April 2 Minutes - (Certified)
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee convened virtually at 10 a.m. ET on April 2, 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
- 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 O. 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:
- Kirsten B. Mitchell, Committee’s Designated Federal Officer, NARA
Opening Remarks from the Designated Federal Officer
Ms. Mitchell welcomed participants to the April 2, 2026, Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee meeting, noting that the virtual meeting was open to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
Ms. Mitchell confirmed a quorum with 15 members present. She noted that Ms. Hempowicz would join shortly, and that Ms. Manheim would leave after an hour.
Welcome and Updates from the Chairperson
Ms. Semo noted that Mr. Wittenberg had not yet joined but was expected later. She welcomed attendees to the eighth meeting of the FOIA Advisory Committee’s sixth term. She stated that meeting materials, including the agenda and slides, were available on the FOIA Advisory Committee webpage.
Ms. Semo reminded participants that the Committee’s three Subcommittees—the Statutory Reform Subcommittee, the Volume and Frequency Subcommittee, and the Implementation Subcommittee—had been actively working and would present updates during the meeting.
She noted that the meeting was being conducted in accordance with FACA and that minutes from the March 5 meeting had been posted online, with the transcript to follow once it was available. She noted that Committee member biographies were also posted on the website.
Ms. Semo instructed Committee members to use the Zoom “raise hand” feature and to reserve the chat function for housekeeping and procedural matters only, noting substantive comments should be part of the transcript but that no chat comments would be captured in the transcript. She asked members needing breaks to notify her and Ms. Mitchell if they would be away for more than a few minutes. She noted that written comments could be submitted through the Committee’s public comments form on the OGIS website and that submissions compliant with the posting policy would be posted as soon as possible. She noted that a public comment period would occur at the end of the meeting.
Ms. Semo noted that most of the meeting time would be devoted to subcommittee reports and discussion among committee members. She noted that the Committee had entered a phase of monthly meetings and listed upcoming meeting dates of May 7th, June 11th, and July 16th, noting that the July meeting would be the final meeting of the term. Subcommittee reports were expected to be largely completed by the June 11th meeting, with an aspirational goal of May 7th if possible.
Ms. Mitchell reviewed Committee voting procedures in anticipation of votes on three recommendations during the meeting. She noted that under committee bylaws, any member, including the chairperson, may move that the committee vote on a recommendation or action. Although a second was not required, it was customary practice. There could be three voting outcomes: unanimous approval—all members except abstentions voting in favor; general consensus approval—at least two-thirds of votes cast; and general majority approval—a simple majority of votes cast. There might be a roll-call vote if results were not unanimous or were unclear.
Ms. Semo asked whether there were questions about the voting procedures and welcomed Mr. Wittenberg and Ms. Hempowicz, who had joined the meeting. Seeing no questions, she introduced the Statutory Reform Subcommittee, co-chaired by Mr. Mulvey and Ms. Frazier-Jenkins, to provide its report.
Statutory Reform Subcommittee Report
Co-chairs: Ms. Frazier-Jenkins and Mr. Mulvey
Mr. Mulvey noted that some working groups were continuing to develop additional recommendations for review before the next full Committee meeting. He noted that the three recommendations introduced at the previous meeting had been updated following discussions with Committee members, particularly members of the Implementation Subcommittee.
Mr. Mulvey noted that only minor revisions had been made to two recommendations. In the recommendation proposing that the Committee become permanent or non-discretionary, he said that spelling corrections had been made. Regarding the recommendation on FOIA logs, he noted that clarification had been added to correct a prior reference to the 2016–2018 Committee term, which had included a best-practices recommendation rather than a formal recommendation. He noted that the 2020–2022 term had included a formal recommendation regarding FOIA logs and that the updated language clarified this distinction.
Ms. Frazier-Jenkins noted that language had also been added to clarify that the 13 categories identified in the FOIA logs recommendation represented minimum reporting categories for agencies.
Dr. Moore noted that the updated funding recommendation reflected feedback from Committee members as well as input gathered during the Sunshine Fest listening session in March. She stated that the revised draft aimed to clarify the concept and explicitly described how Congress could provide direction to agencies regarding FOIA funding through annual appropriations language.
Dr. Moore noted that the recommendation outlined a process in which Congress would begin by reviewing an agency’s average personnel allocation over the previous five years and then apply a fixed percentage of that figure as a starting point for funding consideration. This starting figure would then be adjusted based on factors such as contract staff usage, agency backlog levels, agency structure, and other relevant considerations.
She noted that the recommendation intentionally did not specify a mathematical formula or fixed percentage, because agency differences made a uniform formula impractical. Instead, the proposal encouraged Congress to use personnel allocation as a baseline reference point for determining appropriate funding levels.
Dr. Moore noted that the recommendation aimed to encourage Congress to provide more specific direction to agencies regarding FOIA funding so that this function would not be deprioritized in favor of mission-driven funding decisions. The proposed model would require collaboration among congressional staff, agencies, and the Office of Management and Budget to determine appropriate funding levels.
Mr. Mulvey thanked Dr. Moore for her leadership in organizing the Committee’s Sunshine Fest listening session.
Ms. Semo asked whether Committee members had questions regarding the Statutory Reform Subcommittee updates.
Mr. Glendening noted that while he supported the forward-looking intent of the FOIA logs recommendation, implementing proactive publication of the required data would be labor-intensive for agency staff. He suggested a phased implementation approach tied to modernization of agency technology systems, as systems improve, automatic generation and publication of the required data would become more feasible.
Mr. Wittenberg noted that recent technology showcases suggested that automated FOIA log publication could integrate seamlessly across many systems. He noted that certain FOIA exemptions might require redaction but agencies and vendors should continue advancing technical solutions. Artificial intelligence could assist in improving efficiency, he added.
Mr. Baron asked whether the complete text of the recommendation could be displayed on screen for the record prior to voting. Ms. Mitchell answered that the full list was not visible on the slide and offered to share her screen. She then shared the complete list of FOIA log fields on screen.
Mr. Baron asked government representatives whether their agencies currently complied with the proposed requirements or anticipated difficulties implementing them.
Dr. Moore answered that the Department of Education already performed most of the recommended reporting activities and could likely implement quarterly reporting of FOIA logs as proposed. She noted that preparing subject-matter descriptions required review to remove personally identifiable information, which involved effort, though it was feasible.
Ms. Kwoka noted that concerns regarding implementation feasibility could potentially be addressed through an amendment specifying an appropriate implementation timeline commensurate with technological advances. She noted that when Congress ultimately took up the recommendation, technology could have advanced significantly and reduced processing time. The recommendation might create the need for agencies to obtain technology necessary for compliance.
Mr. Mulvey supported Ms. Kwoka’s suggestion and noted that such language might be more appropriate for the explanatory section rather than the recommendation text itself, since the proposal was directed to Congress and would necessarily involve a legislative timeline. He noted that many elements of the recommendation reflected earlier Committee recommendations from prior terms, including earlier proposals that had required even more frequent publication of FOIA logs. He characterized the current proposal as a moderated legislative approach appropriate for present conditions.
Ms. Mitchell asked whether concerns about disclosure of exempt information, particularly national security information under Exemption 1, had been addressed during Subcommittee deliberations.
Mr. Mulvey responded that FOIA exemptions already applied to affirmative disclosure provisions and that agencies retained authority to withhold exempt material from FOIA logs where appropriate. He noted that agencies already reviewed subject-matter descriptions and requester information for sensitivity before publication and exemption concerns did not require changes to the recommendation language.
Mr. Baron noted that during previous Committee terms he had coordinated closely with the Department of Justice to ensure agency-directed recommendations were workable. He asked whether the proposed implementation-timeline language would address concerns raised by DOJ representatives and asked whether Mr. Glendening considered the proposed adjustment sufficient.
Mr. Glendening responded that addressing implementation timing concerns would be helpful. He noted that technological capacity might already advance by the time Congress considered the recommendation and stated he was open to incorporating the suggested language.
Ms. Semo clarified that the proposed addition would likely appear in the explanatory section rather than as a substantive amendment to the recommendation itself.
Ms. Kwoka noted that placement in the explanatory section would be adequate because Congress typically determines implementation dates when enacting statutes.
Mr. Glendening noted that he would prefer including the implementation-timeline language directly in the recommendation itself, provided there were no strong objections.
Ms. Hempowicz noted that she did not object to including the language in the recommendation text but recommended maintaining flexibility in wording to account for possible technological changes before congressional action.
Mr. Baron noted that if the language were placed only in the explanatory section, it could be revised later during report preparation. However, if included in the recommendation itself, the Committee would need to finalize the amendment text before voting. He suggested the Committee decide whether to draft the language during the meeting or delay the vote.
Mr. Mulvey noted he was comfortable including the language in the body of the report. He also noted that a line in the recommendation specifying that FOIA logs should be posted in Excel or CSV format and transmitted to the Department of Justice for posting on FOIA.gov appeared to have been omitted from the displayed recommendation and should be restored.
Ms. Mitchell confirmed that the sentence had been inadvertently cut off.
Ms. Frazier-Jenkins suggested adding the amendment during the meeting rather than returning the recommendation to the Subcommittee to maintain momentum.
Mr. Baron noted that this suggestion required writing it out and agreeing upon the language.
Ms. Frazier-Jenkins noted that this was why Ms. Mitchell was displaying a word processor on the screen: to edit the words in real time. She also noted that there seemed to be movement towards consensus around Ms. Kwoka's suggestion.
Ms. Mitchell confirmed she was entering the proposed language into the draft recommendation and had restored the line about CSV or Excel format.
Ms. Semo asked Mr. Glendening whether he had thoughts about posting on FOIA.gov.
Mr. Glendening noted that he was uncertain whether future FOIA.gov back-end systems would use those specific formats and suggested that the recommendation avoid unnecessarily limiting technical flexibility. He noted OIP's long-term goal for FOIA.gov of automating data transmission and posting and he asked whether specifying particular formats in the recommendation was necessary.
Mr. Mulvey responded that Excel and CSV formats had been specified because they are currently how agency FOIA reports are posted on FOIA.gov, and they allow users to sort and manipulate datasets more easily than PDF files. He suggested that the recommendation could instead refer more generally to a “user-friendly format.” He noted the concern that future systems might not use the same formats, and the goal was ease of use.
Mr. Wittenberg noted that agencies currently used different technologies and how useful it would be to improve the experience for requesters. He noted that certain formats allowed easier analysis than static formats.
Dr. Moore recommended replacing references to specific formats such as Excel with broader language, specifically “machine-readable format.” She noted that this approach would maintain flexibility while ensuring that data remained accessible and usable regardless of future technological developments.
Dr. Weicksel supported revising the language to mention machine-readability generally rather than a specific format. She noted that machine-readable formats would support long-term preservation and improve accessibility, including compatibility with screen-reader technologies.
Ms. Semo noted there were updated line edits displayed on the screen.
The text on the screen read: “FOIA's affirmative disclosure provisions should mandate the ongoing publication of agency FOIA logs on at least a quarterly basis, unless the agency receives fewer than 100 requests per year in which case it could publish them semiannually. The logs should be posted in machine-readable format and transmitted to DOJ for additional posting on foia.gov. Implementation will be/should be??? At an appropriate date to allow time for technology advances.”
Mr. Baron noted that the final sentence displayed did not reflect Ms. Kwoka’s proposed amendment. He suggested revising the phrase “technology advances” to “advances in technology” and also noted that the sentence could be interpreted as suggesting implementation should be delayed until future technological developments occurred. He asked Ms. Kwoka to clarify whether that interpretation reflected her intent.
Ms. Kwoka explained that her intent was for Congress to consider an appropriate implementation date that would allow agencies sufficient time for compliance—giving agencies time to acquire technology systems that they did not already possess. She noted that this did not imply waiting for future technological developments that might not yet exist, but rather allowing reasonable time for agencies to comply using existing or obtainable tools. She noted that the implementation timeline could potentially be immediate.
Mr. Baron suggested that Ms. Kwoka draft language reflecting her intent while the Committee proceeded with votes on other items.
Ms. Semo agreed with the suggestion and asked whether Ms. Kwoka was comfortable preparing revised language. Ms. Kwoka confirmed she was already working on it.
Ms. Semo turned the floor to Dr. Cuillier.
Dr. Cuillier suggested that the Committee vote first on the recommendation to establish the FOIA Advisory Committee as a non-discretionary federal advisory committee created by statute, and then return to discussion of the funding proposal afterward.
The slide titled “Proposed Recommendation SR-1” read, “Congress should make the FOIA Advisory Committee a non-discretionary federal advisory committee.”
Action Item: Mr. Mulvey moved for a vote on draft recommendation SR-1. Ms. Frazier-Jenkins seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 15–0, with Mr. Glendening abstaining and Ms. Manheim absent.
Ms. Semo introduced the discussion of the funding recommendation.
The slide titled “Proposed Recommendation SR-2” read, “In its annual appropriations language to federal agencies, Congress should require federal agencies to fund their FOIA function at a level commensurate with the size of their workforce.”
Dr. Cuillier noted that after reviewing agency FOIA annual report data more closely, he had concerns about tying funding primarily to agency workforce size. He noted that some agencies with relatively small staffs received disproportionately large numbers of FOIA requests, while others with large staffs received fewer requests. He noted that EEOC with only 2000 employees receives 20,000 requests per year, whereas the Department of War has 700,000 employees and only 77,000 requests. He noted that disparities in the ratio of workload and workforce might suggest that using only workforce size would disadvantage agencies that had more requests per employee. He recommended adding the number of requests received annually as an additional factor for consideration in the funding model.
Dr. Moore agreed that request volume was an important factor that could be included. However, she noted that request complexity varied significantly and that request volume alone might not adequately measure workload. She noted that backlog levels could be a useful indicator of how well agencies’ existing staffing and resources matched their workload demands. Dr. Moore noted that workforce size was intended only as a starting point and, because there is no perfect formula, adjustments would be necessary. The primary objective of the recommendation was to encourage Congress to provide agencies with direction regarding FOIA funding.
Mr. Wittenberg suggested developing methods to better quantify differences in workload complexity across agencies. He noted that improved performance measurement tools could help agencies demonstrate how they used training, staffing, and technology to support FOIA operations more effectively.
Mr. Baron noted that there was agreement among Committee members regarding the need for increased FOIA funding. He noted that Dr. Cuillier’s comments highlighted the importance of considering multiple factors in addition to workforce size when determining funding levels. Mr. Baron noted that the recommendation’s supporting commentary already referenced several additional factors and emphasized that adjustments should be made to avoid penalizing agencies that operated efficiently with no backlogs. He added that the Committee should consider whether the recommendation language itself was flexible enough regarding funding factors.
Ms. Brock noted that the recommendation was a constructive starting point. She noted that the Committee lacked resources to conduct detailed funding analyses and, even without having worked out all the details, there was value in advancing a practical proposal.
Ms. Semo then asked whether members had proposals to change the recommendation language or whether the issues discussed would instead be addressed in the explanatory text.
Mr. LoMonte asked whether the recommendation language captured the nuance of the narrative text that would accompany the recommendation in the report, noting that in the report, the narrative text refers to the size of the agency as among the factors but not the only one. He suggested that the Committee consider revising the recommendation text slightly to better reflect the explanatory/narrative section, while avoiding unnecessary complexity. He noted that Dr. Moore, as the primary drafter, might advise on appropriate wording.
Mr. Baron suggested adding language indicating that funding should be commensurate with workforce size “and other factors,” while in the narrative comment the other factors could be detailed. The Committee had not necessarily reached consensus on what all the factors are, so using generic language in the recommendation could provide flexibility for further discussion.
Mr. Mulvey suggested incorporating language specifying that workforce size would be the minimum factor while referencing additional considerations such as the use of contract staff, backlog size, and agency operational structure. He noted that this approach would preserve flexibility while clarifying that workforce size was the baseline in the funding formula.
Ms. Semo asked whether the phrase “at a minimum” might address the issue.
Mr. Mulvey responded that he intended workforce size to function as a baseline to be adjusted up or down based on additional factors rather than implying minimum requirements.
Ms. Semo asked Ms. Mitchell to display the recommendation language.
Dr. Moore asked for clarification on the relationship between the recommendation language itself and the explanatory text. She was not opposed to revising the recommendation text but wanted a clearer understanding of what information should appear in the recommendation versus the explanatory text.
Ms. Semo noted that the level of specificity included in the recommendation text depended on Committee preferences. She noted that clear recommendation language was particularly helpful for implementers, while explanatory discussion provided valuable insight into the Committee’s reasoning during the drafting process.
Mr. Baron noted that recommendations and comments from the Committee were analogous to the rules and comments in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The rules are binding. The recommendation text itself would be presented to the Archivist of the United States for approval consideration, while explanatory commentary could continue to be refined during preparation of the final report. He noted the importance of ensuring that the recommendation language accurately reflected the Committee’s intent because that language would be formally approved by the Archivist. He also noted that complex recommendations could be more difficult to implement, though additional detail could be appropriate for statutory proposals.
Ms. Semo confirmed the accuracy of Mr. Baron's explanation.
Dr. Moore noted that, given Mr. Baron's explanation of the importance of recommendation language, she would prefer to revise the funding recommendation text offline rather than drafting changes during the meeting. She noted that she would be more comfortable preparing updated language based on the Committee’s discussion and presenting it afterward.
Mr. Mulvey noted that his remarks were not specific to the recommendation under discussion but raised a broader concern about defining clearly what constitutes a formal recommendation early in the term. The issue had arisen previously and the subcommittee and working groups had not realized that commentary was not an essential part of the recommendation. He proposed for future terms that a policies-and-practices guide, or an amendment to the by-laws, clearly defines what constitutes a recommendation. He noted ambiguity in earlier Committee reports, such as the 2016–2018 term, where “best practice recommendations” were labeled as recommendations but were not highlighted as such on the dashboard or in final reports. He noted that upcoming recommendations of this term might include statutory text, raising concerns about maintaining succinctness.
Mr. Baron noted that Mr. Mulvey's concern was valid but noted that adopting such clarification could significantly change how subcommittee reports work. He observed that historically, voting on subcommittee recommendations did not lock in supporting commentary as final report language. He emphasized the value of additional editing before inclusion in final reports and noted that commentary had not traditionally been considered part of the voted recommendation language.
Mr. Mulvey then asked how recommendations are handled in other bodies, using Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) as an example and asking Ms. Kwoka whether ACUS votes on the entire recommendation text and what flexibility editors had to make changes to the commentary.
Ms. Kwoka noted that ACUS uses a formalized process. She noted that she is not an ACUS member but rather a consultant, hired to do a research report. ACUS staff use the report to draft recommendation language, which is then reviewed and edited by committees and the plenary body. She noted that there are no substantive changes after the final vote. Wordsmithing the eight-page ACUS document containing recommendations took two three-hour committee meetings and 60 to 90 minutes of work at the plenary session. The supporting report serves as background similar to legislative history.
Ms. Semo noted that any bylaw amendments would require full Committee approval and that historically the Committee votes on recommendation language rather than commentary. She noted that the Committee appeared inclined to defer further action on the funding recommendation until the May meeting. Members indicated agreement with this approach.
Mr. Mulvey asked whether the Committee votes on the final report.
Ms. Semo and Ms. Mitchell confirmed that it does.
Ms. Semo confirmed that the funding recommendation would be held until the May meeting and moved the conversation back to the FOIA logs recommendation language proposed by Ms. Kwoka and Mr. Wittenberg.
Ms. Mitchell displayed both versions of the language.
Mr. Wittenberg noted that his version aimed to encourage agencies to move forward more consistently with implementation despite technological disparities across agencies.
Mr. Baron suggested Ms. Kwoka's version as recommendation language and Mr. Wittenberg’s version as supporting commentary.
Mr. Mulvey noted that either could work but favored Ms. Kwoka's version for brevity while incorporating elements of Mr. Wittenberg’s proposal into commentary.
Ms. Hempowicz supported Ms. Kwoka's shorter version, noting that simpler statutory language is often easier for Congress to adopt. She also supported preserving Mr. Wittenberg’s text in commentary.
Dr. Weicksel suggested adding language referencing “interim milestones” to clarify implementation steps as part of a larger process.
Mr. Baron noted that milestone language is unusual in congressional recommendations.
Dr. Weicksel clarified that the milestones could be framed as agency implementation steps rather than congressional mandates.
Mr. Baron agreed that this formulation improved the proposal.
Ms. Semo confirmed apparent consensus around Ms. Kwoka's version with the added milestone language.
Mr. Wittenberg noted that he agreed to his language being included in the commentary and that future technology would help requesters to get information from the government.
Mr. Baron asked that the word “clear” be removed.
Ms. Semo asked how members felt about Dr. Weicksel's addition and Mr. Baron's subtraction. Hearing no objections, she asked for a motion.
The text of draft recommendation SR-3 read, “FOIA's affirmative disclosure provisions should mandate the ongoing publication of agency FOIA logs on at least a quarterly basis, unless the agency receives fewer than 100 requests per year in which case it could publish them semiannually. The logs should be posted in machine-readable format and transmitted to DOJ for additional posting on foia.gov. Congress should include an appropriate effective date for this requirement that allows agencies reasonable time for implementation including interim milestones while not unduly delaying compliance.”
Action Item: Ms. Frazier-Jenkins moved for a vote on draft recommendation SR-3. Ms. Hempowicz seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 13–0, with Mr. Glendening, Ms. Brock, and Mr. Hodes abstaining and Ms. Manheim absent.
Ms. Semo congratulated the Statutory Reform Subcommittee and noted that additional revisions to the funding recommendation would be done before the May meeting. She then turned the floor to the Volume and Frequency Subcommittee.
Volume and Frequency Subcommittee Report
Co-chairs: Mr. Wittenberg and Ms. Brock
Mr. Wittenberg turned the floor to Dr. Kimball to provide an update on the survey of FOIA professionals.
Dr. Kimball noted that the survey had closed Tuesday. She thanked participants for thoughtful responses. The survey addressed vexatious or burdensome requests and perceptions of AI-generated requests. She noted that coding of responses would continue ahead of Committee deadlines in May and June. The final stretch was a race because work had been delayed due to the government shutdown.
Ms. Semo offered assistance from Committee members with coding if needed.
Ms. Mitchell noted that during Sunshine Week, OGIS published Ombuds Observers addressing terms-of-art such as “not reasonably described” and “unduly/overly burdensome,” the topics of the survey. She encouraged members to review them.
Ms. Brock added that OGIS's Ombuds Observers had been helpful for agency training.
Mr. Wittenberg thanked members supporting Volume and Frequency's work.
Ms. Semo turned the floor to the Implementation Subcommittee.
Implementation Subcommittee Report
Co-chairs: Mr. Baron and Ms. Manheim
Mr. Baron turned the floor to Dr. Moore to provide an update on working group activities.
Dr. Moore reported that the focus groups had identified barriers to implementation of Committee recommendations. She noted there were two critical gaps in particular: limited awareness of recommendations, and the need for stronger interagency coordination. She noted that these themes were further explored during a Sunshine Week listening session and that the group was developing recommendations and preparing a final report.
Mr. Baron noted that the subcommittee was reviewing Chief FOIA Officer reports collected annually by the Office of Information Policy. He noted that approximately 70 reports had been posted and that the subcommittee would again analyze references to Committee recommendations within them. He also thanked OGIS and OIP staff for providing cross-referenced information linking prior recommendations to current agency reporting.
Ms. Semo asked whether any additional Subcommittee members wished to comment. Hearing none, she moved forward to the public comment period.
Public Comments
Ms. Semo reminded attendees that oral comments would be recorded and posted with the meeting transcript and available via the National Archives YouTube channel.
Ms. Mitchell noted procedures for submitting written or oral public comments and invited participants to raise their hands if they wished to speak. She confirmed that no substantive chat comments required reading into the record.
Ms. Mitchell confirmed that no attendees had requested to speak.
Ms. Semo noted that the Committee had made strong progress during the meeting, including adoption of two recommendations. She noted that the next meeting would be Thursday, May 7, 2026.
Dr. Cuillier asked if there was a sense of how many recommendations might be on the agenda for the May and June meetings.
Mr. Mulvey noted that the Statutory Reform would have three or four draft recommendations for the next two Committee meetings.
Mr. Baron noted that Implementation would have at least one draft recommendation.
Ms. Brock noted that Volume and Frequency would continue to analyze their data to determine if they should formulate a recommendation.
Ms. Semo noted that the Committee had passed two recommendations at this meeting, thanked participants, and adjourned the meeting at 11:53 a.m.
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete on May 4, 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