Transcript

FOIA Advisory Committee Meeting  

Thursday June 12, 2025 

10 a.m. (ET)

Kirsten Mitchell: Good morning. We're just going to give a few seconds for our participants to join the meeting, and then we will get started.

Okay, it looks like we can get started now. Good morning and welcome to the June 12, 2025 federal Freedom of Information Act Advisory [FOIA] Committee Meeting. I'm Kirsten Mitchell, this committee's Designated Federal Officer [DFO].

Please note that this meeting is being recorded, and is a virtual meeting. I am confirming that we have a quorum with 15 members present, in accordance with the committee's bylaws. We have two members who are unable to join us today, Scott Hodes and Margaret Kwoka. Because this is a public meeting we ask members to keep their cameras on, but I want to note that Whitney Frazier-Jenkins is unable to have her camera on this morning. Ryan Mulvey is unable to have his camera on at this time, but advises that it will be on when he presents for the Statutory Reform Subcommittee.

We are using a new virtual platform today, Zoom for Government, so we ask for your patience as we navigate in a slightly different environment from previous meetings. Thank you to the audio-visual team at the National Archives for live streaming this meeting on the National Archives YouTube channel and for all their behind the scenes support.

Thank you also to Kimberlee Ried, Alternate Designated Federal Officer who is joining us today. I will now turn the meeting over to Alina Simo, director of the Office of Government Information Services, the FOIA ombuds and this committee's chairperson. Alina, over to you.

Alina M. Semo: Kirsten, thank you so much. Good morning, everyone, and welcome. It is also my pleasure to welcome all of you to the fifth meeting of the sixth term of our FOIA Advisory Committee.

Welcome to all of you who are watching us either via Zoom or with a slight delay on the National Archives YouTube channel. Meeting materials, including the agenda and slides, are available on the FOIA Advisory Committee page of our OSIS website, www.archives.gov/ogis.

A quick note about the committee's current term. Members hit the ground running in September 2024, forming three subcommittees. We will hear reports from each of the three subcommittees today. Those subcommittees are working to develop concrete recommendations for statutory reform of FOIA, to examine challenges arising from the increasing volume and frequency of FOIA requests, and to increase the adoption and implementation of past FOIA Advisory Committee recommendations. There are 67 of them.

All three subcommittees have gotten off to a terrific start this past September and have been meeting regularly since then to do the work, research, inquiry, and deliberations that are required to develop recommendations for improving FOIA administration and proactive disclosures. I am very grateful to all of the committee members' work that they've put in so far, and I know they're going to continue to work very hard. So thanks to all the committee members.

Before we launch into our meeting agenda today, I have my usual housekeeping items that I need to cover. This meeting is public in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA, which requires open access to committee meetings and operation. In accordance with FACA we have already posted both the minutes and transcripts for our last meeting in March, which seems like a long time ago, it is now on our website. There you will also find committee members' biographies. And please also visit and follow our blog, the FOIA Ombuds.

I also want to note with sadness that since we last met publicly we have an additional vacancy on the Committee. Melissa Pickworth, with the Food and Drug Administration at HHS [Health and Human Services], submitted her resignation, effective March 31, 2025 as she has departed government service. Melissa, if you are watching please know we appreciate all of your contributions during your time on the committee. We also wish you the very best in your post-government service and hope you will continue to tune in to the committee's meetings.

I also regret to inform you that after today's meeting Joan Mumbleaux with the Environmental Protection Agency has submitted her resignation as she is leaving government service tomorrow. We are delighted that she is able to join us today. Thank you, Joan.

Joan, we will miss you and appreciate all of the contributions you have made during your time on the committee. Your contributions will definitely be incorporated into the future work of this committee, and we thank you very much for all the work that you have done.

Finally, I want to note that although Nick Wittenberg is no longer with Armedia, he will still be able to continue to serve on the committee, as he represents the interests of requesters in the commercial FOIA fee category.

During today's meeting I want to encourage committee members to use the raise hand icon at the bottom of your screen when you wish to speak or ask a question. The raise hand option is much preferred although you can still chat me or Kirsten directly if you want to speak or ask a question. The raise hand option, I think, is the better way to go even on this platform, as we try it out.

An important note to both committee members and all the Zoom participants, in order to comply with the spirit and intent of FACA please use the Zoom chat function for housekeeping and procedural matters, only please do not enter any substantive comments in the chat function, as they will not be recorded in the transcript of the meeting.

If any committee member needs to take a break during the course of the meeting please do not disconnect from the web event. Instead, mute your microphone by using the microphone icon, and turn off your camera by using the camera icon, and please send a quick chat to me and Kirsten to let us know if you'll be gone for more than a few minutes, and join us again as soon as you can.

An important reminder to all of our committee members. Please identify yourself by name and affiliation each time you speak. It will definitely help make the transcript more clear as well as our minutes.

Members of the public who wish to submit written public comments to the committee may do so, using our public comments form which is available at www.archives.gov/ogis/public-comments. We review all public comments and if they comply with our public comments posting policy we post them as soon as we are able.

We will have a public comment period at the end of our meeting today and we will remain flexible as I do not necessarily expect that the meeting will last a full two hours. So if I can, I would like to give all of you back the gift of time, but we will see how it's all going.

As we noted in our Federal Register notice announcing this meeting, public comments will be limited to three minutes per individual. Any questions before we launch into the substance of our meeting? I don't see anyone jumping up and down. So that's good. I'm seeing some shakes of heads, no,  thank you. I appreciate that. 

Okay, well, let's get started with the substance of our meeting. We have allocated today's time the bulk of it to hear from each of our three subcommittees. As I've mentioned, all three have been quite busy, and I'm eager to hear them share their work. Since our last public meeting in March. Our hope is that the presentations will spark conversation, questions, and discussion among all of us on the committee. And first up, we are going to hear from the Volume and Frequency Subcommittee which is co-chaired by Nick Wittenberg and Nieva Brock. So, Nick and Nieva, you have the floor.

Kirsten Mitchell: Hey, Alina…

Nieva Brock: Good morning all, I just wanted to say good morning, and to thank you for being here. Nick and I have actually asked our dear friend, Shelley Kimball, to take over and provide our comments today. Shelley, if you're ready.

Shelley Kimball: I am, thanks all. It's great to see everyone again. My update will be brief. When we last met, our group was focused on a qualitative survey of access professionals and FOIA requesters to understand the basic reasons for backlogs, how to define unduly burdensome requests, and potential solutions for streamlining the request process. But due to the current state of flux in the federal FOIA community, we decided to press pause on those efforts until fall. We thought that a survey now would reflect this current state of change, and not necessarily provide the insights into a more representative experience of requesters and FOIA professionals that we could then use to develop recommendations.

So we've pivoted a bit. In the meantime, we are working with other subcommittee members on an idea to develop an oral history project of FOIA employees who've recently left service. We're aware there's a broader oral history project being conducted by the Organization of American Historians [OAH], and that was focused more on federal workforce changes with a broader lens than what would be appropriate for our group. So we plan to ensure that our potential project focuses on federal FOIA employees and that will remain in the mission and goals of our Advisory Committee. But we're in the really early stages here, but we're working together to develop our information collection plans and how we plan to proceed over the coming months.

Nieva Brock: Thank you, Shelley, that was so well said. Alina, we'll hand it back to you.

Alina M. Semo: Okay, before we go on from your subcommittee, are there any other comments or questions that folks might have for the work that you all are doing? I just want to give that opportunity to any other committee member that has any questions or thoughts. Alright  everyone obviously needs to have a little more coffee, so we can have some more robust discussion. Okay, well, Shelley, thank you again. Nieva, Nick, thank you.

And I believe and I just want to note, Kirsten was getting ready to say this, and I think we jumped right in that we did switch around the order of our presentations this morning from the agenda that we had already posted on our website, due to some scheduling juggling that we had to do. But I believe now next we're going to hear from the FOIA Statutory Reform Subcommittee co-chaired by Ryan Mulvey and Whitney Frazier-Jenkins. So Ryan and Whitney you have the floor.

Ryan Mulvey: Thank you, Alina, and I apologize. Is my video working now? You can see me all right? I'm on my phone so I apologize if the image isn't as good as if I were sitting at my computer. My report for which I'm offering, I don't believe Whitney's in a position to co-present this morning, but feel free to jump in, Whitney, if I'm incorrect there. My report will also be brief. For those who might recall at the last meeting the status report that our subcommittee provided was rather extensive. And I think much of what's contained in there continues to be the focus of our three working groups. 

Very quickly...the processing working group is continuing to work on the fee issue; and the enforcement models working group is continuing to focus on the concept of an independent agency, the creation of an independent agency a la an information commission, possible reforms to how OGIS operates [and] the possible creation of an Article 3 speciality court with jurisdiction over FOIA claims, and then more generally, review of reform, of judicial review, and how it functions under under FOIA. Not much more, I think, has been done in those working groups since the last status report. 

Where the bulk of new effort has been focused has been in our transparency obligations working group. And there we have 13 recommendations that are in the process of being drafted. They're not ready for prime time before the full committee and have yet to be approved by the subcommittee even. But I'll briefly mention those 13 recommendations. I would say where efforts are really focused now is coming up with draft language that we need to be that would need to be added to the FOIA to affect the proposed reform.

So the justifications and the background research, if you will, for these 13 ideas are in pretty good shape, or pretty much done. Where the working group is now focused is what does the statute actually need to say, to make these recommendations a reality if they were to be adopted by Congress, adopted by the Archivist, and then, of course, adopted by Congress. 

So very briefly those 13 which should sound familiar, firstly, to expand the scope of what is subject to affirmative disclosure under the FOIA. Second, and relatedly, to ensure that FOIA logs and a certain minimum amount of information in those logs are proactively disclosed by all agencies. Third, that agency, and this bleeds over with the Enforcement models working group, but we want to ensure that there's judicial review available for agency compliance with FOIA's affirmative disclosure section so that would be 552(a)1, 552 (a)2.

Fourth we're looking at how the FOIA can get agencies to focus on FOIA alternatives such as first party requesting mechanisms, or even reopening conversation on the release to one release to all policy that OIP had investigated several years ago. Fifth we are looking at whether the definition of a record in 552(f) needs to be changed.

Sixth, whether or not FOIA should be extended to non-executive branch agencies. That builds on work of prior terms of the committee which had proposed that legislative branch administrative agencies be subject to FOIA like processes. Seventh we're looking at how sunsetting provisions as are currently exist[ing] with the deliberative process privilege under Exemption 5 could be added to other exemptions in 552(b). 

Eight, we're considering how foreseeable harm might be changed specifically to include some sort of public interest balancing test. Nine, we're considering whether or not to recommend elimination of Exemption 2.

Ten, considering how the deliberative process privilege might need some reform. Eleven, twelve and thirteen are similar to ten in that they also want to revisit the current state of certain exemptions, namely, Exemption 4, Exemption 3 and Exemption 7, and particularly Exemption 7(f).

So I'm sorry, I know that's a lot of information to throw at you, and we don't have the text yet, but a lot of what I've discussed is addressed in the status report from the last meeting. So I would encourage you to to take a look at that to get a little more detail on what we've been working on, and I would also invite anyone who, particularly from the government side, who's interested in joining any of our working groups to please bring your perspective. You know, we want to ensure that we have robust conversation, obviously at the committee level, but also at the subcommittee level on all of these recommendations, and not just the recommendations, but the statutory language that we would ultimately want to see Congress adopt. And that is my report.

Alina M. Semo: Whitney, do you have anything you wanted to add?

Whitney Frazier-Jenkins: No, thank you, Ryan, that covers the status of our subcommittee right now.

Alina M. Semo: Okay, you guys have been very busy. That's a lot of information to absorb. Any other subcommittee or committee members have questions or comments or any other thoughts, for Ryan and Whitney's Statutory Reform Subcommittee.

Jason R. Baron: Alina, Jason Baron and I have a number of questions. 

Okay, so, Ryan, that's quite ambitious as an agenda for the subcommittee. I think I made the point, a procedural point last time, which is that I think everybody on the committee would appreciate having the opportunity to have a real conversation about the statutory proposals here - not left to March of 2026. And so I really urge that you and your colleagues give us a set of what are essentially the draft recommendations, so that we have one or two public meetings to discuss them in advance of a vote. So that's my first point, Ryan. I don't know if you want to say anything about that, because I do have other things to say.

Ryan Mulvey: Yeah, we have passed your comment on to the full subcommittee and I think we feel comfortable where we're at that by the end of the summer you will have your….you're always welcome to join a meeting, Jason, and drop in if you'd like to get a sneak preview. But we, I think our, we anticipate that by the end of the summer we should be in a position to have the recommendations and solid enough form to have [a] full conversation at the committee.

Jason R. Baron: Thank you for the invite, Ryan. Be careful what you wish for. So, with respect to the recommendations themselves we could have a very interesting conversation about what you have in mind. But let me just ask sort of a meta question here, which is that you obviously are motivated to propose these 13 recommendations, presumably based on something that is lacking in the FOIA workflow process - either administratively or as a policy, matter or otherwise. I mean the provisions don't come out of anywhere. They're just, they're because of some problem or concern.

Some of these I would put these 13 in two buckets. One is a set of recommendations that really are at a statutory level that can only be changed at a statutory level like a definitional change. Others though, the first 2 that you mentioned, and maybe 1, 2, 4, and maybe some others, seem to me to be problems in implementation. FOIA logs are proactively disclosed, or whatever, and there seems to be an overlap with at least some of these with the kind of concerns that the implementation subcommittee, both last term and this term have been discussing.

I think it would be a good conversation to have as to have maybe our subcommittees talk to each other, or to have a little more interaction as to what is motivating a statutory, proposed reform. And I would add that of course, we have our 60 plus recommendations that are on the books from this committee, and some of them overlap with at least a few of your proposals. And so there is a question as to the need for statutory change, or what can be done at, you know, at the agency level, and it may well be that at the end of the day you say that agencies are just not equipped enough, or they haven't shown progress in past recommendations to effect change and so a statutory reform proposal is needed. But it seems to me that conversation would be worth having, and then to build a case for your reform proposals in a commentary. In a final report you would have been informed by the conversation about what the defects are in implementation in, you know, the current environment.

Ryan Mulvey: So if you look, if you read the March status report, I think there's already for many of the 13 recommendations, or at least for buckets of these recommendations narrative explanations for why we think a statutory fix is required. And you were right, that narrative explanation and justification, if you will, continues to be developed by the different working groups with respect to all of their proposals. You're right that there is overlap with some of these with past recommendations of the committee, and in that sense there's overlap with implementation’s, with the work of your subcommittee. And I agree that there can be beneficial conversation that comes. I, you know well, when you get the recommendations, I think the justifications can speak for themselves as to why our members on our subcommittee at least so far seem to think that a statutory fix is what's required. I mean, we can use the example of FOIA log affirmative disclosure as an example. You know, if agencies aren't doing it the one way to ensure that they that they are is to make it a statutory obligation. So I think that's where we're coming from with a lot of these. But I look forward to, I think there can be some good cross-pollinization and dialogue between the two subcommittees once we have the statutory text ready to go.

Jason R. Baron: Well, I'm not lobbying for 60 recommendations, but and it's not that much, but I think both the Implementation Subcommittee last term in our report that I was part of, and what we're talking about in our subcommittee this time in terms of focus groups, Deborah can talk to, and questions we're asking, there are many recommendations that this Advisory Committee has put out and approved by the Archivist that one could say have not been widely implemented. And so again, I'm not lobbying for more in the way of statutory reform…

Ryan Mulvey: You have ideas, Jason, please I mean, I think that's good, if what you're hinting at is that…to the extent, and I didn't mean to cut you off, but to the extent there are long standing recommendations that have not been properly implemented, and they're not on our list, I there, you know it's better to have more recommendations, and to whittle down and have conversation than to have too few. So if you have ideas, we’d certainly entertain them. And I think that's where your point about maybe having at least representatives of the two subcommittees meet together that might be an interesting idea for a meeting, I think.

Jason R. Baron: It is because we have engaged both last term and this term in triaging and trying to find out sort of on a priority basis. What is the most important, what are the most important recommendations that agencies can make progress on, that we were not seeing. And so our list might, you know, be helpful in shaping your list, either adding on or with justifications, or whatever. And so that's it, that's all I have to say. I admire the good work and aspirationally, one could hope that something will come of it in terms of legislation.

Ryan Mulvey: Thanks, Jason. I appreciate those comments.

Elizabeth Hempowicz: I'll just jump in to add, hi, Liz Hempwitz, member of the subcommittee, that Jason, the point you made about kind of having those discussions about what is motivating this and what is either not being implemented properly, or could be what is not being implemented properly, that is, necessitating the need for any statutory reform. It's very much those, like, last conversations that we are having now that we've got the just of, as Ryan said earlier, the justifications, the proposed language, those are those like fine tuning conversations. But to your point, and I agree with with Ryan, I love the idea of intentionally kind of syncing up those two working groups before we come even back to this stage, which you know, as Ryan said, by the end of the summer, I think we are very much on track for that, and I hope that what we are presenting maybe it's amazing. But, like, if there's more discussion necessary at this stage, like we, you know, there's time built in so that we can still revise, because I think what we want the committee putting forward is something that's really been, kind of, I'll speak for myself, interrogated to death and can really withstand, no matter who is picking it up off the shelf when they're picking it up off the shelf.

Jason R. Baron: You see the gap here is that in the worst case scenario you come up with all right, these 13, but there are six of them that really pick up, because you think that they're not being implemented properly. There's been a recommendation. It's not being implemented. Therefore you need a statutory proposal. So you list those as part of these 13. And then our subcommittee in our implementation final report says, here are six that really are not being implemented, and they don't match. So that's my,  I'm trying to put an elevator pitch here to convince what I said before into 30 seconds.

Marianne Manheim: I'll just, hi, Marianne Mannheim, and I'm on both of these subcommittees. So I'll just throw out there, that having been, Jason I do think that this is a really good idea, actually, because we are seeing things in one way, and they're seeing it in another and being the Fed on that working group, I will say as we're like… When I initially looked at some of these, I was like, why would this be in the statute? And now we're kind of going through and we're fine tuning here. So like some of my initial thoughts, I'm like, okay, we're kind of coming more to the same page. But there's another page involving the implementation group. So I do think bringing that all together would make a lot of sense.

Alina M. Semo: Frank, go ahead.

Frank LoMonte: Thank you, Frank LoMonte from CNN, representing news media requesters. To Jason's good point and for the benefit of others here, I'll go ahead and drop this link into the chat. But Ryan has already referenced that there was a very detailed 10-page progress report entered into the record at the last meeting, and [I] really our hope in entering that into the record was as a stimulant and a conversation starter, so that as we were moving from the brainstorming phase to the drafting phase people on this committee, or people following [the] committee would have something to work off of so that they could see. I mean, Ryan can't sit here and read 10 single space typewritten pages into the record. And so to Jason and others who would like to have input between now and September as the committee is circling on what the language might look like, I would encourage you to use that document as your starting point, because it tracks very closely our discussions and our thinking. 

Alina M. Semo: Okay and great discussion. Anyone else have any other thoughts? Okay?

Kirsten Mitchell: Alina, this is Kirsten.

Alina M. Semo: Yes.

Kirsten Mitchell: Yes, I just wanted to say, as the committee's Designated Federal Officer, that I'm happy to facilitate the working together of these two groups and just wanted to throw that out there. Thank you.

Alina M. Semo: Absolutely. Thank you Kirsten. Okay, Ryan, any parting thoughts, or you're good.

Ryan Mulvey: I'm all good. Thanks, Alina.

Alina M. Semo: Alright. Thank you to you and Whitney. I really appreciate it. So let's move on. This is going to be a very short meeting today, folks, unless we could just get a second cup of coffee in. Last but not least, the Implementation Subcommittee co-chaired by Jason Baron and Marianne Mannheim have the floor next. So Jason and Marianne over to you. 

Jason R. Baron: Thanks, Alina. I'm gonna go first and then turn it over to Marianne. She can direct traffic with others on the subcommittee. Alina, I am doing my part to make this public meeting longer. 

Alina M. Semo: Thank you.

Jason R. Baron: So. Yes, in any event… We have a modest recommendation. I don't know, Kirsten, whether you have it in a PowerPoint or not. If you do, great if you don't, you know I can read it. It's very.

Kirsten Mitchell: It's up on the slide.

Jason R. Baron: Oh, it is okay. I, all right, that's fine. So the recommendation is that it's directed to the Office of Information Policy at DOJ to continue to include a question in future agency Chief FOIA Officer Reports asking for agencies to say how they've complied with past recommendations of this FOIA Advisory Committee. Last term there was a recommendation that was adopted and approved by the archivist at 2024-14 that essentially said to OIP that they think about including some kind of all inclusive question to agencies, because the matters that are reported in the CFO Reports they overlap, they intersect, but they're not attuned necessarily in those reports to the recommendations we've had in the past. And Bobby Talabian was very receptive on behalf of OIP to put a question in part C of the 2025 CFO Reports in section 2, ensuring fair and effective FOIA administration, part C under other initiatives. There's a question 12 that asks agencies, is your agency familiar with the FOIA Advisory Committee and its recommendations? Has your agency implemented any of its recommendations, or found them to be helpful? If so, which ones? And so we reviewed as an ad hoc group, Frank, Rick, myself, and others on the subcommittee weighing in we looked at the CFO Reports that have been published on the OIP web page, as of May 14, 2025, we found that the vast majority of agencies did respond in some fashion to question 12. I'd like to make a special note that PBGC [Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation] which includes past FOIA Advisory Committee members, Paul Chalmers and Patricia Weft, I think, get the gold star for having listed 16 of our advisory committee recommendations that they have implemented in some fashion.

Alina M. Semo: And I don't want to interrupt you. But I also want to point out Whitney Fraser Jenkins…

Jason R. Baron: Yes.

Alina M. Semo: …our current committee member is also from the PBGC. So she gets…

Jason R. Baron: My apologies.

Alina M. Semo: …a gold star.

Jason R. Baron: Gold star, yes. And so we are recommending that question continue. In future reports. It has been suggested that perhaps the question could contain some kind of checklist or some structure to it, rather than just an open-ended question, because many agencies answered about a few of the recommendations, but they, because of the burden because of the time involved whatever, you know, there wasn't really an expectation for them to go down a longer list. DOJ could fine tune it to a select number of recommendations. In any event, we have put this forward. We are discussing this, we intend to discuss this with OIP staff over the summer and going forward into the fall. And so we are just presenting this now as a draft recommendation, with a heads up that it exists, and that we are interested in having it approved by the subcommittee at a future public meeting. And my personal view, and I'm not going to speak for every member of the subcommittee or the committee, but that we have been successful as an Advisory Committee in the past for getting DOJ buy-in on what we are recommending, rather than simply recommending things that there might be some objection to. They've been very helpful in the past to revise wording or to say something to us. And so I'd like to have that conversation going forward before this is final. But having said that, I don't believe this is too controversial a proposal, so with that, open it up for anybody who has questions or comments.

Kirsten Mitchell: David has his hand raised.

David Cuillier: Yeah, David Cuillier, Brechner Freedom Information Project at the University of Florida. This is great thanks for doing this, Jason and Subcommittee. After you talk to OIP, if they say, oh yeah, we plan on having this every year, this is going to stay. I guess at that point [we] wouldn't even have to approve this necessarily, or maybe a different rendition. I mean, do we have any indication that they plan to drop the questions from the reports or we just don't know.

Jason R. Baron: I believe, Alina, you can speak to it, too. I believe that there's sentiment to go forward with a question of this type. I think we are nudging them or suggesting that there may be more structure to a question than simply an open-ended one, and I want to have that conversation with OIP. At the end of the day this recommendation is going forth. We're not just saying for this next 2025 CFO Report, we're saying that in the future you should routinize, have this question in future agency CFO Reports so that we can do kind of a longitudinal analysis in the future. Assuming that this committee exists that we can look at implementation over time, and so I would vote to have this in place, even if the staff of OIP in the fall of 2025 say yes, we're going to do something like what you're recommending. This sort of cements it that this committee is putting down a marker that we want DOJ to recognize that our recommendations exist and to get agency input in the future. So I would still lobby for it, regardless of whether there's no controversy this year.

David Cuillier: Yeah. I think that makes sense particularly because I'm not even sure who's in charge of OIP, right now, right? I mean, we could have new staff come in anytime and have different ideas. So I think you're right on that actually. Does anybody know who's in charge of OIP right now?

Alina M. Semo: So I actually wanted to jump in. This is Alina Semo for the record. There are, the office continues to churn along, but you know, we obviously have a vacancy on the FOIA Advisory Committee which is occupied by the director of the Office of Information Policy. There is no director currently or acting director.

As I understand it, they're waiting for confirmation of a new associate attorney general to whom OIP staff reports. So when that happens, I think maybe we'll have some more clarity going forward about what is happening with that office and hopefully whether they can fill the seat again, the vacant seat on our committee, because I think we really need that voice. I think it's a very important voice so I don't want to over commit anything that the staff, you know, could agree to at this point, I think, is just extremely drafty. I think that's a fair way to say it. I think there's a lot of goodwill and moving forward, but I do not believe they're in a position to make any commitments at this time. So I did encourage Jason to continue with this recommendation, moving forward. I think it's a good one and it is certainly our hope that OIP will be able to incorporate it into next year's reports.

David Cuillier: Thank you.

Alina M. Semo: Any other questions or hands up. I just want to make sure I don't miss anyone. Okay.

Jason R. Baron: If not, then I'll turn it to Marianne, and we'll go forward with any other reporting out we have.

Marianne Manheim: Thanks, Jason. Marianne Mannheim, and the next part of what we've been working on, which is a continuation of the last times we've reported out, is looking at barriers to implementation of all the recommendations. And so Deborah Moore is going to be presenting about the work that her group within our subcommittee working group, I guess, has been working on for the last few months, and their next plan on how they're going to do this.

Deborah Moore: Thanks, Marianne. Good morning, everyone, I'm Deborah Moore from the Department of Education. Thanks for the chance to update you on the progress we've made in the Barrier Analysis Working Group in the past few months.

The working group, as I mentioned before, is made up of three additional members beside myself, Shelley Kimball, Joan Moumbleaux, and Sarah Weicksel, and we came together in November of 2024, and our goal was to get at the root of the barriers that are preventing federal agencies from implementing those FOIA Advisory Committee recommendations that are directed to them for action. We determined the best way to get at that information, what’s standing in the agency's way, is to really ask them to find out from those people who have that direct view of what's going on within agencies, those FOIA professionals who have that insight. So we plan to host focus groups to talk with them. 

In the last committee meeting I updated that we had finalized our list of questions as well as identifying the 20 of the 67 open recommendations, the 20 of those that are directed to agencies for action, for implementation. So we're going to provide both of those documents to focus group members ahead of time so they can be prepared and get their answers together and have their thoughts organized, and also do any kind of agency vetting necessary. 

Since our last meeting in March we've made quite a bit of progress. Basically three areas—we completed our recruitment package; we've expanded our target population a little bit; and we have also set a timeline. So I want to talk about each of those three areas.

In terms of our recruitment package. What it is is basically it's the set of the communications that we will be using to reach out to potential participants along with an information collection form. In addition to those, the recruitment package also has a description of the audience that we're targeting, where we're deriving our contacts, and also the cadence of the messaging. So it's sort of a complete view of how we plan to reach out to and communicate with potential participants

Where we are with that, we've got it solid. But we've decided to ask for a couple more outside reviewers, people who haven't seen any of the drafts or any of its development. We want them to take a look at the whole package and give us that fresh eye perspective, and then, once we have their feedback, if they have any tweaks or recommendations, we'll fold those in.

In terms of changing our target population we haven't really made a major change, just expanded [it] a little bit. As I mentioned, we're targeting those FOIA professionals who are working in agencies who have a sort of an operational view and can talk to us about what those barriers are. But we've decided to expand, not only to those who are currently in the workforce, [but] to expand to those who have been in that kind of role within the past three years. So that includes people who have moved on to different positions, or people who have left federal service, because we feel like their viewpoints are also valuable. Within the past three years nothing has changed that much, so their perspectives will still help give us a better picture of what's going on in agencies.

In terms of timeline, now that we have the recruitment package nearly finalized, and we've made our decisions about our population that we're targeting, we've determined we're going to aim for the start of October as launch of the focus group themselves. So that timing will give FOIA professionals enough time to close out their fiscal year, and it will also give us still enough time to conduct the focus groups, analyze the results, and then draw out any recommendations we'd like to forward to the subcommittee, and then the larger committee for consideration.

So, backing up from that, we plan to begin our recruitment in mid-July. So we have plenty of time to conduct robust outreach. Once we get all the focus groups completed, we will analyze the data we've gathered, and we'll supplement that analysis with the responses from agencies to that question 12 that we were just discussing, and the Chief FOIA Officers Report about what recommendations they've implemented and so forth. So we'll use that information to augment what data we gain from the focus groups.

Looking ahead in terms of our immediate next steps, we're going to use the next six weeks we have before we formally launch our recruitment to really seek and develop additional avenues for recruitment. Our goal, because our goal is to gather as many representatives from the broadest cross section of agencies possible, all of those different perspectives from medium, large, small agencies, those with centralized operations, decentralized operations, we want to have a really robust recruitment so we get all those different perspectives. And it will be our biggest hurdle getting enough people to participate. That's always a challenge and it's even more challenging now. So we want to get creative about how we're reaching people. In addition to the email outreach. We're going to look at social media postings, word of mouth, seeking out personal contacts, especially for those who've recently left federal service, and we also intend to seek out the assistance of our FOIA Advisory Committee members—you all may have some good ideas for us as well about how we can reach this population, so thanks in advance for your help on that. And that's my report for today.

Marianne Manheim: Deborah, thank you so much. I just want to also thank Shelley and Joan. Joan, this is your last day before the last day. And, Joan, you've been so helpful to our subcommittee, and I just want to just thank you for everything. I don't know if you want to say anything, but you always have a little something to say. But, Joan, it's been a pleasure working with you on our subcommittee since you're here today. So thank you so much.

Joan Moumbleaux: Thank you. Thanks, Marianne. I just want to say it really has been a privilege. I have enjoyed it so much and always remember how foundational to democracy the FOIA is so, thank you.

Jason R. Baron: Thanks, Joan.

Marianne Manheim: Nick.

Nick Wittenberg: I just want to thank Joan as well. Working at EPA with her she was definitely one who really helped advance EPA, whether it's with FOIA, with technology and our legal practice, and it's such an honor to have my career intersect with hers, and then again to work on the Advisory Committee with her, because she really advanced a lot of areas. So, wishing her all the best in the next journey.

Alina M. Semo: We're definitely gonna miss you, Joan. Maybe you can change your mind, there's still one day left.

Joan Moumbleaux: I have promised my working group that I am a very willing subject to the survey and the focus group and the oral history if that happens.

Alina M. Semo: Sounds great. Well, we're all definitely gonna miss you.

Joan Moumbleaux: Thank you.

Alina M. Semo: Marianne back to you. Do you have any other presenters?

Marianne Manheim: I do not. I think that is it.

Alina M. Semo: Okay, Deborah, thank you so much for that robust presentation. You guys have a lot planned. I'm very excited. I think its…it could, you know, be extremely helpful. I don't want to leave out Sarah. Sarah's been a member of this working group as well. So, Sarah, thank you for all your input. Just want to be sure that no other committee members have any questions for Marianne or Jason or Deborah, or anyone else.

Jason R. Baron: And Shelley's been part of the work group.

Alina M. Semo: Oh, I'm so sorry, Shelley. Yes, Shelley has also been on two different subcommittees, and I'm very grateful for that. Yes, so sorry, Shelley. I didn't mean to leave you out all right. I'm not seeing any hands up. Sorry if I missed any other hands earlier. I'm still getting used to this platform just issuing out an overall apology if I've missed anyone. Just trying to look at everyone's faces. Okay, just gonna give you a second, we'll pause here just to make sure that there are no other questions or thoughts about anything we've talked about today before we move on to the last part of our meeting.

Kirsten Mitchell: Dave has his hand up.

Alina M. Semo: Thank you.

David Cuillier: Yeah, Dave Cuillier, University of Florida. I hesitate to bring this up, but shoot, I can't help myself and my comments that will follow do not reflect any of the opinions of our fellow government members at all and no one should associate what I say with them at all. But you know, I think a lot of folks have been thinking about how, what, we should, our role should be with the changing landscape in FOIA that's going on right now, and anecdotally we hear of a lot of changes in FOIA offices…staff being slashed, buyouts being taken and yet we don't really have good information about how this is impacting the flow of information. Yet it's a little too early, right, perhaps. 

But I wonder if we should be…some of us should be trying to gather that information to see what is happening in the process. Given the changes that have occurred in the past several months. You know, come March of next year maybe DOJ will be putting out the stats, right? That may give us an indication. Backlogs, denials, etc., and that might help if they do put that out and if the numbers are accurate, I don't know. But I just wanted to, and I don't know if any other members of this committee have thoughts on it, but I've just been thinking shoot, you know maybe we should be looking at any ways of seeing what's happening. And ultimately, maybe come June, maybe we have a recommendation, some recommendations, on shoot maybe we should add more staff back into the FOIA offices. Maybe we should, you know, address other things that are impacting the public's right to know. So I just raised that and if others think it's, don't go there, you know, just see what happens, that's fine. But if there's a way that we, our collective wisdom and input and work can help think about that. Just just my two cents.

Alina M. Semo: I see Jason's hand is up. Jason, go ahead, please.

Jason R. Baron: Well, David, you're exactly right. It's the elephant in the room, and oh, I think everyone here on the committee shares your concern. I know, just for our part and our subcommittee, the good efforts that Deborah and the team are doing for focus groups will clearly get at what you're trying to say here, which is what are barriers in the current environment that are preventing greater implementation, and efficiency in FOIA. And so that will be one avenue and another will be that there will be hopefully another round of CFO Reports coming in early 2026. We've looked at 2025. And so we will have two sets of data points and that's why it's so important - maybe I should have emphasized this in my prior remarks - it would be good to know how agencies are thinking about our recommendations in light of whatever changes are occurring. And so I think it's top of mind. I wouldn't want anyone out there watching our public meeting to think that we're not aware of the importance of what you're saying. And I would lobby vigorously to take it into account when we are finalizing a report from this term's Advisory Committee.

Kirsten Mitchell: Shelley.

Alina M. Semo: Sorry, go ahead.

Shelley Kimball: Shelley Kimball, Johns Hopkins University, just to carry on with Jason's thought there. I think that when we look at each of the committee's work, I think there can be a through line in understanding what's happening now and how we can respond to it. So the oral histories we're really hoping fills that intermediate gap between, you know, before we begin the focus groups, and then having those surveys on volume and frequency. So we're kind of hoping that all three pieces give us that holistic look at the experiences right now. I think ideally, we would like to have this kind of oral history snapshot that would sit in perpetuity to show what we've all been experiencing in this community during this time.

Alina M. Semo: Shelley, thank you. Any other thoughts or reactions to Dave's point? Everyone's thinking, okay, you've given everyone a lot to think about, Dave. Thank you as always. All right. Anyone have any other thoughts or questions or comments they want to raise before we move on to the last part of our meeting. Okay, everyone's still with us, right? Everyone's still awake. Okay so, not having heard any other objections, let's move on to the last part of our meeting. Kirsten, next slide, please. My first opportunity to say that so I have to say it. Thank you, Kirsten. You're doing a wonderful job. 

So we are now very early on, I realize that, but as promised we are now at our public comments, part of our meeting. We look forward to hearing from any noncommittee participants who have ideas or comments to share, particularly about the topics we have discussed today. And there definitely have been a lot of different topics. Please note, all oral comments are captured in the transcript of the meeting, which we will post as soon as it becomes available. Oral comments are also captured in the NARA YouTube recording and are also available on the NARA YouTube channel. Perhaps in perpetuity. Just as a reminder, public comments are limited to three minutes per person, and Kirsten is going to be moderating this next phase, and I'm going to turn things over to Kirsten. 

Kirsten Mitchell: Thank you, Alina. So if you wish to make a public comment, please raise your hand so that we can unmute you. If you are dialed in through telephone audio, press star nine on your telephone to raise your hand and join the comment queue. Once you are unmuted. Please state your name and affiliation, and you will be given three minutes to speak. So we will give folks a few seconds here to raise their hands. A shy audience today. 

Alina M. Semo: Yes

Kirsten Mitchell: Well, maybe while we're waiting, we can take this opportunity to remind folks that they can submit written public comments at any time on our Advisory Committee webpage. So Alina… 

Alina M. Semo: I'm not seeing any hands.

Kirsten Mitchell: No, I'm not either.

Alina M. Semo: Yes, we have paused, I think, sufficiently and I think we've hopefully given the committee members time to pause and think if they had any other comments to make. I know no one on this committee is shy. So I'm sure if folks had anything to say they would have raised their hand. So I promised the gift of time, right? And I think I might actually be able to do that. 

I want to thank all of our committee members today for participating. A big thank you to all the creative discussions that we've had this far and that we're going to continue to have among and between the subcommittees and the working groups. Everyone is definitely working very hard to improve the FOIA process and I'm really very thankful for that. I want to also just give a big thank you to our six subcommittee co-chairs. We really appreciate all of the work you're doing, trying to steer everyone. Kirsten, any other parting thoughts.

Kirsten Mitchell: No, I just took a quick look. Still no raised hands. So I think we can tell everyone about our next meeting on Thursday, September 11.

Alina M. Semo: Yes, we unfortunately picked that date in advance. We weren't possibly thinking about the tragic events of that day back in 2001. But we are meeting again Thursday, September 11, 2025, presumably on this platform again. And if everyone can join us, then that would be great. We'll definitely have some more reporting out that I am very excited to hear. 

I want to thank all of you for joining us today. I hope everyone and their families remain safe, healthy, and resilient. Any outstanding questions or comments from committee members before we adjourn? Okay, hearing none, we stand adjourned. Thank you very much. Everyone have a great day and enjoy your summer.