, there is no formal way to verify if a request was made with AI. FOIA offices that suspected AI involvement identified certain patterns, such as identical wording or receiving multiple similar requests in a short time frame. There were no signs of constant AI-generated requests, but offices reported surges: for example, 150 requests in 24 hours. The overall instances of these AI-assisted requests, according to respondents, were relatively low, estimated between 0.1 percent and 10 percent. 

Dr. Worthy noted that the U.K. FOIA requires requesters to prove they are a real person. If a requester does not respond to questions about their legitimacy, the FOIA office can choose not to process the request. Some FOIA offices noted the positive aspects of AI, suggesting that it could enhance the clarity and accuracy of requests. They acknowledged that the solution would greatly depend on the quality of the AI tools available, which may change in the coming years as technology improves. Dr. Worthy then handed the floor to Dr. Kimball.

Dr. Kimball noted the group’s interest in the Connecticut FOI Commission, an independent commission that allows agencies to petition to manage vexatious requests. The law was changed in 2017 to reflect an approach that worked in Canada. Agencies must provide specific reasons for seeking relief, beyond routine processing issues. Agencies need to show a history of vexatiousness, in terms of number of requests, scope, language, or a pattern of abusive conduct. Despite initial concerns about a surge in petitions, very few have been filed, and even fewer have progressed to hearings. 

Dr. Kimball then noted two cases where requesters were banned from making requests for a year: one involved a requester with a history of repetitive, voluminous, and harassing requests. The other involved a requester whose repeated requests were deemed accusatory and offensive. Dr. Kimball then handed the discussion back to Dr. Cuillier to explore possible solutions.

Dr. Cuillier began by noting that in Utah a requester had been banned for a year. He also noted that Tennessee, where this strategy originated, has not banned anyone and may sunset this strategy.  This strategy is not widespread, but there have been legislative proposals and more will likely emerge in the future, he noted. He mentioned an increase in large mass requests hitting agencies, particularly in Pennsylvania. Attention is being focused on how to manage this issue. 

He then presented a draft of potential solutions the group is working on to improve the processing of record requests, and asked for input on the draft. The potential solutions he noted were: additional training for both staff and the public to enhance understanding of the process, more resources and technology. He noted that while election officials ranked more staff as their least favorable solution, many federal FOIA officers consider it essential due to recent staffing reductions in federal offices. He noted that AI has a lot of promise to help agencies streamline the search and redactions of records. He noted that proactive posting would reduce the need for requests, and he mentioned that improving records management systems would be helpful. 

Dr. Cuillier also noted a recommendation from the Committee’s last term for agencies to have initial discussions with requesters to help refine their requests if they want help, which he noted should be required by law similar to practices in other countries. He noted that the group had been intrigued with concepts like “express lanes,” which exist to some degree at the federal level in terms of processing queues, and “zippering,” staggering numerous requests from a single requester between requests from other requesters. He mentioned staggered dissemination of information in phases, which often ends up being required during litigation, and differential copy fees, where corporate requesters who make significant profits from information to bear the costs of large requests. He noted the group was not keen on fees in general, since they can be abused to deter valid requests in the public interest or for first-party records. He noted that the group sees value in establishing independent commissions to oversee and improve the process of handling requests, provide training, and identify better technology, among other ways they can be beneficial. They could perhaps be charged with enforcing the law, and adjudicating cases, although work remains to determine their authority. 

Dr. Cuillier wrapped up his discussion by expressing the group’s concerns about less favorable approaches.  He noted that the group did not favor: search and redaction fees, vague laws that allow ignoring requests, lengthy time extensions for responses, artificial quotas and caps, fines and jailtime, or requiring affidavits from requesters claiming they are not harassing agencies. The group was also concerned about proposals for banning anonymous or AI-generated requests. He noted one finding by the group that requesters have used programming scripts that have nothing to do with AI to send numerous requests in a short period of time. He noted the importance of understanding what tools are being used before passing laws that ban AI. Dr. Cuillier concluded by inviting feedback from the audience to help the group refine their proposals. He mentioned the plan for the release of the groups’ final report, which will incorporate the insights received.

Ms. Semo and Dr. Cuillier opened the floor for questions. 

Dr. Cuillier noted the study may inform some of the Volume and Frequency Subcommittee's recommendations. He then called on Ms. Kwoka to speak.

Ms. Kwoka expressed appreciation for the study's findings and raised a question about fees. She noted that fees are a prominent part of discussions about reforming FOIA in the U.S. She noted her perspective as a requester who is not fond of fees. Ms. Kwoka suggested that the term “fees” can refer to different types of fees and that it is important to examine the goals and methods behind each type. One goal could be to deter vexatious or burdensome requests. Another might be to recover costs associated with administering FOIA, though she noted her preference would be funding the programs instead. She pointed out that different goals might exist for implementing fees, such as reducing public subsidies for commercial requesters thus ensuring that those profiting from FOIA requests pay their own way. She noted that fees can be structured in various ways and expressed concern about the current system in the U. S., where agencies often provide staggering fee estimates that may discourage individuals from filing requests. This lack of transparency in estimating fees can create barriers to accessing information. 

Ms. Kwoka noted alternate fee structures such as a nominal fee for certain requesters or a fee applied only after a specific number of requests. This might do nothing to affect high-volume requesters, because charging may be ineffective for well-funded requesters. She asked if the group had considered different fee structures and goals for fees or had examined which types of fees might be more problematic, less problematic, or even beneficial.

Dr. Cuillier noted the group was still debating those questions. He noted that Dr. Piotrowski has some ideas, particularly on a flat fee, and asked Dr. Worthy to speak briefly about the experience Ireland had when it implemented a flat fee. 

Dr. Worthy noted the U.K. has not introduced a FOI fee system, largely due to concerns about Ireland's experience. Ireland implemented a flat €15 fee for FOI requests in 2003 and kept it until 2014. It was unclear what the Irish government’s goals were. He noted that the government at the time stated the goal was to reduce vexatious requests, but some people suspected the government intended to limit FOI requests overall. He stated there is little evidence that the fee deterred vexatious requests, but it did lead to an approximately 75 percent drop in overall FOI requests. (Under the Irish system, requests for personal information are different from FOI requests.) The fee recouped only about 1.6 percent of the processing costs. The UK concluded that a fee was too blunt a tool. It discouraged journalists and legislators, and led to a decrease in all requests. There were also complications about exemptions, making it challenging to determine who would be exempt from the fees. The conclusion in the U.K. was that fees were too blunt and would deter requests overall.

Dr. Cuillier noted that even after Ireland removed the fee, requests never recovered. Journalist requests for information did not recover. He noted that in various Canadian provinces, there are discussions about implementing fees for FOI requests. 

Mr. Wittenberg noted the work of Daniel and Richard Suskin on AI and the law, and he noted his preference for using technology. Mr. Wittenberg spoke to a point made by Ms. Kwoka about using fees to improve technology and training for handling information requests. He noted the role of Congress in how fees are managed and suggests that funds could be directed toward training rather than just going to the Treasury. He mentioned the e-discovery program at the University of Florida as an example of quality education in this area. 

Mr. Baron noted four points related to FOIA and its application in the U. S. First, he appreciated Dr. Worthy’s insights on the U.K. experience, and noted that there is no statutory definition of “vexatious” requests in the U.S., unlike in the U.K. He stated that the Committee could consider whether a statutory definition should be established in the U.S. He noted that there was the potential for unintended consequences of establishing such definitions, noting that only 0.1 percent of requests he encountered at NARA and the Justice Department were vexatious. He noted any definition in the U.S. should be narrow.

Secondly, he noted that the motive behind a request has not traditionally been questioned under the U.S. FOIA. Agencies typically do not evaluate the motives or the value of the requests but focus on other factors. 

Third, he noted the risk of conflating vexatious requests with unduly burdensome requests. Despite Dr. Worthy’s work in distinguishing between the two, Mr. Baron feels this confusion is increasing as agencies face a growing volume of electronic records. For example, with Capstone archiving, where agencies preserve tens of millions of emails for extended periods, a FOIA request could require searching through a vast number of records, which could be considered unduly burdensome. He noted that recent court cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia might establish threshold limits on what constitutes a burdensome request. He asked the Committee to acknowledge that the sheer number of records should not automatically get a request to be considered burdensome, especially as record volumes increase dramatically. 

He noted a recommendation (2024-03) from the previous term that agencies should engage with requesters of potentially burdensome requests by processing a sample of the request. This process would involve a collaborative approach rather than a determination that a request is burdensome. He mentioned that the Justice Department has encouraged agencies to work closely with requesters to address large requests. 

Finally, Mr. Baron spoke about the role of technology in education, specifically regarding the detection of essays created partially or wholly with AI applications. He noted the ineffectiveness of existing detection technologies because they often yield false positives. He noted that because of the ineffectiveness of these tools, agencies cannot rely on software to identify AI involvement in FOIA requests. 

Dr. Cuillier thanked Mr. Baron for his comments and asked Ms. Semo if there was time for the conversation to continue.

Ms. Semo noted that there was time for the discussion to continue.  

Ms. Hempowicz noted staffing was not one of the top concerns for election offices surveyed, and mentioned the need for clear definitions between burdensome and vexatious requests. She noted the importance of context in understanding these burdens and acknowledged Dr. Worthy’s comments on the risks of fees as overly blunt solutions.

Dr. Cuillier noted an example where The Miami Herald submitted 200 requests to the city of Miami, exposing  widespread corruption. Not all burdensome requests should be dismissed as vexatious. The challenge lies in regularly managing such large-scale requests. 

Dr. Worthy noted that U.K.’s Freedom of Information Act includes a section on vexatious requests but also has provisions requiring public officials to advise and assist requesters. This is a positive element of the U.K. law that may not exist at the federal or state level in the U.S. 

Dr. Cuillier noted that this was covered in another recommendation from the Committee’s previous term. 

Ms. Manheim asked about the frequency of lawsuits resulting from requests that are not handled in time, and what the U.K. timeline was. She noted that U.S. agencies can be sued on day 21. 

Dr. Worthy noted that in the U.K., if a public authority issues a refusal notice then the requester has the option to appeal through a multi-level process. Not every case leads to legal action, and the public body does not have to explain their refusal, though it is advised to do so. 

Dr. Cuillier thanked everyone for their input and suggested that anyone with thoughts or suggestions should email him. 

Ms. Semo proposed bringing participants back in March after their paper is completed to present final findings. She asked Committee members on whether they prefer a short break or wish to continue without stopping. The Committee decided to continue.

Ms. Semo noted that at this point in the meeting, each of the three Subcommittees would share the work they've been doing since the June meeting. The hope is that the presentations will spark conversation, questions, and discussion among all Committee members. There are also materials posted on the website for today's meeting, in particular, a draft set of recommendations that will be offered by one of the three Subcommittees for further discussion today. 

She introduced the Volume and Frequency Subcommittee.

Volume and Frequency Subcommittee Report 

Co-chairs: Mr. Wittenberg and Ms. Brock

Mr. Wittenberg noted that the Subcommittee’s goal is to advocate for using the best technology for the government agencies so they can reduce the backlogs that are out there.

Mr. Wittenberg had connection issues, so Ms. Semo asked Dr. Kimball to present.

Dr. Kimball noted the Subcommittee was developing a survey for FOIA professionals to understand the challenges of the volume and frequency of requests and was in process of getting that approved and ready to send out. Of note, the survey contains a question that will compare with Dr. Worthy’s work on AI, and whether participants are receiving AI-generated requests, and how they know that they are AI generated.

Mr. Wittenberg was able to reconnect, and noted that the discussion last week about hosting another technology showcase, which may be helpful because technology is moving so fast. It would help FOIA offices understand the technology, especially before requesting information that is going to increase with video. It would be helpful to get all areas of government thinking of how to use AI to create efficiency. 

Ms. Semo confirmed with Ms. Brock that she had nothing to add. Then Ms. Semo asked if other Committee members had any questions for the Subcommittee. Hearing none, Ms. Semo introduced the FOIA Statutory Reform Subcommittee.

Statutory Reform Subcommittee Report

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

Mr. Mulvey noted that the Statutory Reform Subcommittee aimed to provide recommendations on how Congress can amend the FOIA to improve requesting experience, address agency processing challenges, and ensure open and transparent government. The draft proposals have been shared with the Committee and are posted in the material section for the meeting. These are not Subcommittee-approved recommendations and are not ready for a vote, but are shared to be transparent, he said. Six of the seven proposals came from the Transparency Obligations working group. The other proposal relates to making the FOIA Advisory Committee a permanent “nondiscretionary” federal advisory committee. These proposals are still being workshopped, debated, and edited, with the hope of reaching an agreement for the full Committee's consideration. The ideas are being shared now to allow participation and feedback from all Committee members. In addition to the FACA recommendation, six other recommendations have been drafted.

Mr. Mulvey noted the first recommendation would be to expand the categories of records subject to affirmative disclosure. The second would be to build upon a prior recommendation of the Committee to make FOIA logs affirmatively available. The third is to clarify the remedial authority of courts to order compliance with reading room positions. The fourth is to create incentives for agencies to find alternative ways of processing requests outside of FOIA. The fifth deals with 508 compliance, and the sixth empowers agency officials, particularly regarding posting in the reading room. The details of these proposals are available online. The Implementation Subcommittee has been looped in to find overlap between these proposals and past ones. There are more proposals at the working group stage with the Transparency Obligations working group and the Enforcement Models working group. Those drafts will be circulated when they’re ready. More members are welcome to join the working groups.

Ms. Frazier-Jenkins reiterated the desire to share materials to gather feedback for edits and formal recommendations. 

Mr. Mulvey noted that six of the seven proposals came from Ms. Kwoka’s working group and asked if she had anything to add before opening the floor.

Ms. Kwoka noted that the proposals were for discussion only. She explained the working group's methodology, which involved gathering prior recommendations for reforms to the FOIA statute from prior FOIA Advisory Committees, government sources like the GAO, and the Administrative Conference of the United States, and civil society. The goal was to create a comprehensive list covering major issues while focusing on what is necessary and advisable. She noted that the list is not a catalogue of the members’ pet projects but the result of extensive research and reading. It represents about a third of the working group's ideas in progress and focuses on affirmative disclosure. Ms. Kwoka noted that the document descriptions often reference prior recommendations from the FOIA Advisory Committee and other governmental bodies.

Mr. LoMonte noted the working group’s eagerness to hear from government representatives. He noted the ambitious nature of the recommendations and the group’s transparency efforts, including circulating draft versions and incorporating feedback. He asked meeting attendees, particularly from the government, but also requesters,  to provide input to avoid surprises later in the process.

Mr. Baron noted that the Committee in its prior term sought public responses on recommendations about initial determination letters and received valuable input from both the public interest community and the government. He noted uncertainty about whether government representatives had authorization to weigh in. He suggested the use of the OGIS blog to solicit recommendations. Mr. Baron also noted the importance of collaboration with the Implementation Subcommittee, extending the invitation to the Volume and Frequency Subcommittee. He emphasized the importance of dialogue between Subcommittees to review past recommendations and proposals.

Dr. Cuillier noted the importance of transparency especially to show how the government works. He noted that Ms. Mitchell had shared in the chat the link for submitting public comments but that some individuals, particularly government employees, may want to submit comments privately without representing the viewpoint of their agency, and suggested direct contact with members of the Committee. He asked if individuals speaking on their own behalf directly to Committee members would be appropriate. 

Ms. Semo noted that the question was novel and deferred to the DFO regarding Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) implications.

Ms. Mitchell confirmed that it did not appear to be in conflict with FACA, and clarified that sharing email addresses depended on Committee members’ consent. She provided a link for public comments on the National Archives YouTube channel.

Ms. Kwoka agreed to share her email address (Kwoka.1@osu.edu), noting she is a public employee subject to state open records laws. Mr. LoMonte also agreed to share his email address (frank.brechner@gmail.com).

Mr. Wittenberg noted the hard work and deep research of members. He supported Mr. Baron's comment to connect and integrate the work of Subcommittees.

Ms. Semo thanked everyone, urging them to review the provided materials thoroughly, acknowledging the effort invested, and noting the opportunity to refine the ideas. She then introduced the final group, the Implementation Subcommittee.

Implementation Subcommittee Report

Co-chairs: Mr. Baron and Ms. Manheim

Mr. Baron introduced Dr. Moore.

Dr. Moore presented the progress of the Barriers Analysis Working Group. The working group aims to uncover what's preventing federal agencies from implementing the FOIA Advisory Committee recommendations directed at them. The group has identified 20 recommendations and wants to learn how to enable agencies to implement those not yet in place, as well as best practices from successful implementations. The approach involves a series of focus groups with federal FOIA professionals. They will be asked about implemented and unimplemented recommendations, barriers, successful and unsuccessful strategies, and potential changes to aid implementation. Focus groups will include four participants, managed by a trained moderator and a note taker, both from the Implementation Subcommittee.

She noted that since the last meeting, the focus has been on recruitment. The working group believes it is important to gather varied perspectives from current and recent federal FOIA professionals. They built an outreach list from FOIA.gov, and augmented it with OGIS contacts, resulting in over 400 unique emails. On August 20, they sent the first outreach email, requesting recipients to forward it to others who met the focus group parameters. Bounce-back messages were used to clean the list and find new contacts. Additional recruitment occurred through LinkedIn and OGIS. The working group received more positive responses than anticipated, with approximately 45 people signing up within the first two weeks. After a reminder email on September 4, they now have 70 FOIA professionals who signed up to participate.

Dr. Moore described the next steps for the focus groups, including a calendar of 14 slots in October and November. Participants are being assigned to slots, and moderators will contact them with their date and time. The communication will include in-scope recommendations and questions. After the focus groups, the data will be compiled, analyzed, and used to draft recommendations for the Subcommittee. She thanked OGIS and coworking group members Dr. Kimball and Dr. Weicksel.

Mr. Peltz-Steele noted an initiative involving the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, which aims to overhaul federal procurement rules. The overhaul will remove most non-statutory rules from the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), he noted. NARA had recommended in 2020 that FAR Part 39 be revised to recognize FOIA and records management obligations, and he stated that OGIS had drafted a business case recommending that federal agencies consider records access during  procurement of new technology. The FOIA Advisory Committee recommended (2018-03) transparency by design for electronic record management tools. Due to the fast pace of the overhaul project and a short turnaround time, the Subcommittee could not take official action. However, Committee members in academia recommended to OMB and the FAR Council to incorporate FOIA considerations in the overhaul, particularly regarding information and communication technology acquisition. They submitted a comment to OMB on July 28, also recommending that FOIA considerations be incorporated into regulations or buying guides. Mr. Peltz-Steele noted that the comments are posted on the OGIS website under public comments to the Committee.

Mr. Baron discussed the incorporation of a question into the annual Chief FOIA Officer reports, in which the Office of Information Policy (OIP) asked agencies for the first time this year to report on activities implemented consistent with FOIA Advisory Committee recommendations. The question, which arose from Recommendation 2024-14, asked agencies if they were familiar with the FOIA Advisory Committee and if they had implemented any of its recommendations. The Subcommittee believes it is important for OIP to retain this question and hopes for a consensus on this matter. Mr. Baron also emphasized the mission of the Implementation Subcommittee to ensure progress on implementing the 60-plus recommendations on the OGIS dashboard. He highlighted the importance of accountability and oversight in implementing past recommendations and the work of the Barriers Analysis Working Group. Mr. Baron looked forward to the next round of CFO reports and hoped DOJ would continue asking question 12.

Ms. Semo introduced Dr. Weicksel, who discussed the Oral History Project Working Group, which aims to preserve the historical experiences of federal FOIA professionals. The project would help understand the history and evolution of FOIA and preserve institutional memory. It would be conducted according to professional standards and guidelines. The working group is exploring next steps and looking forward to having former federal FOIA professionals participate.

Ms. Kwoka thanked the Subcommittee for its comprehensive and thoughtful approach to gathering information on the topic, particularly Dr. Moore’s live sessions with FOIA professionals. 

Ms. Semo mentioned that individuals can email the Committee email box to volunteer for the study or to provide comments on the Statutory Reform Subcommittee’s proposals. 

Dr. Cuillier asked about filling Committee vacancies on the federal government side.

Ms. Semo noted  that the Committee was awaiting approval to fill three of the four vacancies and if approved would solicit nominations via a Federal Register notice. The fourth spot is occupied by the Director of OIP or their designee and will be filled once a Director is named.

Ms. Semo expressed gratitude for everyone's work and introduced the public comments section of the meeting, ahead of schedule. She noted that oral comments would be captured in the meeting transcript and on the NARA YouTube channel, with a three-minute limit per person. 

Public Comments

Ms. Mitchell gave instructions for those wishing to speak and introduced Mr. Bell, a former Committee member, as the first commenter.

Mr. Bell noted the survey that Mr. Trainer cited showing that trust in government is currently at 33 percent. He noted that the public often equates “government” with elected officials and political appointees, which prevents them from understanding the role of the federal civil service. Mr. Bell expressed his belief that if the public knew more about the dedication of civil servants, the trust level would be much higher. He noted his confidence in the government members of the Committee, acknowledging the added burden they shoulder, especially as they are increasingly outnumbered by public members.

Mr. Bell conveyed his deepest respect and appreciation for their work, mentioning his time on the Committee. He noted that he would be rejoining the requester community later in the month to open a new free information group and test the Committee's recommendations. He thanked everyone for their hard work and dedication, recognizing the difficulty of balancing competing obligations as government members.

Ms. Semo thanked Mr. Bell. 

Ms. Mitchell reminded everyone that they can submit written public comments at any time on the FOIA Advisory Committee page. She confirmed that there were no additional commenters waiting to speak.

Ms. Semo urged attendees to reach out to individual Committee members with feedback and interest in various projects. She thanked all Committee members for participating in the six meetings so far this term and for the creative discussions. 

Ms. Semo also thanked the six co-chairs of the three Subcommittees. She noted the next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, December 4, 2025, and will likely be virtual. Ms. Semo thanked everyone for joining and adjourned the meeting at 12:02 p.m.

 I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete on December 1, 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Top