 Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. Thank you for joining today's conference, the Freedom of Information Act Advisory Committee meeting. Before we begin, please ensure you have opened the chat panel by using the associated icon located at the bottom of your screen. If you require technical assistance, please send a private chat to me, the event producer. All audio lines have been muted until the end of the call. We'll give you instructions on how you can make a verbal comment at that time. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded, and with that, I'll turn the call over to David Esfario, archivist of the United States. Please go ahead. Good morning. This is David Esfario, and welcome to our second virtual meeting of the Freedom of Information Act Advisory Committee and the final meeting of the 2018-2020 term. Once again, we join each other virtually rather than in person at the National Archives Building in downtown Washington where I am currently perched. Years ago, I appointed 20 FOIA experts from both inside and outside the government with a range of FOIA experiences and lenses to fulfill a broad mandate. Advise on improvements to FOIA administration across the government. Since September 2018, three subcommittees looking at records management, time and volume matters, and a long-range vision for the FOIA have asked questions, studied answers, shared their FOIA experiences, brainstormed ideas and deliberated suggestions for improving the FOIA process. The full committee has voted on a majority of their proposals at its last three meetings. The result is a package of 22 far-reaching recommendations, 15 of which are aimed at federal agencies, including the Office of Government Information Services here at the National Archives. Other recommendations are geared toward the Chief FOIA Officers Council. I will now inspect this general for Integrity and Efficiency and Congress. Committee members, I look forward to your final deliberations today and to receiving the final report later this month. Thank you for your dedication to FOIA and to this committee. At the May 1st meeting, Committee Member Michael Morrissey noted FOIA is a team sport. Indeed, it is, and you have all exemplified that by working together FOIA requesters and agency FOIA professionals toward a common goal, making the FOIA process work for all. Please note that I greatly appreciate your work, which dovetails nicely with the National Archives' strategic goal to make access happen. I especially appreciate the work done since the March 5th meeting, the majority of which took place during these difficult times in which life has frayed around the edges while we physically distance ourselves, these technological changes, and juggle caregiving responsibilities. We are not in the midst of a coronavirus pandemic if we were not in the midst of a corona pandemic. I would present each of you with an OGISNAR challenge coin and a handshake on the stage of McGowan Theater. We will find a way to get you your challenge coin eventually. In the meantime, please accept my gratitude and a virtual handshake for a job well done. Please note that I am committed to ensuring that your recommendations are carried out. Much of the work will be tasked to OGISNAR, which has done an excellent job of ensuring that the recommendations from the prior two terms of the committee are implemented. OGISNAR is in the midst of completing action on recommendations from the 2018-2020 term of the committee by assessing how agencies prepare documents for posting on agency FOIA websites and how agencies are incorporating FOIA performance standards into non-FOIA professionals' performance plans and evaluations. Before turning the meeting over to Chairperson Aline Simo, I wanted to let everyone in attendance know that on May 7th, I signed a charter for the fourth term of the FOIA Advisory Committee. OGIS will solicit nominations from both the federal agency and FOIA requester communities and in accordance with the charter, I will appoint members for the 2020-2022 term of the committee, representing cabinet level departments, smaller agencies, as well as requesters with a variety of FOIA perspectives. The new committee of 20 members is expected to hold its first meeting on September 10th. Take care, stay safe and be well, and I now turn the meeting over to Aline Simo. Great. Thank you so much, David. Thank you, everyone, for joining us today as the Director of the Office of Government Information Services, OGIS, and this committee's Chairperson. It is my pleasure to welcome you all to the second ever virtual meeting of the FOIA Advisory Committee and also the ninth and final meeting of the 2018-2020 term of the FOIA Advisory Committee. I can't believe it's been two years already. I hope everyone who's joining us today has been staying safe, healthy, and well. Despite the challenges we have all been facing during the COVID-19 pandemic, I am very proud to say that the FOIA Advisory Committee has continued to stay engaged and focused on the task at hand to finish out this third term with an impressive 22 recommendations for the archivist of the United States and a draft final report that we will be discussing and finalizing today. I want to thank each and every one of you on the committee for your contributions, your passion, and your commitment to developing consensus recommendations for improving the administration of FOIA across the federal government. Behind the scenes in the last few months and throughout the past two years, several of you deserve an extra special thanks for the hard work you've put in to get us to this point. I would like to recognize in particular Records Management Subcommittee co-chairs Jason R. Barron and Ryan Law, Time Volume Subcommittee co-chairs Emily Creighton and Bradley White, and Vision Subcommittee co-chairs Joan Kaminer and Chris Knox. To get us into this home stretch, the working group who pulled this report together deserve a special thanks as well. That would be Jason R. Barron, Adi Moshine, Sean Moulton, and Patricia Liff. Behind the scenes, we could not have gotten to this point without all the hard work of the committee's designated federal officer, GFO Kirsten Mitchell. And I want to recognize the support of our NARA historian, Jesse Crafts, who has given us for the past several months lots of help behind the scenes and has assisted us with the work of the committee. Thanks also to OGIS's Crystal Lemelin for her oversight, care, and feeding of the committee's website and the Eventbrite RSVD. Also, a thank you to our Office of General Counsel colleagues, Donna Kandahar, who has provided us with valuable legal guidance and advice regarding the Federal Advisory Committee Act and ethics issues. As the archivist mentioned in his opening remarks this morning, he has renewed the committee's charter for fourth term 2020 to 2022. I am excited to continue to chair the next committee term as long as David agrees. Please be on the lookout for a federal register notice that will be coming out in the next few days soliciting nominations for the 2020-22 term. The deadline for nomination submissions is July 2nd. As we have in the past, we are happy to consider both first party and third party nominations. Sorry, that was a bit of a void humor there. The first meeting of the 2020-2022 term is scheduled for Thursday, September 10th. So please mark your calendars. Next, I would like to cover some housekeeping roles, review our general agenda for today, and along the way, set some expectations for today's meeting. So first, a few housekeeping notes. As most of you know, the FOIA Advisory Committee, which reports to the archivist of the United States, provides a forum for public discussion of FOIA issues and offers members of the public the opportunity to provide their feedback and ideas for improving the FOIA process. We encourage public comments, suggestions, and feedback that you may submit at any time by emailing FOIA-advisory-committing at narra.gov. Meeting materials are available on the committee's webpage. We will upload a transcript and video of this meeting as soon as it is available to the committee webpage. Information about the committee, including members' biographies and committee documents are available on the 2018-2020 FOIA Advisory Committee, oh, just websites. I invite everyone joining us today to visit the committee website, and that way we can dispense with introductions of the committee members today. 18 of the 20 committee members are participating. Today, Sarah Kotler of the Food and Drug Administration and Avi Moshein of the Consumer Product Safety Commission are unable to join us today. To promote openness, transparency, and public engagement, we post committee updates and information to our website, blog, and on Twitter at FOIA-underscore-umbuds. Stay up to date on the latest OGIS and FOIA Advisory Committee use activities and events by following us on social media. As I mentioned at our May 1st meeting, the virtual environment and the in-person medium has many advantages, including much shorter commute for all of us than to more casual Thursday. Last time we met on a Friday, so it was easier to say casual Friday. But this advantage for me and Kirsten is that we will not be able to see you raising your hand or eagerly leaning forward, ready to make a comment or ask a question when we were meeting in the Gallant Theater. Although I will be doing my best to monitor non-verbal cues during the webcast, we will all need to be respectful of one another and try not to speak over one another, although I realize that may be inevitable at times. I want to encourage all committee members to use the all-panelist options in the drop-down menu in the chat function if they want to raise their hand and speak. You can also just chat me directly. But I just want to remind everyone in order to comply with the spirit and intent of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, I want to ask committee members to please keep communications in the chat function, to housekeeping and procedural matters, and not make any substantive comments, those you should be making by speaking on the record. Kirsten will be chatting with our event producer today to ask him to make any language changes that we're going to be talking about today as part of the process. But otherwise, if you chat something substantive, it will not be recorded in the transcript of the meeting. Another important reminder, if you need to take a break today, please do not disconnect from either the audio or video of the relevant. Instead, please put your phone on mute or continue to keep it on mute and close your camera, and then join us again as soon as you can. Also, please remember to identify yourself by name and affiliation each time you speak during the meeting. I'm guilty of always forgetting that myself, but I have to remind everyone this does help us with the transcript in minutes, both of which are required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. We have posted the agenda for today's meeting on the 2018-2020 way advisory committee website. Our goal as a committee today is to vote on one best practice that is now reverted to a recommendation, discuss as necessary any comments that have been submitted by both committee members and members of the public, and discuss finalizing vote on the final reports of this committee. I promise that although there is no break on the agenda, if we need to do so, we will take a 15-minute break at a logical point, although my overall goal is to try to give all of you back the gift of at least one hour and end by noon. After the committee has deliberated, but before we take a vote on the final report, we plan to open up our telephone lines to welcome public comments, and we look forward to hearing from any non-committee participants as we move forward. Jesse Crafts, the National Archives Historian, will be monitoring the chat function. I will ask her to read out loud any questions or comments during the public comment period as well. After our May 1st meeting, the final report working group that weekly, more often as needed sometimes, to pull together the draft report based on the recommendations the committee passed. We posted a final draft on our website on May 21st and promoted it on our blog post and NARA social media. We also circulated the final draft among the committee members and encouraged all of you to read it in advance of today's meeting so you can be prepared to raise any concerns or issues before we get ready to vote. We have realized that we have forgotten to post the two appendices on our website. We will take care of that right after this meeting and make sure that the two appendices go up, one of which is the charter itself, the second is a, I believe, summary that has been put together by a committee member, Jason R. Barron, and I apologize for that, but we will fix that error. I want to move on now to approve the meeting minutes from our May 1st meeting, and Kirsten has circulated by email those minutes to all committee members. I do not believe that we got any comments to any of those committee meeting minutes. Kirsten, is that correct? Yes, that is correct. Okay, later today, Kirsten and I will certify the minutes to be accurate and complete, which we are required to do under the Federal Advisory Committee Act within 90 days of our last meeting, so we're way ahead of schedule. So if I can have a motion to approve the minutes in their current form, I would appreciate that. So moved. James Jacobs, so moved. I'm sorry, who was moving? I missed who was moving. That was James Jacobs. That was James Jacobs. Welcome, James Stover. Okay, thank you, James Jacobs. I'm happy to take a second. It's not good, it's Sussman. Thank you, Mr. Sussman. All present in person on video webcam in favor of approving the minutes, please say aye. Aye. Okay, anyone opposed? Please say nay. Anyone abstaining from the meeting minutes? Okay, it sounds like there are no abstentions and no nays. It sounds like they have unanimous to pass them. The nay first minutes are approved and we will post them on the committee website. Kirsten, we're good? Okay, I'm going to move on. I'm going to re-review the voting procedures. I try to do that every time because we used to be able to hand them out and they're on our folders. We're not able to do that right now in this virtual environment. But briefly, any member of the committee could move to vote on any recommendation. Although the motion does not need to be seconded, it seems like we've been doing that for a while, so I'm going to continue that practice at least to make us feel better. The vote can pass by unanimous decision, which is when every voting member except abstentions is in favor of or opposed to a particular motion. Then general consensus, which is when at least two-thirds of the total votes cast are in favor of or are opposed to a particular motion. And general majority, which is when a majority of the total votes cast are in favor of or are opposed to a particular motion. In the event of a tie, we will reopen discussion and the committee will continue to vote until there is a majority. If you are in favor of a recommendation, please say aye. If you are against a recommendation, please say nay. And if you do not wish to vote, please say abstain. In this current virtual environment, we will take a voice vote, but I will make sure we pay particular attention to any nays and abstentions. Kirsten, our DFO, will record and announce the results of any and all votes that we take today. We'll then open the floor to the committee for a period of general comments, recommendations today. And after comments, questions and discussion, I will ask whether the committee is prepared to take a vote. Today, I'm anticipating taking a vote only on two items, the final report itself, as well as the best practice, which is now reported to a recommendation. So before I go on, I just want to check in with the committee. Does anyone have any questions so far? Silence, it's golden. Okay. I do have one thing. I realize you could have brought this in earlier, but it just kind of jumped out at me looking at the screen now. I think we need to have our cameras on. I realize we were trying to talk about who might be confusing, but we managed to the last meeting, and this is a transparency group. I mean, if we were in the gallon, people would see all of our reactions. We would lose it. You know, it doesn't feel right to me that we don't do that. Yeah, Kevin, I second. You've been in this for two years. We managed to. So it's just, once I saw it here, it did not feel right. Right, and I actually, I'm able to display on my laptop screen everyone's little square. So hopefully everyone is able to do that. I believe Patricia has been the only one sort of in the minority who has not been able to turn on her webcam, but we all know what she looks like. I get the issues, and I understand people may not want to, but I'm just going to do it. And, you know, people can make their own choices. It doesn't feel right to me. Yeah, and some people have dressed up for this meeting today. I want to recognize Chris Knox and James Stoker, and Bradley White. And Tom. Tom is wearing not a jacket. Some of the other committee members are wearing jackets. I'm going to just give you kudos for that. But yes, Kevin, I agree. It makes it much easier for me as well. So thank you for that. Okay. Once I saw it, it's different. Yeah, I appreciate it. Any other comments or questions about everything I've gone over until now? Because if we don't have anything else, I'm going to keep moving forward to talk about what we're gathered all to talk about today primarily, which is the final report. I have a few comments. I just wanted to set the stage before we get into a substantive discussion. The working group made a great effort to integrate the three subcommittees reports into one complete document. Groupings of recommendations into subcategories mean that recommendations appear in different orders and in the subcommittee reports. If anyone wants to compare the two, we have posted the three subcommittee reports on our website. In the interest of clarity, the working group took some drafting liberties, I'm saying that in air quotes for those who can't see me, to include modest revisions of the precise wording of certain of the committee's recommendations, but the group made every effort to uphold the substance of the recommendations as previously voted on by the entire committee. The working group also used some editorial discretion to draft supporting text for each recommendation that adhere to what was set out in the subcommittee reports, supplemented with additional text, and as you might have noticed, lots of citation. Believe it or not, despite the current length of the draft report, I believe we're at 42 pages, the working group elected to shorten some of the accompanying rationales in the subcommittee reports while retaining the substance of what was said. The working group looked more closely at the survey results as well as personnel and requesters. We were challenged with reconciling percentages contained in the last draft version of the survey. So in the draft report, the working group used its discretion to renew sites to percentages of the survey results, replacing them with what arguably are less precise, but nevertheless still useful language that conveys the overall message of the results. Nevertheless, the final version of the time-varying subcommittee report has been posted on the committee's website, and it has appended to it the actual survey results that interested readers and committee members can delve further if they would like. In addition, the records management and vision subcommittees reports have been updated and reposted on the committee website to reflect a more final version. So first order of business, I would like to call everyone's attention on the committee to recommendation number 13, which had formerly been voted on by the committee as a best practice. I thought in particular this would make Bradley very happy since we sort of managed to persuade him to move his recommendation to a best practice, but we really found that in revisiting all the recommendations and in writing the report, the working group really thought that it just flowed much more smoothly to revert back from a best practice to a recommendation. So I hope all of you agree. We also thought it would just look a little bit odd to have a single best practice sticking out all on its own. So we are recommending that we put it back as a recommendation that this currently number 13. Just to read it out loud. In case everyone doesn't have it in front of them. And I believe that if I could ask our event producer to please go to further down to get into recommendation number 13 just so we have it in front of us. Is that possible? It's up, Alina. It's up. Great. Thank you. So just to read it out loud, I think the committee is going to be able to provide a comprehensive review of their technological and staffing capabilities within two years to identify the resources needed to respond to. So again, because we passed it as a committee, as a best practice, prior meeting, I thought it was important that the committee vote on it and its present salons recommendation. Okay. I'm seeing everyone nodding. So, if we could please vote on recommendation number 13 and its present form, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Okay, anyone who would like, oh, I heard a late aye. Anyone who is against the recommendation, please say nay. Anyone who wishes to vote to abstain. This is Bobby from OIP, and I'll continue to abstain. Okay. Thanks, Bobby. I'm going to vote aye on this one. So Kirsten, do you want to read out the results of our vote, please? Yes. The recommendation number 13 passes unanimously with Bobby Toladian abstaining. All right. Great job, everyone. Thank you. Bradley, are you happier? Right. Okay. Good job. Okay. So, next, I would like to invite several different committee members to provide us with their thoughts on some language tweaks that they would like to offer up. I personally do not think they rise to the level of needing to take a preliminary vote on each one. My intent is to just vote an end as part of our final vote on the package of the final report, and if anyone disagrees, I'm happy to discuss after each committee member introduces their tweaks. So, if I could first turn to Bobby, please. And I tried to do this in the order in which the recommendations appear on the slides. We are now back to recommendation number one. Bobby has a small language tweak he would like to offer up for recommendation number one. Thanks, Elena. Just a small tweak, and I think it's on kind of what the tweak would be, but it reflects more what the rationale describes and that OIP would be issuing the guidance. That's really all there is to it. Yep. A clarification. I'm just going to turn to Tom for one minute. He had raised earlier a question about whether the language flowed well enough in recommendation number one. So, Bobby's tweak fix your issue. Yeah, it does. My concern was a grammatical one basically that for the purpose of OGIS and OIP did not make sense, but this does it. I support this amendment. Okay. All right. Any other comments from committee members on Bobby's proposed language tweak? All right, and let me just poll everyone. How does everyone feel about voting on this individually, or can we just vote on it as part of the final package? Final package. I got a thumbs up from Emily, too. Okay, thumbs up from Sean. Thank you, Bobby. Okay, so it seems like there's consensus. We don't need to vote on it separately. So that takes your recommendation number one. Yay, we did it. Okay, moving on. I'm now going to turn it over to Sean who is going to discuss his changes to recommendations number three and 12. So let's start with Ray, Sean. And the changes in both of these are pretty much identical. You'll see that basically I'm just removing OGIS and OIP from the target of the recommendation. Both of these were ones where we asked OGIS and OIP to encourage agencies to do something. And instead, since we've discovered that we can make recommendations directly to agencies, I'm saying we should make the agency the target of the recommendation. Just recommend that the agencies do whatever work that we envision for these. So this one is, as you'll see, online access through various ways and websites. So instead of saying OGIS and OIP, encourage them to collect and release the FOIA records to say agencies work towards the goal. So does that get us off the hook? OGIS and OIP, should we be celebrating? I will point out that the language beneath the recommendation still mentions OGIS and OIP and what we envision them doing to help the agencies. I try, Bobby. Okay. Anyone have any questions regarding Sean's proposed change? This is James Jacobs. Oh, James Jacobs. Thanks. I just wanted to say thanks to Sean to make this recommendation a little bit more clearer. And also pointing out that the describing text under the recommendation includes OGIS and OIP. Because I think if we just say we recommend that agencies do this, how are we going to get the agencies to know about this recommendation? So I'm glad that OGIS and OIP will still be in the mix. Sorry, Alina. Okay. I saw Jason are there in raising attempt. Jason, do you have a comment? Well, the I am supportive of the change by Sean, but this was calibrated in its original form and discussed in a prior public meeting so as to balance the ability of agencies or to take into account the ability of agencies to do this. And I think it's important as noted by the last two speakers that OGIS and OIP are vehicles to encourage agencies to work towards this goal. So by omitting an express reference I would hope that the final report is still encouraging agencies through the vehicle of OIP and OGIS to affect this. It would be, I think it's just more effective with Bobby's voice than your voice, Alina, in doing this. No, we understand that and we certainly will rise to the challenge. That's exactly right. I don't see it any different for us. You are now on the record, Bobby. Anyone else have any other comments? No questions? Bradley White, DHS, this still works with my concern so I have no issues with this language. Okay. Thanks, Bradley. How does folks feel about whether we need to vote on the new language or do you make it sufficient to vote on it or do you make it sufficient to vote on the new language? Final package. Final package. Final package. Okay. Anyone feel differently? Anyone feel differently? Okay. All right. Sean, thank you. Do you want to go on to number 12 or do you feel like we should at least pull up the slide, even though you've covered just removal of OGIS and OIP and this is encourage or actually recommend that agencies release documents in machine readable, legible, actionable, extent feasible. So very similar change. Sean. Any comments? No reasoning. Is this to place more of the burden on the agency to take action? Because I think folks have noted the importance of OGIS and OIP working with the agencies and so I'm just wondering if that... I understand it makes it a little cleaner to read, but I just wondered if it was actually to mandatory language there for the agency. I just didn't know what the reasoning was. I mean, I guess that's along that vein. I wouldn't call it mandatory language or anything. It's still just a recommendation of the agencies. I think what I was envisioning was under the current structure of the recommendation if OGIS and OIP did something to encourage the agencies to accomplish either of these recommendations and even if no agency changed anything technically the recommendation would have been satisfied because OGIS and OIP would have encouraged. I felt that the recommendation was really for there to be at least some movement in this area. So I just thought we should say it that way that this is what we're recommending is this change and I didn't want to change the underlying text because I do see an important role for OGIS and OIP in trying to make this change but I felt like we should just recommend straight to the agency for the change that we envisioned. Emily, you're good. Thank you. Any other comments or questions for Sean on number 12? Okay. Well, Alida, this is nominally similar to Sean's other recommendation but if my written collection is correct, this was even more calibrated to address concerns of one or more members on behalf of their agencies that the agencies might not be able to in the short term do anything like this. And again, myself have no objection but I'm voicing what I thought was a concern. I think there were issues in both directions at a prior public meeting where some on the committee wanted the language to be stronger than what we had it then and others were cautious about what their agencies were capable and so I defer to anyone on the committee to speak up if they have any heartburn over this. Bradley White, DHS my issues here are also still addressed especially with the inclusion of continued inclusion of to the extent feasible so I'm still okay with this one. James Jacobs, I just want to echo my former comments and my prior comments on ODSNLIP are both mentioned in the recommendations comments and descriptions so I'm fine with this. To me this approach just makes this it just adds to best practices kind of flavor where it's a recommendation for ODSNLIP to do something but it also highlights the best practice for agencies that we can convey that the that the committee is supporting so I see that that angle I think that's fine in that angle. This is Tom Sussman comment? Yes, please. I think it's especially important that OGIS and OIP be involved here I wouldn't oppose the change but I have been concerned about language to the extent feasible because I think you give me a tough task and say do it to the extent feasible I'm going to find it not feasible if I don't want to do it and so I think there definitely needs to be some outside supervision, accountability assistance, encouragement et cetera on something to maintain this qualification. I think that language was I think that language added in there to give flexibility for unknowns but obviously we're aiming for both OIP just would be to fully embrace this level of posting in machine readable format but with unknowns it's part of this action is going to involve a little bit of study on our part. I'm not seeing anyone else raising their hand so again same question as I've asked with the others. Anyone feel the need to vote on this now in this new form or are we okay to vote on it as part of the final report? Choose your venture one or two. Two. Okay. Final report, fine. This is James Jacob. All right. Thank you, James. Okay. So that takes care of now recommendations one, three and well I'm going to now turn it over to Ryan who wanted to discuss a proposed tweet to recommendation number eight. Hi, good morning, everyone. This is Ryan Law from Treasury and wait for the slides to catch up here. If you could go to the perfect, thank you. So looking at this recommendation which I think is a great one there's a lot of discussion in the narrative about the purposes by which we're recommending this and as it was previously written it only included the goal of encouraging agencies to improve their internal processes. I recommend that we add another really important goal which is to improve and increase public transparency to agency FOIA processes and so I felt the need to bring that up into the actual recommendation. So I wanted to see if anyone had any concerns or questions or comments about that. Same thing, I think it strengthens it and makes it a lot better. I agree. Okay. So just for the record, that was Emily Clayton who said she likes it, right? Okay. Yes. And then who was the second person that spoke? That was me. Bradley. Thank you. And Bobby also likes it. Okay. Jason raised his hands. I supported. Ryan and everyone just to make it cleaner, is there a reason to have the clause into agency FOIA processes because the word processes why not just say to increase public transparency and to encourage agencies to improve their internal processes. This is Ryan. Jason, I agree with that modification. Just so we're all clear, we're going to just keep the phrase to increase public transparency and strike into agency FOIA processes. So it will read to increase public transparency and to encourage agencies to improve their internal processes. Correct? Correct. Ryan, is that good? Yes. Okay. Thanks, Ryan. So, Tom, I would like to turn it over to you. You would like to discuss a tweak to recommendation number 18. Yes, sir. I think this is my right. So, Tom, I would like to turn it over to you. You would like to discuss a tweak to recommendation number 18. Yes, sir. I think this is my recollection is that this is a non-substantive. Not a 18? No. No, that's not me. That's not you? No. Well, no, I thought it was you. You just have like a slight wording change that I don't think is substantive, but we just decided we should just let everyone see it. Yes, but that wasn't the 18. Oh, I'm sorry. That's what you had indicated. Trying to find out where it was, no. Yes. Alina, I actually think this is a substantive change. It's safe. Okay. Tom, stop there. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Yes, I'm sorry. I didn't care for the how agencies have been doing. Okay. How agencies are doing. That just seems like really, really strange to me. How are they doing for a formal recommendation to the advisory committee? I'm not necessarily ready to how successfully they have been, but I do think that I was kind of put off by the initial language. I apologize, Alina. That's okay. I got distracted by the remit and I only had a momentary moment of panoramic. It's all gone. Okay. So, thanks, Tom. Jason, you think this is substantive? Do you want to talk about that? Tom, I don't have an objection, but I think we should all recognize what this change means. The recommendation is for an ongoing priority. So, it's not a one-time thing of a cross-cutting project or priority area. And so, the languages are doing is an active component of this recommendation that's a going forward component. It's not just a one-time assessment of what has been done. I agree, however, that in the usual case, what IG's do is do an audit or some kind of look into what an agency has done. But they also make recommendations for the future. So, I will say that. Jason, how about putting the word R instead of have been so that then makes it learn? For priority area, the issue of how successful agencies are in providing FOIA-accessed agency records. That would be more faithful to the way that it was originally drafted. Again, I don't have an objection to what you're doing, but I hope you'll recognize the point. I take your point of it not being an assessment of the past, but an encouragement of continuing conduct. I think that change that are in the response to your concerns, I hope, it certainly would be fine with me. I just was trying to get away from how agencies are doing. Well, I support your latest amendment. All right, Sean has been raising his hand very patiently. I just had a variation, I think, on what Tom was trying to change and maybe a little bit simpler. If we made it read the issue of agency's performance in providing FOIA-access, I might capture all of this. Well, this is Jason. That also seems like a good word. However, it could be read by some limited, and we do have the word performance in the recommendation inspired by Suzanne's work on performance plans. I wouldn't want that to be a delimiter in what the IG scope is. This is a little bit hard. Sorry. I couldn't hear your comment. I'm sorry, I just asked whether you wanted to withdraw your suggestion or not. Sure, I mean, if it's not seen as helpful, then that's fine. I'm actually fine with Tom's how successful agencies are in providing FOIA-access. I wanted to resolve that. Emily, I'm sorry, go ahead. Yeah, I was thinking, I think there's need for language here around the fact that this success is being measured in some way. So way to do that, but to simplify it, cross-cutting project or priority area, designating as cross-cutting project or priority area, it's really the success of agencies in providing FOIA-access. I mean, all of those words sort of say that, I think. But I don't know how successful it has sort of sounds like you're measuring it a little bit more. But I also think you just say the agency's success in FOIA-access. Can I ask, I believe this is a records management, subcommittee recommendation. Is that correct? Yes, it is. Jason, can I have Jason and Ryan comment on what Emily just said and of course, invite the other subcommittee members to comment as well? Ryan, I'll defer to you. I'm sorry, this is Ryan. I don't feel strongly. I support the edits here and Emily, I'm sorry, I might have missed your point. I think that there's just a discussion about have been referring to past activities and that there needs to be sort of language about current ongoing work and there was just also a discussion about simplifying the language. I'm not sure. I think our providing was the previous suggestion. I think that's fine and I just suggested additional language that would make it even simpler, but I think it might take away from open measuring there. So I would, maybe I think that either are or just saying the issue is cross-cutting project or project area the success, agency success in providing. So I think either of those would be fine. What I recall I'm sorry, James. I was just going to make a quick point. I seem to recall this recommendation was intended to have Stiggy designate this cross-cutting project in order for them to in fact measure how agencies are performing, right? Wasn't that the original intent of this recommendation? Well, the the original intent, this is Jason, was to get this on the radar screen of IG and how they did that you know, was really up to them. I'm not sure I'm seeing the difference, Emily, in the language you're proposing. So I like the language that Tom has proposed and would just suggest that we we stick with that. So are there if this happens? Right. Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. I think so. I agree with that and I just want to note that in the concept of the recommendation it suggests that the review that takes place could take the form of an auditor review of how agencies are planning to meet the goal set out in 1921. So it makes reference to a specific document that should be used as a standard for measuring this. It's making this specific reference to a document and I'm not sure if it really matters too much whether we say they're successful in doing it or just whether they measure how they do it, right? I feel like we're splitting hairs a little bit there. Anyone else want to comment or offer up another language suggestion? Are we all good with successful agencies are in providing clear access? Kevin is nodding. Thank you, Kevin. Sean is nodding, Ryan's nodding. Okay. It seems like we have consensus on that, Kirsten. Are you able to reflect that in the changes that we're making? Yes. Just let me read it, please to make sure that I have it correct. We recommend the chair of CIGI consider designating as a cross cutting project or priority area the issue of how successful agencies are providing FOIA access to agency records in electronic or digital form. Are we leaving the word in before providing or did you drop that? I dropped it, I'm sorry. So how successful agencies are in providing FOIA access to agency records in electronic or digital form? Okay. Yes. All right, so Tom, you're good with that, obviously. Yes. Anyone else want to comment? Does anyone feel like we need to vote on this separately? No, we're going to vote on it. My option, adventure number two, we're going to vote on it as far as the package. Okay. All right, great. Well, thank you for all of that. I want to move on next to Jason, who would like to discuss very briefly not a bridge to the future, but looking to the future. I'm mistakenly called the bridge to the future earlier at the end of the report. He is the proud author of that and he wanted to share with all of you what the thinking is behind putting that as part of the report. Jason, is that a fair characterization? Sure. I try to get up to the page here on my other computer so that I can thankfully say it. We added an ending here in the report. It's a little bit different and what we really haven't discussed it as a committee and so I wanted to point it out. It's under final observations on page 35 of the report itself under the page numbering of the report. What we say in the third and fourth paragraphs is that without intending to bind any member of the next term of this committee, we do have a suggestion and the suggestion is that because this term of the committee proposed 22 recommendations, if you add up the 22 recommendations we've done and the recommendations that Martha's been reporting on to us from the last term and even the first term, it's a lot of recommendations and so it was our thought that members may want to spend a portion of their time essentially measuring or evaluating compliance with prior recommendations rather than solely being passed at the outset to go forth and dream up another 22 recommendations or however many that they might have and so we're simply making a suggestion here as to what sort of opening up the space of what the next committee might proceed to do. I have a personal concern about always about the difference between putting recommendations on paper and actually having compliance with recommendations. That's true with my concern when I was in government about regulations as well in terms of what's in the CFR or even on the statute and how it's complied with at agencies and so it was our thought that this was an appropriate paragraph but I did want to bring it to everyone's attention. Alina, we're not hearing anything. Alina, I think you're muted. I muted myself during Jason's talk. I apologize. I just ask whether anyone has any comments or reactions or thoughts to Jason's presentation. Is everyone good? I just want to thank Jason for putting this in here. I think it's a valuable idea for the next committee to think about. Thanks, Jason. Anyone else? Quiet. I'm going to move on now to Kirsten. We have received a total of three comments. One just came in very time ago and I believe either Kirsten or Jesse will read the fourth set of comments but I'm going to turn now to Kirsten to summarize the few public comments we have received today. They are posted on the committee website so certainly I'm welcome to go look at them but Kirsten, you want to take it over? Sure. I can summarize these from Julie Winstead who is a privacy FOIA Mexico Veterans Affairs Healthcare System. She processes her comments to say that they are based on her observing a lack of training at all levels of her organization. She identifies the need for more training regarding creating, maintaining, accessing and retaining records as well as more training regarding FOIA. So she supports the recommendations and says that they are needed throughout the federal workforce. We also got a comment from Linda Fry senior government information specialist at the Social Security Administration who brings up a point regarding recommendation 12. That's the one about encouraging agencies to release FOIA documents in open legible machine readable and machine actionable formats to the extent feasible. Her comment concerns data integrity. She writes, quote, if this is implemented, how will agencies ensure the data is integrity and that the data will not be falsely represented, data provided in the recommended format can be manipulated. So that was her comment regarding 12, regarding recommendation. Kirsten, let me just pause for a second. I think that might warrant just a little bit of feedback from the committee members. Sure. And I'm going to turn it over to James. Okay, go. Oh, yes. I just wanted to comment on Ms. Fry's comment. And I think it is important to have data integrity, but I wanted to say that things like PKI, public key infrastructure are already used in places like GPO and their GovInfo database to assure data integrity of their reports and documents. And currently most good digital repositories use things like checksums and in fact it's part of the Open Archives, the OAIS standard to restore data integrity along the whole life cycle and management of files including ingest as well as access. And so I just wanted to restore Ms. Fry if she's on the call or if she's going to see this later that I support her comment but I want to restore her that processes are already in place in which to assure data integrity. Thanks, James, I appreciate that. Okay, anyone else want to comment in response to Ms. Fry's comment on flow? I see Michael raising his hand. Michael, Marcy. Yeah, I just want to echo what James said but also say I think from the community this is sort of a reasoning that we've seen has really undermined the usability of documents, right? I think there's confusion in the request to community why not a single federal agency owns a color scanner for example, let alone when you get an Excel spreadsheet and you can't actually check those numbers and that sort of thing. And the reality is that even if people do not provide things in a editable format it's really easy for them to go and forge documents very convincingly no matter how the agency releases it and I think finding better solutions to this very real problem the solution of providing less usable documents is not actually solving that problem but also really hurting the ability to sort of engage with that material in very meaningful ways that increases distrust in government ways. So I do think it's a problem I think it would be a great topic to get into but finding other solutions is really important. Bobby I don't want to put you on the spot but I know this is something that you're a little more of an expert in than even I am and I know you've posted some machine readable documents on the LIP website. Do you have any thoughts about the ability to protect the integrity of the documents? Yeah, no I agree with all that and I think the rationale and the recommendation also illustrates there's multiple ways of having information be in open and machine readable formats and so it might just be that some documents are in certain formats than others where they can still be open but there's still that confidence that there's some protection over the integrity of the data. For example, just as opposed to the scanned document making sure that the document is at least in an open and machine readable format way. So, yeah. Okay, thanks. I appreciate that. Okay, anyone else want to comment on 12 or should we let Kirsten keep going? I'm not seeing anyone raising their hand. Kirsten, please carry on. Thank you. So this comment is also from Linda Fry of the Social Security Administration. It's regarding recommendation 20 that Congress ensure agencies receive and commit sufficient resources to meet their obligations under FOIA. She notes that the majority of committee's recommendations depend on this recommendation being implemented. Okay, and then we have one other written comment submitted from a Dr. Paul Moss Rissenhoover from the Requestor Community. A number of his comments do not relate to the work of the FOIA advisory committee, so I won't read those. But the ones that do relate include that FOIA processors who are contractors, he thinks, should not be able to respond to FOIA requests by saying they are overbroad and or not properly formulated. He also thinks the National Archives should ensure that FOIA requests do not require physical submission of an affidavit of identity claiming American citizenship, but may instead use an email option under 28 USP1746 to attest to the requestor's identity. Finally, he thinks that FOIA requests should not be denied without at least one search by a subject matter expert. So those are all the written comments that we received. Any reaction to last set of comments? Bobby, not to again call on you, but I'm just wondering, has there been any exploration from the DOJ side about accepting something less than the privacy identity waiver currently in use by most agencies? Is that something that's been explored? Have you discussed this before? Yeah, I think that will just really go back to what is in the agency's regs as far as what's acceptable. A lot of the agency regs have more flexibility where different forms of certifying identity is acceptable, but the agencies bound by their regs, unless they change their regs, it would be first looking to as far as how to accept certification of identity. Yep. Yeah, just to kind of follow on with Dr. Risenuver's point about sort of contractors, I think the broader concern, there is a fair amount of concern within the requestor community, that A, we have this wonderful group of sort of trained professionals within government who have been doing this for a long time, bringing in private contractors. A, they're not very transparent themselves in a lot of cases. They just don't have enough information that they try to sort of figure out how to deny requests because that's cheaper and sort of are putting profits over transparency. And I think that's something we didn't take into much here, but I think it's something that's worth flagging for future discussion, whether within this community or within the broader FOIA landscape. I appreciate that. All right, anyone else have any reaction, comments? Emily, we got you raising your hand or no? No, okay. All right, I'm looking around. Everyone looks like that. Just to add to that before you that when agencies are using contractors and when they do use them, which can be a very useful resource, those contractors should be supervised by FOIA professionals, FOIA officials in the office. They should not differ from if someone else in the agency is making them. And reasonable searches should be conducted and so on. And so it shouldn't bear on the type of resource the agency is using, even in the sense when they're using contractors, those contractors can independently make decisions or should be supervised by actual FOIA professionals in the office. Bobby. I'm talking about contractors. I just wanted to chime in briefly and point out, I think Bobby's right that obviously if you're using FOIA contractors to process FOIAs, that's one thing, but the commenter may have also been talking about agencies using private contractors simply to do some agency program work and thereby be a manager, the contractor be a manager of records and it has a difficult area at times when activities are contracted out that they normally have been done by agency personnel. There might be a lot of records as to decisions being made such and FOIA requester community often are looking for those things and when you use a contractor, it can become a bone of contention whether or not those records are now accessible or not through FOIA and so it might have been also that not necessarily contractors processing FOIAs but contractors who are holders of records, which I think is another area that future terms might look into and see if there's recommendations and best practices worth putting forward. Thanks, John. I wouldn't take it at that angle. So thanks. Although we do have an amendment that was passed that contractor generated records are now subject to the FOIA so is that sufficient or do we need something else? I think that's the question if it's sufficient. I don't know how well it's been implemented or how much the boundaries have been tested since that really went into place and I do know for POGO in particular an area that's been of great interest has been private prisons. You know, that's both for immigration purposes but also for regular privately controlled prisons and the access to records there. So I don't know how much that's been explored through actual FOIA cases. Any other comments on the public comments we've received so far? Kirsten, that's it for you, right? Yes, that is it for me. So I'm going to ask Jesse to please let us know if there are any questions or comments on the chat and we have also received a message from Alex Howard who was having trouble accessing our meeting. Hopefully maybe that's something that our folks are working on but Jesse you were going to read out his comments on the chat function. Okay. So first we'll do Alex's comment and he says, my name is Alex B. Howard, director of the Digital Democracy Project at Demand Progress Education Fund a nonprofit focused on open government among other issues. I've made many public comments at the FOIA advisory committee meetings in the past. I write today about three recommendations that are in the final draft that should be. Number one, the White House office of management and budget removed a cross agency priority goal for the freedom of information act across the U.S. government. The council should recommend that OMB restore this cap goal. The second one, the Department of Justice took public comment on a release to one release to all FOIA policy then buried it. The council should recommend that OIP and the third, the U.S. Capitol Police are not subject to FOIA nor are other legislative support agencies or the court. The council should recommend that Congress enact some mechanism by which the public can exercise its right to know across all branches of the U.S. government. As always, thank you for your attention and service. Best, Alex. Apologies Mr. Howard. Does anyone want to respond to Alex's comment? In response to the first comment regarding the cap goal, I think we do capture that in essence with recommendation number 16 for the chief forecaster council to look into cross agency collaborations and a potential grant program that kind of goes in line with what we would be doing with the cap goal. And this is Sean. And I also think that to some extent the recommendation 18 that we just discussed with Tom's changes about SIGI, the council of inspectors general, getting involved in a cross cutting priority area also gets to the same tenor and goal there. But I did also want to talk about his third point which was about Capitol Police and we had a discussion our last in person public meeting around applying for it in some form to the other branches of government. There is a mention in the report towards the very end saying that we encourage future term to wrestle with this or to consider wrestling with it and see if there's recommendations that could be gotten to. This term just didn't have enough time once the issue really had been raised to explore it fully. So I appreciate and I agree that I think there are recommendations we can make here but I also approved the committee who decided that he didn't have the time to commit to fully explore it. So I do think it's mentioned in the report. That was also my reaction on number three. I think it's something we could carry over to the next term. So we're not going to bury it. We would definitely have it at the point of discussion for the first term. And I know we addressed in the past and the director of OIP has made comments in the past about the release to one to all. I believe the status that DOJ has not changed. With regard to that, I think it's still being considered. And is there any reaction from anyone about whether we should recommend that OIP implement that change? Jacob, straining his hand. Thank you. Yeah. Hi, this is James Jacob at Stanford University. I was just wondering since several of our recommendations allude to the issues that Mr. Howard raises if it wouldn't be feasible to at least bring those issues that he is concerned about more to the four in the commenting section of our recommendation. So just so I'm clear James, I think what you're suggesting is to the extent that his comment number one with regard to the capital, we incorporate that more explicitly in the comment section of recommendation 18 and the CIGI recommendation. Is that what you're suggesting? Yes. Yes. And then also for three we could certainly the working group can do this as a drafting change or just an amendment to add to the discussion on vision recommendation 3C, right John? Which is now sort of lost track. I don't think it's the recommendation anymore since we took it off the table, but in that narrative we could add the explicit recommendation that I'll bring forward about the US capital please being subject to play out. That's what you're suggesting James. So I'm clear. Yeah. Sean, is that something that's doable? I certainly think we could acknowledge that some of this takes place certainly capital police could be added to the section where we talk about future final observations. My only concern is I'm not sure if we can if we want to take the time to try and do that right now and have it read out to the committee since we're trying to vote on the final version or if there could be a process where small tweaks like that could be done after this public meeting. I just don't know to the extent of that. In terms of the crosscutting I mean I'm not sure for his crosscutting goal the cap goal, I'm not sure I would feel comfortable to the cap goal just kind of jamming that in there. I personally think the recommendations get to it without going in that direction. I don't want to confuse Ziggy with something about a cap goal when we've got kind of a laid out recommendation for them. I would say that that one stands alone for the final observations to say something specific about capital police or something I think would be a small change. So I don't know about this at all. Thanks John for that clarification. Yeah, perhaps it could be something in a wrap up blog post on the Umbud blog or something that had effect that we could respond to the public comment not just Mr. Howard's but Ms. Fry's and Ms. Winston's public comments as a way to assure people who give comments that we've considered them and worked on them. I agree though Sean maybe it's too much to do some word smithing right now. Yeah. I think that's probably true. I agree with both Sean and James. Also wondering the public comments will be there on the website so they're certainly accessible to everyone. They speak for themselves. We will also post comments on there as well. One option is that we could add them as appendix to the final report. Kirsten and I were just channeling the same thoughts. If that's something that folks are interested in, we can kind of get some verbal cues, nods if that sounds okay. If everyone seems okay with that that might be the best way to go. That way it's all together in place once that's happening. Why wouldn't we just refer people to online report comments and I don't know if it seems to me that an appendix to the final report elevates them to a position where we have people who didn't write in but had some very strong thoughts. It just seems to me that that provides more of a stature than the committee's consideration comments reflects with no disrespect to the commenters. No, that's a good point. I think again as I said the comments already posted we will also add Mr. Howard from there as well so they speak for themselves. Everyone is equally comfortable just leaving it as a reference. Suzanne is raising her hand. Yes, Suzanne. Hi, this is Suzanne. I see Tom's point but I think the issue is trying to make sure we get the comment to the next committee and that doesn't necessarily have to be a formal appendix to this report but the next committee reads our report. They also can get the comment and then they'll have some more time to process them and possibly act on them. This is Jason. I support that Suzanne's last comment but one could supply a reply on the to affirmatively say that we will in the fourth term of the committee will consider public comments received on the last report. It's not that the comments are just received with silence but there's some commitment to your bringing it up Alina or someone at the next public meeting. I don't think that we should be incorporating my personal view is that the comments stand by themselves and I do see them as something that goes beyond editorial changes that we would need to have a further discussion on. I think it's best to have it right over to the next term. How do folks feel about that? The idea of an appendix is off the table. We're just going to reference on our website the fact that these will be passed over to the fourth term of the committee. By default, Bobby and Alina need to make sure that we're passing those along based on the charter. I still like the idea of adding those comments as an appendix so that the next committee group will have both our final report on the comments all in one place and they won't have to remember to go to the OJIS website to see those public comments. Jason, let me ask Alina is the public comment period closed? No. Not necessarily. We can certainly continue to receive comments through the time that we finalize the report which we expect to do at the end of the month. It's not technically closed I suppose. Kirsten, what do you think about that? Sure. I think we should be open to receiving more. That said, we did have a cutoff for receiving comments before today's meeting. But certainly if others were to make comments, I don't think we'd turn them away at this point. Right. This is Tom Sussman again. Let's go to what we are going to be doing in the future. I would suspect that shortly after the Markovist announces a new committee which is already announced is going to a point that it would be quite useful to open at that point a public input on what the committee ought to be doing before the first meeting because I have been in a couple of these where the first meeting is spent on brainstorming. We might be way ahead of the game if we have a comment period in advance and with fewer people to the website than the reports and comments made previously. So that's another idea. May I take that under advisement? I think the general consensus is we're going to not include them in an appendix despite James Jacobs' plea to the contrary. We're going to reference on our website, which is one that we will continue to accept comments through the time that we finalize the report and publish it and we are acknowledging and thank the commenters for their comments that they've offered up through today. Does that sound like everyone? Okay. All right. Jesse, back to you. Any other chat comments or questions that you've seen? Alina, no. There are no additional chat comments. Okay. Thank you so much, Jesse. I appreciate it. Okay. So over to our event producer. I'd like to ask if you could open up the phone lines now to see if we have any comments via telephone. And if you could please remind our participants or attendees, rather, instructions for chiming in. That would be great. Q and A, please press pound two on your telephone keypad to enter the question queue. You'll hear notification when your line is unmuted. At that time, please state your name and question. Once again, dial pound two to ask a question or leave a comment over the phone. First caller, your line is unmuted. Hello, this is Alex Howard. Glad I was able to attend the meeting. I hope that if the virtual conditions are able to put a live stream that does not require a registration link for the public to attend this public meeting, I understand that there are significant technical constraints that exist right now, but choosing a platform that doesn't require registration from a private company would be great. I sent in three comments on the draft to the email address provided. I sent in three comments that were filed in the docket. They're not new ones, but I did not see them in the draft specifically recommending that OMB put back a cap goal that's cross-agency party goal for FOIA that offers information policy if you release the release to one, release to all policy. I've been asking the committee about for years. And finally, I'd recommend to request information from legislative and judicial branch in particular given what we're seeing across the country having the U.S. Capitol Police not be transparent, accountable through something like FOIA seems to me to be a significant oversight that should be rectified. Thank you very much for taking the steps you have to create this public meeting, the robust discussions you have and the recommendations in general, which is implemented, would do much to improve the state of FOIA. Okay. I will thank you very much for your comments. I don't know whether you were able to hear the committee's deliberations about your comments and the rest of the public comments were received. The committee has agreed to continue to retain the public comments on our website and we will incorporate them into a discussion for the next term of the committee to see whether they can be addressed by the fourth term. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have anyone else on the line? Any other callers? One more time, ladies and gentlemen, please dial pound two to ask a question or give a comment. There is no one else on the line. All right. Well, that concludes our public comment section of this process and I am eager to move on to the vote on the final report unless someone is going to tell me they have something else that they want to raise with the committee members. Moving forward. No from Bradley, thank you. No from Sean. Okay. So, as a package with the language tweaks that we discussed today and that at times were read out loud by either me or Kirsten, I would like to take a vote on the final report. I do want to promise that the working group, I'm going to make them read this one more time. They didn't know that I was going to ask that, but I will. Jason, I think I've already read some comments, but our goal is to make sure all the commas are in the right place, all the grammatical errors are fixed, that there's only one space between each sentence as opposed to two spaces. So we're going to try to clean that up as much as possible. We will not obviously mess with anything substantive, but it would look fabulous once we're done. So with that in mind, may I ask for a final vote on the draft final report that we have in front of us today? Do I have a motion? So moved. Thank you, Tom. Do I have a second? Second. Second. Thank you. All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Okay. I heard a bunch of ayes. All those not in favor, please say nay. Hearing any nays. Any abstentions? This is Bobby. I am abstaining, but I am looking forward to working on all these recommendations. But just to be consistent, I am abstaining. Okay. And this is Alina Simo for consistency as well. I'm just abstaining on those recommendations that involve just in particular, which is really just about all of them, right? No. Several of them, but I am in favor as well. And Bobby and I are excited to be able to work together collaboratively to move all these forward. So we've all done a great job. So with that, I believe we have unanimous approval. Kirsten? Do you want to read out the role deed? Yes. So the final report and recommendations of the advisory committee passes unanimously with two abstentions. Bobby and Alina. Okay. All right. Any other thoughts or comments that anyone wants to make before we start wrapping things up? So, again, I just want to thank all of you for the amazing work you've done, not just today, but for the duration of the two-year term. I am truly, truly grateful for all the hard work, thoughtfulness and dedication I have seen throughout this whole process. Both at the subcommittee and the committee level. So thank you, thank you, thank you. Again, I want to invite all of those out there watching to go to Otis' website and our social media websites for more information about activities and how you can participate or comment. And if there are no other comments from the members, I want to thank you again for joining us today. I wish everyone family health and safety and hope that everyone and their families remain safe, healthy and resilient. And we will reconvene the fourth term of the committee this fall. So, any questions or concerns? Yeah, I'm seeing claps. I think we should clap for ourselves. All right. Well, not hearing anything else and seeing lots of claps. Thank you again, everyone. The advisory committee stands adjourned. Thank you all. Have a great afternoon. We have about an hour and 20 minutes. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. It was great working with you. Thank you very much. It was great working with you. Thanks, everyone. Thank you. Thank you for using AT&T Event Conferencing Enhanced.