►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
With
the
roll
call,
if
you
like
sure,
all
right,
wonderful
I,
thank
you
all
so
much
for
attending
the
second
meeting
of
the
ad
hoc
committee
to
discuss
the
project
disclosure
of
agency
legal
materials.
If
this
is
your
first
time
or
you
haven't
popped
in
before
my
name
is
Alexandra
sibo,
it
has
been
truly
my
pleasure
and
honor
to
be
staff
counsel
for
this
project
since
November
of
2022
and
at
this
time,
I'm
just
going
to
briefly
turn
it
over
to
acres,
chair,
Andy,
Feist,
to
say
hello
to
everyone.
B
Thank
you
very
much.
Alexandra
and
I
just
want
to
add
my
welcome
to
everyone
to
this
very
important
working
group
today
and
welcome
literally
to
people
who
are
zooming
in
from
around
the
country
and
and
around
the
world.
B
Thank
you
for
your
attendance,
your
participation
last
time
and
anticipated
this
time
and
I
very
much
look
forward
to
the
progress
we
we
make
today
under
the
wonderful
leadership
of
our
co-chairs,
of
whom
I
thank
as
well.
So
thanks
very
much
back
to
you.
Alexandra.
A
Thank
you
so
much
Andy.
We
really
appreciate
it
and,
as
we
did
last
time,
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
proceed
with
roll
call
for
the
members
of
the
ad
hoc
committee
after
I'm
done
with
roll
call,
I'll
introduce
our
project
consultants
and
as
we've
we've
done
before,
we
happily
happily
ask
you
to
unmute
yourself.
When
you
hear
your
name
called
please.
Let
us
know
that
you're
here,
so
we
can
be
sure
that
your
microphone
is
working
if
possible.
A
A
Thank
you
Aaron
and
Roxanne
Rothschild
I'm
here
excellent.
Thank
you.
Both
next
up
I
have
John
Allred.
D
E
F
A
A
Morning,
thanks
Kate
Miriam,
Vincent
Miriam,
we
know
you're
here
Miriam
is
having
some
Voice
issues,
so
thank
you.
So
much
and
she's
gonna
pass
along
some
comments
from
Nara
when
we
get
to
that
point
all
right
is
there
any
member
of
the
ad
hoc
committee
present
at
this
time
who
did
not
hear
their
name
called.
A
You
so
much
Noel,
and
is
there
any
other?
Is
there
any
any
member
of
the
ad
hoc
committee
at
this
time?
Who
did
not
hear
their
name
called?
This
is
Sheila
portunova
from
ogis,
so
much
Sheila,
all
right,
great.
K
This
is,
this
is
Toby
Dorsey
from
the
Executive
Office
of
the
President
office
of
administration.
A
L
D
M
Thank
you
Alexandra.
As
I
said,
my
name
is
Roxanne
Rothschild
I'm,
the
co-chair
for
this
project.
Aaron
Nielsen,
is
the
other
co-chair.
Aaron
very
kindly
took
the
lead
at
the
last
meeting,
so
I'll
be
taking
the
lead
to
this
meeting.
Can
you
hear
me?
Okay,
okay,
great
so
I'm
just
going
to
run
through
the
script,
to
remind
everyone
of
sort
of
the
ground
rules
for
how
the
meeting
Works
so
I'll
be
reading
through
this?
M
For
you
please
note
that
only
acus
members,
including
government
members,
public
members,
senior
fellows
liaison
representatives
and
special
counsels,
whether
or
not
on
the
committee
and
their
designated
alternate
Alternatives,
have
full
speaking
privileges.
To
avoid
background
noise,
though
I'd
ask
that
you
keep
your
microphone
on
mute
and
either
use
zoom's
hand
raised
feature
or
add
a
comment
in
the
chat.
If
you
would
like
to
speak
personally,
I
prefer
the
hand
raised
feature
because
it's
easier
for
me
to
see.
So,
if
you
can
do
that,
that'd
be
great,
otherwise
put
it
in
chat.
M
I'll
also
ask
that
acus
members
and
their
designated
alternates
use
the
webcam
when
they're
talking,
because
that
facilitates
conversation
with
respect
to
attendees
other
than
the
acus
members
and
alternates
participation
requires
the
unanimous
consent
of
the
committee
members
time
permitting.
We
will
consider
calling
on
such
attendees
at
appropriate
points
and
will
presume
that
committee
members
consent
absent
their
raising
an
objection.
If
any
participant
would
like
to
speak.
Please
do
so
by
indicating
in
the
chat,
feature
or
using
the
hand,
raise
function
to
wait
and
wait
to
speak
until
I
call
on
you.
M
You
can
then
unmute
yourself
and
then
remute
yourself
for
all
participants.
Please
use
the
chat
feature
only
to
indicate
whether
you'd
like
to
speak
or
for
committee
members
and
their
alternates,
or
to
vote
when
asked.
Please
do
not
hold
any
sidebar
discussions
or
put
substantive
comments
in
the
chat
feature.
M
Only
members
of
the
ad
hoc
committee,
including
government
members,
in
their
designated
alternates
public
members,
senior
fellows
liaison
representatives
and
special
counsels,
are
allowed
to
vote.
Please
do
not
vote
unless
you're
a
member
of
the
committee.
We
have
a
list
of
committee
members
in
case
you're
unsure
all
right.
That's
it
for
the
introduction.
M
Okay,
well
to
get
things
started
here
this
at
today's
meeting,
we're
going
to
be
walking
through
the
draft
recommendations,
but
before
we
get
to
that,
we
would
like
to
just
to
go
over
two
or
three
issues
that
were
pinned
for
further
discussion.
M
We
had
three
issues
that
were
raised
at
the
last
meeting
that
we
wanted
to
think
a
bit
more
about.
One
is
whether
or
not
the
recommendations
should
cover
the
issues
of
of
communications
from
the
president.
Others
issue
related
to
issues
having
to
do
with
olc,
and
the
third
was
General
Counsel
opinions
for
for
agencies.
One
thought
here
was
whether
or
not
we
should
have
a
straw
poll
to
get
a
sense
from
everyone
as
to
whether
or
not
we
should
keep
these
Provisions
in
or
perhaps
just
jettison
them
right
from
the
get-go.
M
So
how
do
you
feel
about
doing
a
straw
poll
at
this
point?.
M
Okay,
see
a
thumbs
up,
so
I
will
take
that
one
at
a
time
so,
rather
than
everybody
voting
on
all
three
of
them
at
once.
So
with
regard
to
the
provisions
in
the
recommendations
that
relate
to
disclosure
of
legal
materials
from
the
president's
office,
please
vote
if
you
would
prefer
that
that
stay
in
and
so
raise
your
hand
if
you
prefer
that
to
stay
in
the
recommendations.
N
M
A
O
A
Have
we
have
a
very,
very
clear
vote
difference
for
those
questions?
Okay,.
M
So
you
can
all
lower
your
hands,
so
the
next
straw
poll
vote
would
be
for
the
office
of
legal
counselor
or
olc.
Please
raise
your
hand
if
you
would
like
to
see
that
those
Provisions
stay
in
the
recommendations.
M
Okay,
so
that's
I'm,
counting
three
now,
if
folks
would
like
to
rate
take
if
you'd
like
to
lower
your
hands,
so
we
don't
have
a
miscount.
M
I
M
Okay,
I
think
that's
everyone
who's
voting,
so
you
can
lower
your
hands
now
assume
you
got
that
Alexandra
I
should
have
asked
before
I.
Yes,
thank
you,
I
appreciate
it.
Okay,
then
the
last
one
is
whether
or
not
GC
memo
or
opinions,
and
that
would
be
gc's
for
individual
agencies,
their
opinion,
legal
materials,
whether
those
we
should
take
those
Provisions
out
of
the
recommendations
at
this
point,
so
anyone
who's
in
favor
of
keeping
them
in
please
raise
your
hand.
M
Okay
and
then
anyone
who's
in
favor
of
I'll,
let
everybody
lower
their
hands.
Anyone
who's
in
favor
of
taking
the
GC
opinion
Provisions
out
of
the
recommendations.
At
this
point.
M
Okay,
so
it
looks
like,
though,
that
the
GC
Provisions
are
going
to
stay
in
doesn't
mean
we
won't
discuss
that
in
detail
and
how
Etc,
but
just
thank
you,
everyone
for
participating
in
just
a
quick
straw
poll,
because
it
may
save
some
time
here.
M
Okay,
with
regard
to
the
recommendations,
Alexander
I,
assume,
we've
you've
got
a
version
of
the
recommendations
that
has
oh
Alan
I'm.
Sorry,
you
had
your
hand
raised.
Did
you
want
to
speak.
N
Yes,
I
did
thanks
very
much.
I,
probably
I
might
have
spoken
before.
I
have
a
general
comment
about
the
rec.
That
applies
to
several
of
the
recommendations,
and
that
is
I
didn't
notice
that
the
word
indexing
is
in
the
recommendations.
It's
part
of
of
A2
and
it's
a
very
important
function,
particular
with
regard
to
what
the
courts
can
require
to
be
done.
N
But
it's
also
important
if
these,
if
these
legal
materials
are
going
to
be
accessible
in
any
meaningful
sense
of
the
word,
and
to
the
extent
that
we
have
OG,
General,
counsel's
opinions
or
for
that
matter,
olc
opinions
that
are
not
public
but
are
because
they're
withheld.
For
some
reason,
the
indexing
of
them
are
particularly
important.
M
A
I
am
hopefully
going
to
be
sharing
that
right
now
and
please,
let
me
know
if
you
can
see
it.
M
Okay,
get
bigger
on
my
screen
here,
okay,
so
in
some
acus
projects
in
the
past
we
have
spent
some
time
walking
through
the
Preamble
section
of
the
recommendations,
but
given
that
we
spent
the
entire
last
meeting
talking
about
this
subject
in
general
and
people's
thoughts
in
general,
if
it's
okay,
I
think
we
will
skip
straight
to
the
actual
recommendations
here.
M
Alan
did
you
have
your
hand
up
again
or
okay,
all
right.
So
if
that's
okay
with
everyone,
we
can
go
straight
to
the
language
of
the
recommendations.
Then
we
have
a
comment
on
that.
M
Okay,
so
so
what
what
the
fine
folks
at
acus
have
done
for
us
is.
They
have
taken
the
recommendations
that
were
in
the
report
itself
and
Rewritten
them
ever
so
slightly
into
more
aqueous
language
and
put
them
together
as
a
as
a
recommendation
for
us
for
the
discussion
today
and
so
we'll
walk
through
this,
and
you
can
make
recommendations
as
to
anything
that
you
think
should
be
different
with
the
language
or
anything
that
concerns
you.
M
You
want
to
discuss
so
we'll
start
with
the
beginning,
the
proactive
disclosure
of
agency,
legal
materials
and
number
one
that
Congress
should
amend.
Does
anyone
have
a
comment
on
this
number?
One
provision.
L
Thank
you,
I
do
have
a
question
about
this.
So
of
the
text
requires
that
the
evidentry
hearing
be
legally
required
and
I'm
not
sure
what
legally
required
means,
as
it
means
legally
required
by
Statute,
so
that
it
removing
the
APA
formal
rulemaking
requirement,
or
does
it
mean
it
does
legally
require
both
include
statute
regulation
or
some
other
agency
policy.
L
So
exactly
how
broad
is
the
term
legally
required
and
then
just
maybe
just
so,
I
could
I'll
just
say
kind
of
what
my
overall
perspective
on
this
is,
which
is
that
we
as
consultants
try
to
avoid
reducing
the
amount
of
stuff
that
and
legal
materials
that
had
to
be
proactively
disclosed,
and
my
concern
is
actually
that
this
actually
Cuts
back
on
the
amount
of
material
that
has
to
be
proactive
with
disclosed.
Thank
you.
L
Well,
I
I
was
assuming
that
the
intent
is
different
from
the
report
of
our
report
recommended
that
every
opinion
in
order
be
released,
whether
presidential
or
not,
and
whether
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
I
mentioned
evidentiary.
Hearing
I,
certainly
didn't
mention
legally
required.
So
my
senses
from
the
comments
and
the
drafting
that
this
was
meant
to
cut
back
on
the
Consultants
recommendation.
With
regard
to
the
breadth
of
this
proactive
disclosure
requirement,
at
least
that's
how
I
read
it,
I
may
be
misreading
it.
P
Roxanne
I'm
happy
to
jump
in
and
explain
at
least
why
it's
drafted
as
it
is,
as
you
can
see,
Alexandra
has
expanded
the
comment
from
our
friends
at
EPA
yeah.
As
as
Bernie
mentioned
in
the
report.
It's
it's
it's
broadly
written
to
apply
to
final
opinions
and
orders.
A
concern
was
raised
that
it
should
be
narrowed
to
apply
solely
to
orders
the
judicatory
matters
which
are
subject
to
the
formal
adjudication
provisions
of
the
APA.
P
We
drafted
this
a
little
broader
to
align
with
previous
aikis
recommendations
that
speak
more
in
terms
of
legally
required
evidentiary
hearings,
as
opposed
to
Simply
formal
adjudications
under
the
EPA,
but
this
draft
is
meant
to
reflect
that
comment,
not
to
put
a
thumb
on
the
scale,
but
just
to
tee
up
language
for
discussion
by
the
committee.
M
Okay,
Professor
Bell
did
you
have
any
anything
more?
You
want
to
say
about
that.
L
I
I
think
I'm
fine
I'll
leave
it
to
the
committee
to
I
just
wanted
to
raise
this.
Okay,
like
this
for
the
committee.
M
All
right
thanks,
Alan
Morrison.
N
Yes,
thank
you.
I
I
want
to
focus
first,
the
word
regulated
I'm,
not
sure
is
the
right.
Word
I
think
it's
probably
governed,
but
that's
a
small
matter.
The
the
I
I
take
it.
What
you're
trying
to
deal
with
here
is
the
fact
that
the
word
order
in
the
APA
is
extraordinarily
Broad
and
everything
an
agency
does,
including
issuing
a
permit
or
approving
a
grant,
is
in,
is
an
order,
and
what
this
is
trying
to
do
is
to
say
which
categories
and
I
think
what
you're
trying
to
get
at
is.
N
The
categories
are
social
security
and
prototype
categories
or
Social
Security
and
immigration
decisions
which
are
evidentiary
here.
Evidential
hearings
are
required,
but
they're,
not
554,
hearings
and,
and
if
that's
right
then,
then
this
I'm
not
quite
sure
that
it
legally
requires
I.
N
Think
it's
required
issued
after
an
opera
I
think
it
should
be
issued
after
an
opportunity
for
an
evidential
hearing,
because
you
don't
want
to
say
that
there
has
to
be
an
evidential
hearing
because
they
might
be,
but
there
might
not
be
one
there
might
be
judgments
on
the
pleadings
or
whatever
else
it
is,
but
there's
still
an
order
and
and
I
don't
have
the
all
the
exact
words.
But
that's
I
think
that's
what
you're
trying
to
get
at.
If
that's
what
you're
trying
to
get
at
then
I'm.
N
P
N
Type
also
in
the
next
sentence,
I,
don't
know
that
the
right
word
is
disclosed.
Maybe
you
want
to
say
post
or
make
available
to
consistent
with
the
with
the
overall
heading
of
number.
One
because
disclose
is
it
sounds
like
a
if
you
make
a
request,
they
got
to
give
it
to
you
and
I
think
that
we
want
I,
don't
want
to
get
it
tied
up
in
a
lot
of
other
words
and
right
other
than
that
I'm
I'm.
Okay,
with
that
on
on
number
one
1A
excuse
me.
Thank
you
hand.
M
Okay,
next
bill
funk.
E
Yeah
I
I'm
I
have
to
apologize
for
not
having
been
at
the
last
session
that
I
couldn't
make,
but
I
I
I'm
a
little
I'm
concerned
about
the
idea
that
every
Social
Security
Disability
decision
is
going
to
be
have
to
be
proactively
disclosed
I,
see
Alan
shaking
said
no
I
mean
the
question
is,
and
every
immigration
I
mean
I.
E
Don't
don't
qualify
for
that
and
I
I,
so
I
see
I
I
just
don't
understand
why
we
want
non-presidential
decisions
to
be
to
be
proactively
disclosed,
and
maybe
somebody
could
help
I
see
your
hand
up
so
help
me
out
section.
N
Section
two
answers
the
question:
that's
the
exception
for
all
the
ones
that
bill
doesn't
think
should
be,
and
maybe
maybe
we
need
to
make
it
a
little
more
prominent.
But
but
that's
I
think
the
answer.
M
Okay,
next
Carrie
I'm,
going
in
the
order
and
they're
popping
up
for
me
so
I
apologize
if
this
is
out
of
order,
so
Carrie's
taken
his
hand
down,
as
has
Margaret
I
presume,
that's
because
Alan
Morrison
stated
what
they
were
planning
to
say.
Carrie
did
do
you
want
to
jump
in.
D
I
I
took
my
hand
down
because
I
thought
you
had
called
on
me,
so
no
I
I
did
want
to
flag
that
it's
the
same
point
that
Alan
raised,
certainly
for
for
Bill's
objection,
but
I
also
wanted
to
highlight
something
that
I
think
didn't
in
Alan's
comments
that
did
not
get
reflected
in
the
edits
to
1A,
which
was
that
it
was
be
issued
not
issued
after
an
evidentiary
hearing
but
I
think
I,
heard
Alan
say
issued
after
an
opportunity
for
an
Ever
evidentiary
hearing,
but
but
as
to
to
Bill's
point
that
this
could
sweep
in
far
too
many
orders
that
are
not
really
relevant
to
the
public.
M
Okay,
thank
you.
Next
Allison
zeev.
F
I
just
wanted
to
respond
to
Bill
briefly,
because
we
litigated
this
issue
in
New,
York,
Legal,
Assistance
group
versus
Board
of
immigration,
Appeals
in
the
southern
district
of
New
York
and
the
DC
circuit,
and
the
reason
it's
important
to
make
all
the
immigration
decisions
public,
even
when
they're
designated
as
not
presidential
or
unpublished,
is
because
the
agency
and
the
courts
still
have
access
to
them
and
still
rely
on
them
and
cite
them.
F
So
it
turns
out
that
everyone
has
access
to
them,
except
the
immigrants
which
is
now
going
to
change
as
a
result
of
our
Victory
and
settlement.
In
that
case,.
M
Right,
thank
you.
Margaret
quokka,
yeah.
J
I,
just
on
top
of
what
Allison
just
said
which
I
agree
with
and
which
we
explore
in
the
report,
I
just
wanted
to
emphasize
the
findings
of
the
Consultants
that
in
our
research,
We,
Came
Upon,
many
examples
where
the
full
Corpus
of
agency
decisions
made
in
adjudications
were
useful
to
the
public
and
understanding
Trends
and
agency
positions
that
are,
you
know
repeatedly
taken,
but
not
necessarily
part
of
an
official
policy.
J
That's
been
published
or
disclosed,
and
so
we
found
many
examples
where
there
was
really
no
substitute
for
seeing
the
full
Corpus
of
decisions
and
many
agencies
that
do
in
fact
disclose
the
full
Corpus
of
decisions
that
they
engage
and-
and
we
did
in
fact,
as
Carrie
pointed
out,
create
what's
now
labeled.
As
you
know,
paragraph
number
two
as
this
sort
of
alternative
compliance
mechanism.
J
Precisely
for
the
situation,
you
know
what
we
think
of
as
probably
a
narrow
situation,
where
those
would
not
be
useful
to
to
the
public
that
an
agency
could
come
up
with
an
alternative
way
to
comply
with
the
requirement.
M
Thank
you.
Next,
rape,
healer.
Q
Hi
thanks
so
on
number
one
before
you
get
to
the
subparts,
it
strikes
me
the
way
this
is
written.
One
could
argue
whether
it's
subject
to
the
other
exclusions
and
exemptions
that
exist
under
foia,
and
so
that
would
be
a
real
issue
if
there
was
a
requirement
for
us
to
publish
things
that
were
otherwise
subject
to
a
foia
exemption,
so
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
include
that
language,
assuming
that
that
was
not
the
intent
of
this
recommendation.
M
Thank
you.
Do
any
of
the
Consultants
want
to
comment
on
that.
M
D
That
that's
it's
a
great
point.
I
mean
the
report
is
very
clear
that
all
of
the
recommendations
that
we're
making
are
not
intended
to
expand
or
change
in
any
way
any
of
the
exemptions
that
are
currently
apply
to
foia.
So
that's
a
it's
a
it's
a
good
point.
It
applies
certainly
to
this
one
recommendation:
language
in
1A,
but
perhaps
you
want
to
you
know,
put
a
put
a
a
preferatory
recommendation
in
you
know,
subject
to
you
know
all
of
foia's
exemptions.
D
You
know
the
following
recommendations
for
congress
would
apply
or
something
like
that.
I
think
it's.
O
R
M
I
think
that's
a
very
good
point
and
you're
right.
The
report
makes
it
very
clear
that
the
intent
is
that
the
foia
exemptions
don't
go
away
and
would
always
be
considered,
but
to
the
extent
that
the
recommendations
are
to
be
a
standalone
document.
M
I
think
your
suggestion
that
putting
some
sort
of
Preparatory
statement
right
up
front
would
be
a
good
idea.
Does
anyone
have
any
language
to
suggest
before
we
get
to
that
I'm
going
to
call
on
Bill
funk.
E
I,
don't
have
an
answer
to
that
question.
I.
First
of
all,
I
want
to
thank
the
people
for
answering
my
original
question
now
considering
foa
exemptions.
It
would
appear
to
me
at
least
in
a
lot
of
Social
Security,
disability
and
immigration
cases.
There
might
be
personally
identifiable
private
information
that
would
be
in
the
decision
itself
about
the
person's
medical
condition
about
the
person's
relatives
abroad.
That
might
be
mentioned
in
the
immigration
decision
that
might
actually
be
exempt
would
be
if
it
was
a
required
under
it
was
a
foia
request.
E
It
could
be
edited
out,
but
we
I
suppose
you
don't
want
somebody
having
to
edit
each
one
of
these
things
before
they're,
proactively
disclosed
so
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
how
that
might
might
work
and
again
apologize
for
not
being
here
last
time.
Maybe
this
was
all
answered
and
I
don't
know
if
this
would
be
covered
by
section
two.
M
Thank
you,
Bill
next
Jennifer
Dickey.
S
I
was
just
gonna
say
that
I
think
by
making
the
recommendation
that
it
should
amend
A2
to
require
that
is
like
clearly
intended
to.
You
know,
leave
in
place
all
the
existing
boy
exemptions
because
they're
putting
it
into
the
part
of
the
statute
that
is
subject
to
those
exemptions,
like
the
the.
If
you
you
know
scroll
down
in
552,
you
get
to
be,
this
section
does
not
apply
and,
like
then
lists
all
the
foia
exemptions,
so
I
think
I
think
that
by
explicitly
calling
out
that
statute,
that's
what
they
were.
S
The
Consultants
were
clearly
intending
to
do
in
terms
of
language
to
make
that
clear,
like
you
could
you
could
say,
subject
to
paragraph
two
of
this
recognition
and
all
existing
Oya
or
an
all
existing
exemptions
to
just
you
know,
foia
or
whatever,
for
all
distinct
way
or
all
existing
assumptions
found
in
you
know,
552,
b
or
or
you
know,
all
of
that
that
would
be.
S
You
know
I
think
sweeping
the
Fourier
exemptions,
but
it
may
be
that
there's
something
broader
intended
with
respect
to
other
I
know
there
are
some
common
law
doctrines
that
prevent
disclosure
and
things
of
that
nature.
M
L
Yes,
just
to
respond
to
Bill's
question
that
this
is
already
an
issue
for
agencies
as
far
as
parts
of
decisions
that
include
information,
it
could
be
withhold
withheld
with
regard
to
various
Fourier
exemptions,
particularly
privacy,
and
we
learned
in
the
course
of
our
meetings
with
the
consultative
group
that
we
have
that
agencies
have
found
ways
to
address
this
I
mean
redaction
is
one
way.
One
could
also
have
administrative
judges.
L
Administrative
law
judges
write
opinions
in
a
way
that
the
ways
that
don't
unnecessarily
go
into
private
information,
another
approach
might
be
and
that
this
might
require
some
work.
But
you
could
also
anonymize
some
of
these
opinions
right.
So,
instead
of
using
names,
you
could
use
some
initials
for
parties
that
sort
of
thing
I
think
in
some
agencies
in
some
contexts,
although
it
probably
wouldn't
be
as
applicable
with
regard
to
Social
Security
cases,
say
you
know.
L
If,
if
this
information
you
want
to
protect,
that's
not
necessary
to
us
deciding,
then
don't
provide
it
to
us
in
the
first
place,
so
I
I,
so
I
think
there
are
options
in
addition
to
the
option
of
having
people
go
through
and
redact
private
information.
M
F
Thanks
I
I
wanted
to
suggest
not
adding
anything
about
current
exemptions
to
point
one
because,
as
as
Jennifer
said,
if
you
amend
a
it
doesn't
everything
in
552a
is
subject
to
the
exemptions
in
552
B.
F
So
the
I
understand
it's
meant
as
a
clarification,
but
it's
actually
would
be
sort
of
confusing
to
to
tell
Congress
to
write
in
a
that.
A
is
subject
to
the
exemptions
in
B,
because
that's
what
the
statute
already
already
says,
and
so
it's
just
looking
at
looking
at
a
separate
from
the
rest
of
the
statute,
the
the
question
of
how
exemptions
apply
would
arise,
but
in
in
context
it
would
never
arise
because
B
exists
and
applies
to
all
of
a
and
indeed
currently
applies
to
all
of
a
which
is
also.
F
Why
I
think
it's
not
something
that
that
we
or
the
committee
needs
to
worry
about
in
considering
what
additional
materials
should
be.
That
we
want
to
recommend
should
be
included
in
a
because
the
the
need
to
go
through
and
redact
a
to
take
to
con
in
light
of
the
exemptions
and
be
already
exists
for
everything
that's
in
in
a
So.
To
that
extent,
we're
not
doing
anything
new,
so
I
think
it's
just
not
a
it's,
not
a
concern
that
should
be
written
into
recommendation.
M
Alison,
thank
you.
I
think
you
have
pointed
out
a
particular
issue.
That's
unique
to
this
project.
Most
Vegas
projects
are
just
coming
up
with
best
practice,
recommendations
to
agencies
and
we're
trying
our
best
to
explain
to
the
agencies
what
we
mean
but
you're,
pointing
out.
This
is
actually
statutory
legislative
changes
that
we're
suggesting,
and
so
thank
you
for
pointing
that
out.
Carrie.
Do
you
have
a
comment.
D
Here,
just
following
up
on
Alice
since
I
think
very
persuasive
observation
and
and
comment:
maybe
the
the
way
of
dealing
with
this
would
just
to
to.
When
you
go
back
and
revisit
the
preamble
to
make
it
very
clear
in
the
Preamble
that
preface
that
would
obviously
apply
it.
Does
it
does
indicate
it
there?
Maybe
that's
adequate,
maybe
because
we
didn't
go
through
the
Preamble
already
that
you
know
that's
why
this
has
come
up,
but
it
could
be
addressed
perhaps
adequately
in
the
Preamble.
M
Okay,
great
thank
you.
Did
anyone
else
have
any
comments
on
this
opening
section.
M
If
not,
I
actually
have
a
comment
with
regard
to
1A
with
the
final
opinions
and
orders
issued
in
adjudications,
we've
made
some
edits
to
the
language
where
it
originally
said.
I'm
sorry
I
could
just
scroll
up
a
little.
Thank
you.
We
originally
said
that
each
agency
should
disclose
any
such
opinion
or
order,
and
the
issue
was
raised,
saying
that
disclose
may
make
it
sound,
like
people
have
to
ask
for
it,
but
really
what
this
section
is
proactive
disclosure
and
I
would
say
that
proactive
disclosure
is
more
using.
M
M
That's
that's.
My
thought
is
to
go
back
to
disclose
but
say
proactively,
disclose.
Instead
of
make
available,
Margaret.
J
I
just
had
one
brief
final
comment
on
this,
which
is
as
a
as
a
structural
matter.
I
think
we
wrestled
with
the
question
that
in
some
cases
it
seems
like
the
existing
language
of
A2
may
already
require
these
things.
J
It's
just
that
it's
never
been
interpreted,
there's
been
very
scant
interpretation
on
any
of
these
points
and
so
to
some
degree,
we
worried
about
suggesting
that
these
were
new
requirements,
so
much
as
clarifications
in
some
instances
or
specifications
where
maybe
the
statute
isn't
adequately
specific,
and
so
I
worry
a
little
bit
that
the
way
it's
currently
drafted
says
you
know
it
should
be
amend
this
provision
to
require
these
things
as
if
they're
all
brand
new
requirements-
and
that
may
very
well
not
be
the
case-
I'm
not
quite
sure
how
to
solve
it,
but
I
the
reframing
sort
of
set
that
question
up
more
starkly
than
you
know.
J
We
tried
to
be
a
little
bit
more
I,
think
deliberately
ambiguous
in
our
in
our
draft,
so
I
just
wanted
to
flag
that
as
a
additional
issue.
Okay,.
M
Great,
thank
you.
Jeremy.
P
Yeah,
no,
it's
a
great
point
and
we
wrestled
with
this
in
drafting,
so
we
did
add,
footnote
seven
to
sort
of
get
at
the
point
that
no
matter
what
language
we've
used
here,
we're
not
coming
down
in
this
recommendation
with
a
definitive
interpretation
of
what
this
current
statute
requires,
but
merely
saying
whether
or
not
it's
currently
required.
This
is
what
should
be
explicitly
required.
I,
don't
know
if
that
solves
the
issue,
but
at
least
that
was
the
intent
there.
L
Just
briefly,
one
way
we
might
address
that
is
in
the
first
sentence.
This
Congress
should
have
been
that
statute
to
and
then
clarify
or
require
so
just
add
in
the
word,
clarify
or
or
might
do
the
trick
as
well.
N
I
had
an
alternative,
Professor
Bell
suggestion
to
make
it
so
that
it
specifically
requires
that
would
be
I
think
the
same
goal.
M
A
Just
note
really
quickly,
hopefully
you
all
can
see
it.
On
my
screen
Carrie's
point
about
the
Preamble
language.
We
do
n
fact
state
that
pretty
clearly
in
the
Preamble,
so
the
exemptions
to
foia's
requirements.
You
know
all
reforms
should
be
interpreted
in
light
of
foia's.
Current
exemptions
just
wanted
to
make
sure
I
flagged
that
and
that
you,
you
all,
could
see
it
on
my
screen.
Good.
M
Yes,
okay,
Jennifer
Dickey,
so.
S
O
M
M
Clarify
I
require
okay
before
we
get
to
voting
on
that
Bill
funk.
E
I
wanted
to
go
back
to
the
to
the
preambular
language
with
respect
to
interpreting,
in
light
of
the
exemptions,
I
found
that
language
to
be
very
unclear,
I
mean
I.
Think
if,
if
you
want
to
get
across
the
idea
that
all
the
exemptions
do
apply
to
the
to
the
matters
in
that
we
are
asking
to
be
proactively
disclosed
I
think
it
should
say
that
explicitly,
don't
say
it
should
be
interpreted
light
of
it
makes
it
sound
like
that
sort
of
a
gloss
on
it,
as
opposed
to
an
actual
requirement
applicable
to
it.
E
So
I
would
reframe
that
language
in
the
Preamble
to
be
clear,
and
indeed
the
exemptions
apply
to
to
what
would
be
proactively
disclosed.
M
Okay,
so
yeah
so
we'll
flag
that
for
future
further
discussion,
let's
we'll
and
then
we'll
finish
up
with
one
and
one
a
here
before
we
get
back
to
tackling
that,
because
that
could
take
some
more
discussion.
M
M
Okay,
so
for
those
of
you
who
would
prefer
that
the
language
say
specifically
require
please
raise
your
hands.
M
All
right
clarify
has
it
so.
Thank
you.
Alexander
we'll
make
that
change.
So,
okay,
so
I
think
we're
done
with
one
and
one
a
so
we
can
move
on
to
one
unless
Aaron
or
Ted.
You
had
a
comment.
M
C
I
did
have
a
quick
comment
on
1A
I
agree
with
Jen
I'm
I'm,
not
sure
that
we
ended
up
in
a
place.
That
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
I,
probably,
would
still
prefer
that
we
just
said
legally
required
because
otherwise
issued
after
an
opportunity,
agencies
always
have
the
the
ability
to
give
you
an
opportunity.
C
So
are
we
saying,
after
a
legally
required
opportunity,
in
which
case
we're
back
to
legally
required,
so
I
personally
would
just
go
back
to
where
we
were
before,
but
I?
Don't
I,
don't
feel
strongly
and
I
don't
claim
to
be
a
huge
expert
on
that,
but
I'm
just
a
little
bit
confused.
N
So,
regarding
I
have
a
comment
on
on
B,
but
on
Arizona
the
concern
I
had
Aaron
was
principally
that
it
looked
as
written.
Is
that
as
originally
written,
you
only
got
to
an
order
that
had
to
be
published
if
there
was
an
a
required
of
Adventure
hearing
and
I
did
and
I
think
we
were
trying
to
to
determine
the
categories
of
cases
and
those
categories
of
cases
whether
they
had
an
evidential
hearing
or
not.
Those
opinions
and
orders
had
to
be
brought
forth.
N
Social
Security
and
immigration
and
and
I
I'm,
okay,
with
adding
a
legally
required
opportunity
for
I,
can't
remember
what
I
guess
that's
in
there
now
yeah
well
and
up
illegally
Opera
legally
required
opportunity
for
an
evidential
hearing
would
be
fine
with
me.
M
I
will
throw
their
one
comment,
which
is:
do
we
need
the
term
legally
required?
Could
it
just
be
or
otherwise
issued
after
an
evidentiary
hearing?
M
I
know
that
at
my
Agency
for
certain
types
of
matters,
it's
up
to
our
regional
director
to
decide
whether
or
not
to
do
a
hearing
or
just
make
a
issue
a
little.
This
little
I
should
say
a
little
issue,
a
decision
on
the
matter,
so
it
could
be
that
we
just
want
to
stay
at
following
an
evidentiary
hearing
I'll
throw
that
out
there
Alan
Morrison.
Did
you
have
another
comment.
N
Yes,
that
I
mean
I
I
I'm,
not
sure
about
what
you're
comment
about
your
hearings,
but
that
gets
back
to
the
other
problem
of.
If
you
don't
have
a
hearing,
then
you
don't
get
a
then
you
don't
have
a.
If
you
don't
have
an
Evidence
you're
hearing,
then
you
have
an
order
that
doesn't
have
to
be
published
made
available
and
that's
what
I
was
trying
to
get
away
from.
Okay.
E
Well,
I'm
I'm
back
to
the
same
problem
that
Bernie
Bell
expressed
in
the
beginning,
which
is
I
I,
don't
know
what
you
mean
by
illegally
required
opportunity
or
legally
required
evidentiary
hearing.
What
about
a
legally
acquired
hearing
doesn't
say
evidentially?
What
about
a
legally
required
public
hearing
doesn't
say:
evidentiary
I
mean
it
is
it
legally
required
by
due
process,
I
mean
I
I,
just
what
legally
required
I
it's
a
very
unclear
standard,
I
think
so.
E
I
I,
like
the
way
that
Alan
Morrison
had
at
the
beginning,
but
in
any
case
I'm
I'm
concerned
about
what
legally
required
means.
M
Okay,
Carrie.
D
Two
points,
one
specifically
on
this
difference
between
just
legally
required
hearing
versus
legally
required
opportunity
for
a
hearing
I.
Take
it
Allen's
earlier
point
is
that
there
may
be
times
when
an
opportunity
for
a
hearing
is
required,
but
a
a
party,
for
example,
waves
their
that
that
right
to
have
the
hearing
and
that
the
disclosure
requirements
for
the
agency
should
not
hinge
simply
on
whether
someone
may
or
may
not
have
waived
their
right
to
a
hearing.
D
The
second,
though,
observation
and
I
guess
it
might
might
alleviate
a
little
bit
of
the
the
concerns
that
that
Bernie
and
Bill
have
have
mentioned
about
what
is
legally
required,
actually
mean
I
just
want
to
call
attention
to
other
recommendations
and,
and
that
that
and
we're
intending
these
as
a
package,
other
recommendations
that
would
allow
agencies
to
customize
an
answer
for
themselves.
What
legally
required
means
through
either
their
affirmative
disclosure
plan
or
the
you
know
the
opportunity
to
to
to
to
create
some
bespoke
exemptions.
D
What
we're
really
aiming
for
I
think
at
least
I'm
speaking
from
my
understanding
of
the
consultant's
report
and
Consultants
process
is
to
try
to
create
a
default.
That
is
indeed
broad,
maybe
even
at
times
perhaps
a
little
bit
spongy.
If
you
will
at
the
margins
about
where
what
the
borders
are
but
give
agencies,
then
the
chance
to
customize
this
to
their
particular
circumstances.
D
So
what
legally
required
means
at
the
nlrb
may
be
something
different
than
what
legally
required
means
that
the
Department
of
Transportation
and
agencies
really
should
really
should
be
directed
by
this
legislation.
To
answer
those
questions,
Define
them
clearly
and
disclose
to
the
public
how
they
are
defining
these
terms.
M
Thank
you.
Does
anyone
else,
have
any
other
comments
and
it
sounds
like
we
may
not
have
a
hundred
percent
agreement
on
the
language
as
it's
currently
phrased.
Does
anyone
have
any
other
comments
before
we
take
a
vote
on
it.
M
M
Form
yes,
as
much
as
we
try
to
word
Smith
as
a
group
that
can
be
difficult
at
times,
so
yes,
let's
put
a
pin
in
this,
and
we
will
take
a
cross
crack
at
this
offline
and
come
back
later
with
proposed
language.
Thank
you.
Next,
let's
move
on
to
1B.
N
I,
don't
understand
what
the
communicate
word
functions
there
to
whom
is
it
communicated?
How
is
it
communicated
do?
Do
you
have
to
say
send
it
to
somebody
else?
Is
it
enough
in
the
agency?
What
do
the
drafters
mean
by
communicate.
T
R
You
want
the.
J
Idea
was
that
these
were
not
merely
internal
documents,
deciding
not
to
bring
in
enforcement
action,
but
rather
decisions
that
were
communicated
to
the
regulated
entity,
and
so
that
was
the
intention
was
to
ensure
that
these
were
already
external
documents
that
have
been
communicated
to
the
relevant
party,
such
that
we
were
not
reaching
internal
deliberations
not
to
use
agency
resources.
Even
though
there's
a
violation
of
law
or
something
along
those
lines.
M
R
Yeah
and
well
actually
I
think
we're
kind
of
getting
to
the
same
point.
I
mean
this
was
the
subject
of
one
of
the
concerns.
I
think
that
we
raise
with
respect
to
the
objections,
because
we
do
have
a
number
of
those
kinds
of
internal
deliberations
that
would
reflect
a
written
decision
not
to
enforce
one
of
our
our
authorities,
but
it's
not
the
kind
of
like
formal
declination
of
prosecution
or
formal,
closing
memo
or
so
forth.
That
I
think
maybe
the
the
Consultants
had
in
mind
so
I
guess.
R
M
And
this
may
be
a
very
good
time
to
look
at
Works
written
comments.
Alexander,
would
you
mind
showing
that
I'm
normally
seeing
part
of
it
here.
R
I'll,
just
just
I
mean
I
think
to
unpack
the
concerns.
I
think
we
raised
I,
mean
I,
think
there's
a
couple
of
them
at
the
Federal
Trade
Commission.
All
of
our
investigations
are
non-public,
and
so
those
some
of
those
investigations
lead
to
public
enforcement
actions.
Some
of
them
don't
and
we
do
not
necessarily
publish
the
decisions
not
to
proceed
with
an
enforcement
action,
and
there
are
a
couple
good
reasons
for
doing
that.
R
I
mean
one
is
to
keep
the
identity
of
the
target
non-public
and-
and
there
are
I
think
policy
reasons
why
we've
done
that
it
sends
disclosing
that
I
think
sends
sort
of
either
two
mixed
signals,
neither
which
is
entirely
accurate,
one
that
you
know.
We
have
a
good
reason
for
not
pursuing
this
this
entity
or
to
the
you
know:
we've
chosen
not
to
do
so
and
and
it's
not
exactly
a
a
declaration
of
Innocence
or
Declaration
of
non-liability.
It's
a
declaration
that
we're
just
not
choosing
to
move
forward
with
a
given
Target.
R
M
Great,
thank
you.
Margaret.
J
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
apply
that
this
as
it
was
redrafted
has
substantially,
if
not
perhaps
massively
narrowed
the
original
recommendation
that
the
that
the
Consultants
made,
which
actually
recommended
that
orders
include
all
written
enforcement
decisions
that
either
have
a
legal
or
practical
effect
on
and
have
been
communicated
to
an
individual
or
entity
outside
the
agency.
That
was
our
original
and
then
we
said
such
decisions
would
include
written
assurances
not
to
enforce
such
as
waivers
and
variances.
J
This
is
not
meant
to
be
about
waivers
and
variances,
but
rather
about
enforcement
decisions
that
had
been
communicated
to
a
party
outside
the
agency
and
so
I
don't
know
if
that
was
the
intent,
but
as
I'm
reading
this
now,
this
basically
reaches
grants
of
exemptions
and
waivers,
but
not
actual
enforcement
actions.
J
So
I'm
flagging
that,
because
I
don't
know
whether
that
was
an
intentional
narrowing.
If
it
was,
then
you
know
it's
obviously
prerogative,
but
the
way
it
was
originally
drafted
is
substantially
different.
M
Okay,
yes,
I
noticed
that
as
well.
Margaret
I
had
some
concerns
about
the
recommendation
in
the
report
in
terms
of
its
its
the
fact
that
it
would
cover
enforcement
decisions
such
as
those
that
Burke
was
talking
about,
but
then,
when
I
saw
the
version
that
ended
up
in
this.
This
document
I
realized.
Oh
well,
it's
much
narrower
now,
maybe
I'm
not
as
concerned,
but
I,
don't
know
what
the
what
the
decision
was
in
in
making
that
change.
P
Yeah,
no,
it
was,
it
was
purposeful.
It
was
meant
to
based
on
the
discussion
of
the
last
committee
meeting.
You
know,
take
the
recommendation
that
was
presented
by.
T
P
And
balance
it
against
the
concerns
that
were
raised
last
committee
meeting,
so
it
was
intended
to
strike
some
balance
and
instead
of
using
a
phrase
like
enforcement
decisions,
actually
give
some
examples
of
the
kinds
of
decisions
that
we're
talking
about
here.
But
again,
that's
for
committee.
Consideration.
O
M
H
Oh
yes,
I'm
just
just
reading
this.
Now
again,
it
sort
of
seems
like
the
second
half
of
B
is
talking
about
a
different
category
of
documents.
Here,
we're
talking
and
first
half
seems
to
be
talking
about
enforcement,
or
at
least
decisions
not
to
enforce
and
I
sort
of
have
the
same
sort
of
question
about
the
narrowing
of
that
there.
H
But
but
the
second
part
of
it
talks
about
advisory
opinions
that
applied
generally
Optical
lead
requirements,
statistic
effects
and
in
Russia
it
basically
seems
to
be
suggesting
we
should
that
agency
should
disclose
guidance
documents,
which
I
think
is
fair,
so
I
I
I'm,
just
questioning
why
this
is
all
kind
of
lumped
together
into
one
b
and
what
one
paragraph
is
B,
because
it
seems
to
be
two
separate
categories
of
documents
and
I
would
probably
split
that
second,
one
out
separately
and
I
think
you
know
it
makes
sense
because
talking
about
advisory
opinions
that
apply
so
essentially
you're
talking
about
guidance,
doctors,
I'm,
not
sure
if
you
want,
we
want
to
make
that
clearer
or
not
there.
M
Well,
you
raise
a
good
point
if
it
reads
like
it's
trying
to
talk
about
guidance
documents.
There's
this
whole
other
section
on
guidance
documents.
So
perhaps
we
don't
need
to
be
taught
implying
that
we're
talking
about
in
two
places,
but
thank
you
for
raising
that
Jim
tozzi.
U
I
have
a
question
of
how
many
agency
Personnel
are
voting
relative
to
non-agency
I
I.
Think
the
point
that
Mr
kappler
made
deserves
some
attention.
I
think
with
people
that
I
know
that
are
very
concerned
about
an
agency
that
does
some
work
but
does
not
conclude
to
take
any
action,
and
we
get
tons
of
letter
here.
But
the
things
are
published
and
the
publicity
is
killing
us.
U
It's
not
a
trivial
thing
to
a
lot
of
firms,
and
so
I
don't
have
a
horse
in
this
race
anymore,
but
I'm
wondering
the
mixture
of
this
committing.
If
it's
mainly
academics
versus
people
in
the
troughs.
M
Good
question:
I'm
in
the
trough,
I'm
sure
it's
balanced.
P
U
I'm
just
wondering
what
I'm
amazed
is
what
I'm
saying
you
only
do
the
counting
that
Federal
ages
is
that
when
I
worked
with
would
want
pre-judgment
materials
disclosed
like
this,
and
maybe
because
I'm,
not
an
agency
anymore.
But
I
only
heard
one
objection
and-
and
that
may
be
the
case
now
and
I'll
go
along
with,
but
I
just
I'm.
Only
expressing
my
surprise
that
in
other
agencies
wouldn't
share
Mr
Kepler's
concern.
E
Well,
I
just
wanted
to
respond
to
Jim
and
say
I'm,
an
academic,
but
most
of
what
I
think
about
here
is
that
in
the
five
years
that
I
was
in
the
department
of
energy-
and
all
of
this
would
have
applied
to
me
and
and
I
would
have
had
to
comply
with
it.
So
I
I
bring
both
those
horses
to
the
trophies
at
work
and
I.
Think
we
take
care
of
that
by
saying
it's
only
things
that
have
been
communicated
to
a
member
of
the
public
that
would
have
to
be
proactively
disclosed.
J
J
So
the
original
proposal
would
have
covered
things
like
fines
and
penalties
and
other
enforcement
actions
actually
taken,
and
this
one
only
applies
to
things
for
the
agency
is
offended
not
to
enforce,
which
seems
almost
backwards
to
me
where
we
would
be
most
concerned
with
knowing
when
an
agency
is
using
its
enforcement
power.
Affirmatively,
so
I
just
raised
that
because
it
seems
dissonant,
but
obviously,
if
if
this
is
the
the
compromise
that
is
agreeable,
then
this
is
what
it
is.
M
One
thing
I'm
gonna,
say
before
I
ask
Carrie
to
speak
is
one
of
the
concerns
that
came
to
my
mind
in
reading
this
section
in
the
original
language
of
the
section
as
well.
Is
it's
not
always
for
our
agency,
an
issue
of
Are
We
deciding
to
enforce
or
not
enforce?
Usually,
it's.
The
question
is:
do
we
believe
there's
a
violation
of
the
act
or
not,
and
so
if,
in
the
investigation
that's
conducted,
the
decision
is
made
that
we
don't
have
a
sufficient
evidence
to
show
that
there
was
a
violation
of
the
ACT.
M
That's
where
we
decide
to
decline
to
issue
a
complaint,
for
example,
and
that's
what
was
concerning
me
a
bit
is
it
would
would
the
would
this
provision
be
covering
those
decisions,
not
that
we're
saying
well
we're
not
going
to
enforce
against
you
and
we're
giving
you
some
sort
of
waiver.
It's
more
that
we
don't
feel
that
there
was
a
violation,
but
there
would
be
something
written
that
would
say
that.
Would
that
fall
into
this
category
of
disclosure?
That's
that's!
Just
something
I
had
been
thinking
about
Carrie.
D
I
was
going
to
agree
with
everything
Margaret
said,
except
as
the
author
of
a
paper
on
unrules,
her
suggestion
that
that
the
application
of
obligations
through
enforcement
is
more
important
than
than
the
opposite
that
I
might
just
want
to
flag.
It
note
that
both
I
think
are
important
and
I
agree
with
her
that
that
both
should
be
covered.
M
Okay,
thank
you.
Professor
Bell,.
L
L
That
would
seem
to
me
to
be
a
legal
material,
that
people
are
regulated
entities
and
both
on
the
employer's
side
and
the
union
side
should
know
about
if
we're
talking,
instead
about
situations
in
which,
well,
maybe
there's
a
violation
of
the
law,
but
we
don't
have
enough
resources.
So
these
are
the
way
we
allocate
our
resources.
L
L
The
second
point
I
would
make
is
just
to
caution
it
again.
The
foia
exemptions
apply
here,
and
so
at
least
one
should
consider
how
those
play
into
what
the
impact
of
this
will
be.
So
there
are
Fourier
exemptions
with
regard
to
law
enforcement
materials
and
this
some
of
these
could
potentially
fit
into
that
and
including
the
exemption
for
I
think
prosecutorial
guidelines.
L
M
Okay,
great
thank
you,
Bill
funk.
E
I'm,
responding
to
the
to
the
things
that
Margaret
and
Kerry
brought
up.
It
would
seem
to
me
that
if
there's
a
decision
to
enforce
the
legal
requirement
against
an
individual,
that's
going
to
be
the
beginning
of
a
proceeding
which
ultimately
will
result
in
something
that
would
have
to
be
proactively
disclosed
under
one
of
the
other
Provisions,
whereas
a
decision
not
to
enforce
that's
sort
of
the
final
thing
and
that's
when
it
ought
to
be
disclosed.
E
D
Yeah
I,
don't
think
that
is,
is
the
intent
here
or
or
even
was
covered
in
our
committee's
report.
Margaret
may
want
to
weigh
in
on
that,
but
I
think
the
the
concern
that
Margaret
was
pointing
out
to
is
the
Way
1B
is
now
drafted.
It
takes
out
a
provision
that
would
do
exactly
what
you
said,
which
would
cover
those
written
enforcement
decisions
after
the
enforcement
action
is,
is
taken
unless
you
think
that
that's
already
covered
by
one
a
as
some
some
kind
of
adjudication.
So.
J
Yeah
I
I,
reiterate,
I
think
the
intent
was
when
not
when
those
were
the
beginning
of
a
proceeding,
but
when
effectively
it
was
the
end
of
a
proceeding
because
there
is
no
evidentiary
hearing,
that's
accompanying
it.
So
when
there's
an
enforcement
decision,
that's
made
where
that's
the
whole
action
without
any
further
process
to
come,
which
is
often
the
case
that
those
are
the
final
decisions
you
know
for
for
all
practical
matters,
because
there's
nothing
that
goes
on
afterward
and
that's
that's
frequently.
The
case.
N
Well,
if
I
only
see
if
I
understand
this
correctly,
the
FTC
conducts
a
major
investigation,
but
it's
not
public
that.
Obviously
the
target
knows
about
it
and
at
the
end
of
the
investigation,
the
FTC
sends
a
letter
saying
we
have.
We
have
closed
the
investigation
period
if
Margaret
with
that
letter,
because
it's
communicated
to
the
Target
have
to
be
disclosed
and
even
though
nobody
knew
about
the
investigation
before
they
might
get
some
bad
publicity
from
it
and
B.
The
letter
itself
says
nothing
of
substance.
N
It's
not
like
a
waiver
of
an
exemption,
I'm
fine
with
the
rest
of
them.
In
there
I
I,
don't
see
what
the
public
gets
and
I
can
understand
why
companies
are
very
unhappy
about
the
saying
that
the
FTC
is
closed.
Investigation
am
I,
mistaken.
J
I
think
Kerry
probably
can
address
this
better
than
I
can
so
maybe
I'll
stop
there,
but
but
so
maybe
this
is
a
wordsmithing
question
is
to
avoid
that
situation
that
you're
talking
about
Ellen,
but
that
was
not
the
goal.
Terry.
D
Yeah
it
was,
it
was
certainly
not
the
goal
or
intent
here
and
you
know
I
think
we
could
word
Smith
it
or
again.
Remember
that
for
an
agency
like
the
FTC,
if
that's
part
of
their
practice,
they
can,
in
their
affirmative
disclosure
plan
or
in
their
their
bespoke
regulations,
make
that
exception
and
make
that
clarification
for
it
for
why
that
that
type
of
document
would
not
apply
and
I
guess
just
to
to
go
back
to
the
point
about
whether
other
kinds
of
final
decisions
are
covered.
D
I
I
take
it
from
just
to
to
to
expound
on
markets
earlier
answer
and
inspector's
Citation,
for
example,
would
not
be
covered
as
I
read
it
under
1A,
but
it
would
be
nevertheless
probably
closing
out
unless
it
was
contested,
some
kind
of
enforcement
action
and
that
would
was
covered
I
think
under
the
way
the
consultant
report
recommendation
had
read.
M
Thank
you,
Alan
Morrison,.
N
Oh
as
as
I
read
the
current
recommendation,
it
would
not
include
the
FTC
example
that
I
that
I
gave,
and
we
could
maybe
make
that
clear.
The
word
enforcement
well
I'm,
not
sure
what
the
word
problem
is,
but
I
as
I
read
it.
It
would
not
include
that,
but
it
would
include
the
things
that
other
things
that
market
mentioned
as
far
as
the
other
one
is
concerned,
the
the
fine.
N
Presumably,
if
it's
a
settlement
agreement,
they
agree
to
it
that
would
could
easily
come
in
under
a
settlement
agreement
that
they
agreed
to
pay
such
and
such
a
fine
and
so
I
guess,
I.
I.
Think
that
we'll
this
is
one
of
these
things
is
is
if
it
doesn't
come
under
one
of
these
things.
It
may
come
under
another
point
that
Carrie
made
before
we
have
to
keep
that
in
mind
as
we're.
Looking
at
these
individually.
M
Yes
and
I
would
say
in
reading
the
language
as
it
is
now
I
would,
since
it's
a
decision
not
to
enforce
a
legal
requirement,
I,
don't
think
it
would
cover
those
situations
like
I
had
described
where
the
my
agency
decides
not
that
we're
not
enforcing
it,
but
that
we
find
that
there's
no
violation.
M
So
since
there
doesn't
seem
any
more
discussion
on
B
should
we
do
a
vote
on
this
language
as
to
whether
or
not
people
are
okay
with
the
way
it's
currently
constructed,
Alexander
and
Jeremy
is
at
the
next
step.
M
Yes,
okay,
getting
thumbs
up
thumbs
up
so
in
terms
of
section
b,
as
it's
amended
on
the
screen.
Please
raise
your
hand
if
you're
in
favor,
of
keeping
this
recommendation
as
written.
M
Okay
looks
like
we've
got
the
votes
and
then
please
grade
after
everyone
lowers
their
hands.
Please
raise
your
hand
if
you
are
in
favor
of
not
including
section
1B
in
the
recommendation.
M
All
right,
thank
you,
everyone
for
voting
and
with
that
I
we
will
move
on
to
section
1C
the
written
opinions
by
Chief
legal
officers.
M
Does
anyone
have
a
come?
Oh
Alan,
Morrison.
N
I
agree
with
this
recommendation,
but
I'm
concerned
issued
by
its
Chief
legal
officer.
My
memory
is
corrected.
It
may
not
be
that
the
IRS
has
delegate
the
chief
legal
officer
delegates
to
various
other
legal
officers,
the
authority
to
issue
certain
binding
opinions
depending
upon
the
subject
area
and
if
they
haven't
they
could
so,
maybe
we
could
say
rather
than
buy
or
under
the
direction
of
its
Chief
leader
under
under
authority
of
his
chief
legal
officer.
M
Thank
you
good
point.
Let
Alexandra
write
something
very
clever
here.
M
Thank
you.
Carrie.
D
Just
to
suggest
a
language
Alexander
might
want
to
issued,
by
or
under
the
authority
of
its
Chief
legal
officer,.
C
So
here's
just
a
question:
do
we
need
to
say
anything
about
the
authority
of
the
chief
legal
officer?
Couldn't
it
just
be
written
opinions,
the
bind
agency
officials
I
mean,
presumably
the
person
who
combined
it
is
generally
going
to
be
the
chief
legal
officer,
but
if
there's
some
situation,
where
someone
other
than
that,
but
it's
still
nonetheless
buying
things
and
officials
when
we
also
want
that
disclosed.
M
Thank
you,
Bill
funk.
E
Well,
I
I
think
Aaron's
point
is
a
good
one,
but
I.
My
question
was
going
to
be:
what's
the
reason
for
saying
acting
under
statutory
or
delegated
authority,
I
mean
if
indeed
the
opinion
does
bind
agency
officials
I
mean.
Presumably
there
must
be
some
Authority
for
it,
but
I
I,
don't
know
why
we
have
to
say
acting
under
statutory
or
delegated
authority.
Maybe
somebody
can
explain
why
that
limitations
on
in
them.
M
Okay,
Jennifer
Dickey,
so.
S
In
response
to
Aaron's
comment
I,
if
you
were
suggesting
the
removal
of
like
Chief
legal
officer,
I,
wonder
if
that
would
take
us
outside
of
legal
opinions
like
I,
wonder
I
mean
maybe
written
opinions
conveys
a
legal
notice,
but
like
I'm,
imagining
a
supervisor
who
just
says
like
I'm
gonna
make
this
policy.
That's
not
like
a
legal
policy,
but
he's
just
decided
for
you
know,
for
whatever
reason
like
we're
for
reimbursements
or
we're
going
to
do
something
like
that.
That's
not
really
what
I
think
we're
getting
at
like.
S
Maybe
he
just
wants
to
avoid
even
the
appearance
of
a
problem,
so
he
says,
like
we're,
always
going
to
stay
at
this.
You
know
these
government,
hotels
or
whatever
I,
don't
know
so
I
think
Chief
legal
officer
or
like
those
actually
under
Authority,
like
focuses
it
more
closely
on
legal
opinions.
S
I
agree
with
Bill
Funk
that
I'm
not
sure
that
we
need
the
acting
under
statutory
or
delegated
authority
language
which,
both
with
the
use
of
the
two
authorities,
starts
to
feel
cumbersome
and
also
raises
questions
about
written
opinions
where
they're
acting
outside
their
statutory
Authority
and
like
I,
would
think
we
would
want
those
disclosed.
Also
embeds,
like
a
legal
issue.
M
C
I
mean
I
was
but
I
I
think
Jen's
point
is
well
taken.
If
we
wanted
to,
we
could
say
written
legal
opinions,
the
bind
agency
officials
in
the
performance
of
their
duties.
If
we
want
to
avoid
that
I
mean
I,
guess
it
just
otherwise
it's
gonna
be
really
cumbersome
because
we're
going
to
talk
about
like
what,
if
it's
sub-delegates
and
all
that
sort
of
thing,
when
really
I
just
want
to
know
if
it's
binding.
M
I'm,
just
gonna
throw
out
their
the
suggestion
that
perhaps,
instead
of
just
saying
written
opinions
but
written
opinions
and
memoranda
issued
by
or
under
the
authority
of,
because
you
know
in
my
agency
at
least
when
our
Chief
legal
officer
issues
these
sorts
of
opinions,
it's
it's
styled
as
a
memorandum
and
it
goes
out
to
all
of
the
Regional
Offices.
So
this
is
what
you
have
to
do
now,
with
the
with
the
board's
new
interpretation
of
the
law.
M
That's
just
how
we
work
Bill.
Did
you
have
a
comment.
R
Yeah
I
mean
this
was
a.
This
was
an
area
where
we
had.
We
had
submitted
an
objection
as
well
and
I
think
this
recommendation
has
changed
a
lot
since
the
the
last
version
of
the
recommendations
that
we
had
seen
it
looks
like
it's
intended
to
streamline,
but
I
just
kind
of
wanted
to
clarify.
This
looks
like
it's
trying
to
get
to
more
of
the
chief
Council
Like
Chief
IRS,
Council
kind
of
opinion,
where
you
have.
R
You
know,
in
the
words
of
the
prior
recommendation,
like
a
corpus
of
opinions
that
essentially
is
a
standing
body
of
law
within
within
the
agency
that
is
binding
and
accepted
by
the
members
of
the
agency
as
as
binding
Authority
I'm
gonna.
If,
if
we
can
get
more
to
that
kind
of
notion,
maybe
the
idea
of
like
a
standing
accepted
Corpus
versus
memoranda,
which
is
getting
more
into
like
the
day-to-day
legal
advice.
R
M
Thank
you,
Renee
Landers,.
G
So
what
what
if
you
change
I'm?
First
of
all,
I'm
sorry
I
was
late,
but
something
came
up
this
morning.
But
what
if
you
changed
instead
of
saying
written,
legal
opinions
and
memoranda,
because
you
know
I
could
foresee
us
getting
this
like
long
list
of
documents,
what
written,
determinations
or
written
legal
determinations?
So
then
we're
not
so,
regardless
of
what
the
agency
calls
it.
M
M
T
It's
better
okay,
I
was
just
going
to
thank
the
Department's
perspective,
not
entirely
clear
to
me
what
this
would
cover,
since
we
already
agency
basically
entirely
made
up
of
attorneys
I'm,
not
sure
what
would
be
fallen
into
this
category
at
all,
and
we
also
don't
Chief
legal
officer
unless
you're
considering
the
Attorney
General.
O
E
T
Would
apply
to
do
specifically,
I
could
use
some
clarification,
but
I'm
not
sure
how
much
would
apply.
M
T
That's
just
not
how
the
department
is
organized
and
it's
I'm
just
substantively
not
fair
to
me
what
materials
is
what
apply
to
you
know
it's
just
getting
at
you
know
enforcement
priority,
so
yeah
attorney
general's
directives
as
to
where
we
should
put
our
resources.
I
mean
I
supplies
stuff
in
a
way,
but
well
discretion,
I'm,
just
not
sure
what
this
intended
to
cover.
M
Well,
I
could
say,
you
could
say
hip,
hip
hooray.
This
doesn't
apply
to
us
because
I'm
just
kidding
I
apologize,
Professor
Bell.
L
Yeah,
just
briefly,
I'm
not
sure
whether
the
buy
or
under
the
authority
of
the
chief
legal
officers
is
in
or
out,
but
if
it's
out
and
it's
just
written
legal
opinions
that
are
binding
on
the
agencies,
you
may
actually
be
backing
into
olc
opinions
which
are
bonding
on
or
arguably
bonding
on
agencies,
and
you
know
I
suspect
you
don't
want
to
back
into
that.
M
Thank
you,
Aaron.
C
Yeah
excellent
point
I
think
we
should
leave
in
the
authority
of
the
chief
legal
officer
language
to
avoid
that
concern.
My
mistake,
thank
you.
O
S
With
respect
to
doj,
I
would
assume
that
this
is
intended
to
cover,
like
the
letters
from
the
attorney
general,
that
he
sometimes
issues
that
say,
like
you
know,
we're
gonna
make
this
an
enforcement
priority
or
we're
gonna
like
we
will
no
longer
pursue
I
mean
sometimes
these
might
come
from
the
Associate's
office
too,
and
that's
like
the
trouble
I
guess
that
in
doj
is
you're.
Looking
at
you
know,
Associates
office
instructions
on
I
could
think
about
like
the
Sue
and
settle
memos.
S
Like
you
know,
corporate
compliance
issues
from
you
know
the
Civil
Division
Chiefs
or
the
Criminal
Division,
like
you,
know,
front
offices.
So
there's
a
lot
of
things
in
doj.
That
I
agree
with
Shannon
are
like
not
clear
here
in
terms
of
what
we
want
from
doj
and
I.
Don't
know,
I
mean
I,
don't
know
how
to
specify
like
I
guess
you
could
say.
M
G
So,
just
just
following
up
on
that
point,
you
know
say:
I
I,
don't
read
this
as
it's
drafted
as
applying
to
a
statement
of
enforcement
priorities,
because
that's
not
a
I
I,
don't
think
that's
a
binding
legal
determination.
I
mean
I.
Think
we're
really
I.
I
read
this
as
saying
this
is
how
we're
going
to
do
that
in
a
state.
G
You
know,
you
know
characterize
certain
things,
but
it's
not
a
it's
not
binding
on
an
as
an
you
know
on
the
agency,
because
the
doj
could
sort
of
look
at
a
certain
situation
that
falls
within
the
category
of
the
enforcement
priority
and
say:
oh
this
isn't
the
thing
that
we're
worried
about
and
you
know
not
take
any
action.
M
Thank
you,
Jennifer
Dickey,
well,.
S
You
know
like
if
the
Associate's
office
issues
a
Sue
and
settle
memo
that
says
you
can't
or
I,
don't
I
guess
it's
not
so
I
forget
what
it
is
like
like
some
of
the
key
tan
settlements
or
whatever.
Sometimes
the
associates
office
issues
memos
on
you
know
what
you
can
do
in
terms
of
settling
cases
and
I
think
those
would
be
viewed
as
binding
on
the
officials
who
are
carrying
things
out,
while
at
least
that
Administration
in
that
memo
is
in
effect.
M
But
thank
you.
Michael
Hurst.
V
So
so
I'm,
not
when
you
say
I,
don't
know
what
they
were
intending
I'm,
not
sure.
If
the
day
was
the
the
Consultants
or
the
acus
folks,
I,
don't
think
it's
what
we
the
Consultants
were
intending.
That
is
that
this
business
about
exercising
prosecutorial
discretion
is
really
what
B
was
about
from
our
point
of
view
and
the
sea
is
really
sort
of
determination.
V
Very
good
previous
comment
about
you
know
the
with
regard
to
whether
we
limited
to
Chief
legal
officers.
You
know
you
statements
about
you
know,
per
diems
and
hotels
would
not
be
covered
by
this
right.
Internal
operating
requirements
are
binding
on
agency
officials,
but
not
what
this
was
aimed
at
and
it
may
even
be.
We
want
to
say,
bind
agency
officials
in
the
performance
of
their
statutory
duties
or
modify
that
language
slightly
to
make
that
clearer.
V
But
the
the
core
idea
here
is
not
that
this
is
a
binding
policy
that
the
agency
has
adopted
and
most
of
those
don't
come
from
the
general
counsel's
office.
They
come
from
the
the
head
or
other
program
officials,
but
rather
that
it
is
a
statement
of
what
the
law
is.
That
would
be
valuable
for
members
of
the
public
to
have
and
that
I
think
that's
consistent
with
what
Burke
was
saying
about
the
the
IRS
as
a
sort
of
Core
case.
M
Okay,
thank
you.
Alan
Morrison,.
N
So
I
want
to
be
clear
that
while
I
am
strongly
in
favor
of
bringing
olc
opinions
out
in
the
open
I,
don't
think
we
should
do
it
through
the
back
door
of
C
here
and
I'm,
also
not
interested
in
going
after
when
Criminal
Division
decides
it's
going
to
prosecute
somebody
or
not
going
to
prosecute
somebody.
So
I
think
perhaps
we
could
be
clear.
N
I'm
not
sure
the
word
statutory
is
is
all
Duties
are
statutory
in
some
sense,
but
if
you
added
that
bind
the
agency
officials
the
performance
of
Duty
as
a
matter
of
law,
that
would
take
out
all
these
discretionary
determinations
and
keep
it
away
from
the
guidelines,
meaning
that
that's
how
we
interpret
the
statute,
whether
as
a
matter
of
law,
should
go
one
place
or
that's
a
yeah.
That's
that's!
Fine!
That's
fine!
To
put
it
there
so.
M
D
Just
going
to
reinforce
I
think
something
that
has
been
said,
I
think
Alan
actually
said
it
earlier,
it's
possible
that
some
document
might
fall
into
more
than
one
of
these
categories
right
so
I
I,
don't
know
that
you
need
to
be
totally
worried
about
making
sure
that
c
excludes.
D
You
know
decisions
about
non-enforcement
that,
just
because
they're
covered
by
one
b,
a
document
could
could
be
covered
by
one
b
and
one
C,
for
example,
and
the
point
is
that
it
should
be
proactively
disclosed
unless
the
agency
has,
for
some
reason
about
the
administrative
burdens
or
the
the
the
the
probative
value
of
the
of
the
document,
you
know
declared
that
it
it
need
not
be
disclosed
under
its
own
policy.
That
is,
that's
also
been
affirmatively
disclosed.
M
That's
a
very
good
point
to
the
extent
that
the
goal
here
is
proactive
disclosure.
If
something
needs
to
be
disclosed
under
one
section
and
another
section,
it
just
basically
says
yeah.
It
really
needs
to
be
disposed
in
in
terms
of
this
section.
Does
anyone
else
have
any
other
comments
on
it
or
the
language?
M
M
One
of
the
questions
is
whether
it
say
it
say
says:
written
legal
opinions
and
memoranda,
or
it
says,
written
determinations
issued.
So
for
those
of
you
who
would
prefer
that
it's
a
written
legal
opinions
and
memoranda,
please
raise
your
hand.
M
Well,
Alexandra:
did
you
get
a
vote
count
on
that?
Okay,
all
right!
Well,
thank
you,
everyone
and
then
in
so
I
think
we're
going
with
opinions
and
memoranda.
Is
that
correct?
M
M
M
Okay,
all
right
well!
Thank
you.
Everyone
next
section
is
d,
just
a
few
words
settlement
settlement
agreements
to
which
the
party
to
to
which
the
agency
is
a
party.
Does
anyone
have
a
comment
on
this
I?
Actually
at
first
before
we
do
that?
Alexandra!
Do
you
do
we
have
a
comment
on
that
that
we
should
that's
been
submitted,
that
we
should
go
over.
A
So
we
have
there's
a
specific
question
for
the
committee
here
in
the
comment
bubble
that
I
that
I
just
expanded
that,
hopefully
you
all
can
see
that
we
by
phrasing
the
question
this
way.
We
we
tried
to
incorporate
some
of
the
comments
that
were
received
on
this
particular
provision.
So
this
this
particular
provision
should
engender
a
lot
of
discussion
amongst
the
committee
I.
M
I,
yes,
okay,
Bill,
funk.
E
I've
asked
for
a
motion
privilege
or
something
that
I
don't
know
when
the
next
meeting
of
this
committee
is
scheduled,
but
I'm
not
going
to
be
available
for
approximately
a
month
from
now
and
so
in
as
much
as
F
had
been
something
that
was
added
specifically
in
response
to
my
comment,
and
hopefully
it
doesn't
have
much
dispute
about
it.
M
Seeing
no
objections
we'll
discuss,
F,
which
Bill
Funk
had
suggested
being
added,
which
is
agency
delegations
of
authority
Bill.
Did
you
want
to
speak
to
that
at
all.
E
Well,
it's
that's
one
I
think
it's
simple
for
agencies
to
do,
and
it's
it's
something
that
I
think
agencies
are
sometimes
lacks
and
lazy
about
actually
making
formal
delegations
of
authority
which
can
get
them
in
trouble
and
by
making
a
proactive
disclosure
requirement
at
least
make
them
focus
on
the
fact
that
they
do
have
to
make
a
formal
delegation
for
making
agents
final
agency
decision.
So
that's
that's
the
reason
for
it.
I
think
it's
simple
to
do
and
something
that
people
should
be
able
to
see.
N
I
I
think
I
support
this
and
I
have
a
question.
Do
you
mean?
Does
that
have
to
be
a
written
delegation
number
one?
Should
we
say
that
since
we've
used
written
in
other
places
and
two
does
it
have
to
be,
you
use
the
word
formal
bill
and
I?
Don't
quite
know
what
that
means,
but
I
mean
if
I
say
to
you
I'm
your
boss
and
I,
say
to
you
I'm
gonna
be
out
this
afternoon.
Would
you
take
care
of
any
matters
that
come
in
and
so
forth?
Is
that
is?
N
Are
we
worried
about
that
or
even
if
I
can
send
you
an
email
and
says
that
do
they
have
any
temporal
limitations
or
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
what
what
it
is,
because
I'm
sure
agencies
will
have
lots
of
questions.
M
N
This
is
Bill's
proposal,
I
don't
have
any
views.
I
only
have
questions
I.
E
Oral
delegation-
and
that's
all
it
was
if
the
head
of
the
agency
says
to
somebody
I
want
you
to
do
this
for
the
next.
You
know
during
my
tenure
year,
May
final
agency
decisions
and
I'm
not
going
to
put
in
writing
so
that
nobody
can
see
it
I,
don't
think!
E
That's
a
good
idea
right,
so
I,
I
I
would
I'd
leave
it
as
it
is
on
the
assumption
that
people
will
make
real
delegations
in
writing
and
that
and
by
requiring
a
pre
free,
a
disclosure
will
make
make
clear
there
has
to
be
in
writing.
So
I
think
that's
delegations
of
legal
Authority
is
fine.
That's
I
have
no
problem
with
that.
M
Yeah
I
think
that
that
might
be
a
good
edit,
just
in
that
I'm
just
trying
to
think
for
our
agency
what
situations
would
arise,
but
I
I
know
that
when
a
new
chairman
comes
into
our
agency,
they
will
often
do
a
written
delegation
to
their
chief
of
staff
for
certain
Personnel
administrative
matters
and
I.
Guess
it
wouldn't
be
the
end
of
the
world
if
we
had
to
put
that
out
into
the
public,
but
it's
probably
a
fairly
little
interest
to
most
people.
M
M
Well,
thank
you
Bill
for
suggesting
that
we
move
ahead
to
this.
This
bill
was
this
the
only
one
that
you
had
suggested,
adding.
E
M
Okay,
great,
thank
you.
Do
we
want.
We
should
probably
vote
I
suppose
on
f
everyone
who's
in
favor
of
including
F
in
the
recommendation.
Please
raise
your
hand.
M
M
Okay,
all
right!
Thank
you.
Let's
go
back
to
sub
section
D
the
settlement
agreements
to
which
the
agency
is
a
party.
Does
anyone
have
a
comment
on
this
section.
F
I
just
wanted
to
say
quickly
in
response
to
the
comment
in
on
the
side
that
I
don't
think
it
should
be
limited
to
judicial
proceedings,
because
sometimes
the
agency
will
settle
in
order
to
avoid
judicial
proceedings
and
then
those
wouldn't
be
captured.
F
Even
if
you
know,
if
they
waited
a
month
to
settle,
there
would
have
been
judicial
proceedings
and
lots
of
times.
The
settlement
is
a
way
to
avoid
litigation.
So
I,
don't
think
we
should
limit
it
to
that
as
written.
It's
all
settlement
agreements
to
which
the
agency
is
a
party,
so
I
would
leave
it
at
that
as
to
whether
it
should
include
agreements
where
the
agency
is
acting
more
as
an
employer
rather
than
as
the
federal
government,
if
I
wouldn't
have
an
objection
to
excluding
those
but
I
I.
F
M
Okay,
Alice
Alan
Morrison.
N
Oh,
under
the
federal
tort
claims
act,
the
United
States
is
the
correct
defendant
in
cases
not
always
done
that
way,
and
the
government
often
waves
that
but-
and
there
are
other
cases
of
which
the
United
States
has
defended
for
various
reasons-
I,
don't
know
whether
we
need
to
go
into
this
detail
or
not,
or
maybe
we
could.
N
We
could
put
it
in
the
in
in
a
footnote
to
the
Preamble
or
someplace
in
the
Preamble
that
that,
whether
whether
they're
the
real
party
at
interest,
whether
they're,
formally
the
defendant
or
not,
sometimes
sometimes
the
agent.
Sometimes
someone
will
sue
the
head
of
the
agency,
rightly
or
wrongly,
or
whatever.
It
is,
the
point
being
that
they
want.
N
We
want
obviously
want
to
capture
all
of
those
and
shouldn't
be
dependent
upon
on
who
what
they
happened,
to
the
name
of
the
defendant
in
the
case
or
for
that
matter,
the
plaintiff
in
the
case,
and
so
maybe
the
staff
can
can
take
care
of
that
matter
in
in
the
Preamble
I.
Don't
think
it
needs
to
be
in
the
actual
recommendation.
M
All
right,
if
we
have
no
other
comments,
let's
take
a
vote
for
in
favor
of
whether
or
not
to
keep
this
in
the
recommendations.
Those
of
you
who
are
in
favor
of
including
section
D,
oh
I'm,
sorry
Renee
Landers,
were
you
voting
or
you
have
a
comment.
M
M
Kate
I
think
you
had
your
hand
up
for
being
in
favor,
so
I
assume
you're
still
in
favor.
Okay,
great
well,
thank
you
that
that
was
quick.
All
right.
Moving
on
to
section
e
still
have
a
few
minutes
left
here:
memoranda
of
understanding,
memoranda
of
agreement
and
other
similar
interagency
or
intergovernmental
agreements
that
affect
a
member
of
the
public.
R
Just
a
just
a
just
to
say
that
we,
you
know
we
had
submitted
a
comment
about
this,
that
there
may
be
occasions
when
there
may
be
non-public,
mous
or
moas
for
investigative
contacts
and
just
to
have
an
exemption
or
a
recommended.
You
know
a
recognition
that
there
are
circumstances
like
that,
where
there
are
legitimate
reasons
for
non-public
disclosure,
maybe
that's
something
that's
embodied
by
the
Foy
exemption
generally,
like
seven
section
7A,
but
just
wanted
to
let
put
that
on
people's
radar
that
their
occasions
when
these
may
not
be
public.
M
Yes,
thank
you
and
I
apologize
for
not
pointing
out
that
you
had
submitted
these
comments
in
advance.
So
do
you
feel
that
the
language
should
be
changed
because
of
the
exemption,
or
do
you
think
that
the
regular
foia
exemptions
would
just
come
into
play
to
keep
those
out
of
being
required
for
disclosure.
R
R
M
All
right,
maybe
we've
just
worn
you
all
out,
which
is
good,
so,
let's
all
vote
I'm
just
kidding
so
for
Section
e,
the
memorandum-
oh
I'm,
sorry,
Bill
Funk!
Are
you
voting?
Okay?
So
are
anyone
who's
in
favor
of
keeping
section
e
in?
Please
raise
your
hand.
M
Okay
and
anyone
someone
who
is
not
in
favor
of
keeping
section
e
in
please
raise
your
hand.
M
Okay,
so
section
e
is
in,
and
we've
already
addressed,
section
F.
Let's
move
on
to
the
final
provision
under
one
which
is
section
g
orders
of
succession
for
agency
positions
whose
occupants
must
be
appointed
by
the
president
with
the
advice
and
consent
of
the
Senate.
Does
anyone
have
a
comment
on
this.
M
H
Yeah
I
guess
I'm
just
I'm
a
little
confused
as
to
what
exactly
it
means
or
is
there
succession
where
I
guess
it
just
depends?
Every
agency
is
really
different
right,
but
our
agency
has
five
members
that
are
appointed
by
the
president,
five
board
members
and
they
have
certain
terms
five-year
terms
and
they
can
be
reappointed
under
our
statute
for
another
term
and
there's
some
holdover
provisions
and
all
that
type
of
stuff.
H
So
I'm
not
sure
what
is
meant
by
orders
of
succession,
because
it's
the
recover
from
our
board
members
here
and
maybe
somebody
can
clarify
that
for
me.
P
Yeah,
so
we
had
included
this
bill
in
reference
to
your
mention
of
acting
appointments,
but
maybe
this
is
not
exactly
what
you
intended
and
if
that's
the
case,
then
that's
why
this
appears
in
this
draft.
E
Well,
I.
Thank
you,
Jeremy
I,
I,
guess
that
was
what
you
were
doing
and
to
answer.
Ted's
question,
which
is
orders
of
succession
are
when
the
person
leaves
tires,
dies
designs
who
takes
over
in
and
takes
that
place
and
for
a
member
of
a
commission.
The
answer
is
nobody.
There
is
no
order
of
succession
that
just
goes
blank
and
there's
just
one
less
member
of
the
commission.
But
for
you
know,
agencies
where
there
are
I
mean
in
fact
in
in
agencies
with
multi-members.
E
There
may
be
people
like
the
general
counsel,
who
are
appointed
with
the
advice
and
consent
of
the
Senate,
but
they
do
have
an
order
of
succession
that
if
the
general
counsel
leaves
there's
somebody
else
who
can
take
that
position,
perhaps
I
mean
it's
it's.
E
The
idea
of
when
the
person
leaves
unexpectedly,
who
takes
over
that's
where
an
order
of
succession
means
and
and
many
agencies
have
a
Department
of
Justice,
has
them,
and
so
I
think
that's
a
good
thing
to
have
publicly
available
to
know
who
who's
going
to
be
in
charge.
If
this
person
dies
or
leaves
or
resides.
H
Thank
you
for,
for
helping
with
that
I
I
mean
I,
just
guess,
I'm
locked
in
my
own
agency
here,
where
yeah
it
doesn't
really
seem
to
apply
to
us
because,
as
you
said,
it's
because
our
our
members
are
appointed
directly
and
there's
no
there's
no
other
succession.
It's
basically
by
Statute,
says
you
know
they.
If
they
don't
hold.
If
the
holdover
period
ends,
it's
it
because
we
don't
have
a
member,
basically
so
anyway,
so
yeah.
That's
fine.
I
appreciate
your
clarifying
that.
M
Yeah
we're
we're
kind
of
in
the
same
boat
Ted,
where
we
have
five
board
members
who
are
presidentially,
appointed
Senate,
confirmed
who,
when
their
terms
and
they're
done,
there
are
no
successors,
but
we
also
have
a
general
counsel
who,
when
the
general
counsel's
term
ends,
there
is
a
successor,
I
believe
under
the
federal
vacancies
act,
we're
supposed
to
say
who
that
person
is,
but
all
the
more
reason
why
it
should
be
publicly
said
who
that
successor
is
so
that
if
it
does
happen
as
we
have
had
it
happen,
it's
clear
who's
going
to
be
acting
at
that
point.
V
Only
that
I
I
mean
I
I'm
all
for
this.
It
makes
sense.
It's
just
a
drafting
issue.
You
know,
as
this
colloquies
highlighted,
there
are
positions
whose
occupants
must
be
appointed
by
the
president
of
the
advice
and
consent
of
the
senate,
for
which
there
are
not
orders
of
succession
and
to
require
posting
orders
of
succession
for
every
position.
That's
A
Pas
position
would
just
read
literally
require
creating
something
that
doesn't
exist
and
shouldn't
exist.
V
M
Okay,
great
Jennifer,
Dickey
I.
S
Think
you
could
just
say
orders
of
succession
issued
for
agency
positions
and
that
would
that
would
Encompass
only
those
that
are
actually
issued
not
like
require
them,
and
that
get
leaves
room
for
those
that
choose
to
do
so.
Those
that
are
required
to
do
so.
Etc.
M
Thank
you,
Allison.
F
So
having
issued
concerns
me
because
these
things
generally,
that
might
make
it
seem
like
they
have
to
be
made
public
in
some
way
and
the
whole
problem
that
g
is
getting
at,
is
that
they're
often
not
made
public
at
all,
so
they
exist
like
in
somebody's
file
in
the
secretary's
office,
or
something
like
that,
but
they're
not
but
they're,
created
I,
don't
know
that
they're
issued
I
just
want
to
to
ask
if
it's
really
necessary
to
qualify
this
in
some
way,
I
I
mean.
F
Maybe
it
is
if,
if
people
found
it
confusing,
but
for
all
these
things,
they
only
need
to
be
disclosed,
then
putting
on
this
list
just
means.
If
they
exist,
they
need
to
be
exposed
disclosed
nothing
about
all
of
number.
One
suggests
that
a
document
must
be
created.
It's
just
about
disclosing
what
has
been
created
and-
and
if
you
agree
on
that,
then
then
there
doesn't
need
to
be
any
revision
or
qualification
of
this
just
like
for
agency
delegations
of
authority.
M
Okay,
Ted
hunt.
H
Sorry,
just
don't
know,
I
guess
I'd
probably
disagree
with
it.
Just
because
the
way
it's
phrased
here
it
says
whose
occupants
must
be
appointed
by
the
president.
So
it's
implying
that
every
presidentially
appointed
and
confirmed
you
know
officer
out
there
needs
to
there
needs
to
be
or
succession
that's
disclosed
and
I.
That's
why
I
think
maybe
issued
isn't
the
right
word.
H
H
H
You,
no
that's:
okay,
that's
okay,
yeah
I'm!
Just
trying
to
come
up
with
something
that
works
to
me.
It
does
seem
to
imply
that
there
should
be
orders
of
succession
for
these
types
of
officials
and
I'm
and
I'm,
like
as
people
have
said
here
that
there
are,
there
are
some
like
our
agency
doesn't
have
that
so,
but
maybe
you
know
I'm
not
gonna.
It's
not
a
hill
to
die
on
here.
So
well.
M
And,
to
the
extent
that
agencies
don't
tend
to
have
a
have
a
lot
of
presidential
appointees
at
them,
it
probably
would
be
much
of
a
hardship
for
us
to
add
to,
for
example,
our
About
Us
section
of
our
website,
where
we'd
say
for
the
general
counsel.
The
order
of
the
succession
would
be
blank
for
the
board
members.
There
are
no
successors
who
would
step
in
at
the
end
of
their
term.
M
It
would
the
term
would
remain
or
the
term
the
position
would
remain
empty
until
a
new
board
member
is
appointed
nominated
by
the
president
and
confirmed
by
the
Senate,
something
like
that.
I
mean
it
would
take
very
little
for
us,
for
example,
to
put
something
like
that
on
our
website.
Yeah.
H
V
Yeah
no
I
mean
I
I
agree
with
Ted
that
the
the
reason
that
I,
don't
agree
with
Allison
is
that
this
one
is
modified
to
a
particular
set
of
Provisions.
Unlike
all
the
you
know,
settlement
agreements
and
memorandum,
understanding
and
agency
delegations
yeah
as
long
as
they
exist,
but
this
identifies
a
particular
subset,
I'm,
fine,
with
any
orders
of
succession,
blah
blah
blah
or
supposing
we
just
said,
orders
of
succession
period,
because
then
Allison
I'm
totally
with
you.
V
I,
it
is,
is
the
four
agency
positions
these
occupants
must
be
appointed
by
the
president
of
the
advice
and
consent
of
the
Senate
doing
important
work.
If
we
just
say,
orders
I
mean
I
I,
don't
know
enough
to
know
if
there
were
just
a
succession
for
other
kinds
of
positions.
If
all
Lord
is
a
succession
or
by
definition
this.
M
M
V
M
So
we're
at
one
o'clock
I,
don't
want
to
cut
anyone
off
here,
David!
Oh,
how
about
we
have
David,
be
the
last
comment
for
today's
meeting.
The.
I
I
You
and
maybe
connection
with
the
suggestion
to
stop
after
orders
of
succession,
perhaps
orders
of
succession
for
agency
positions.
N
I
I
don't
like
to
disagree
with
David,
but
I
think
existing
means
that
if
they
change
the
order
around,
they
wouldn't
have
to
publish
it.
I
I,
don't
think
existing
does
any
useful
work.
I
would
suggest
we
not
included,
but
I.
N
M
So,
let's,
why
don't
we
should
we
put
a
Alexander?
Should
we
put
a
pin
in
this
for
the
next
time,
just
because
there
seems
to
be
more
discussion
to
be
had
on
this
as
opposed
to
taking
a
vote
on
it
so
anyway,
I
don't
want
to
I
want
to
be
respectful
of
everyone's
time,
because
two
hours
is
already
a
lot
to
take
from
your
day.
M
Thank
you
all,
Alexandra
or
Jeremy.
Did
you
have
any
closing
remarks
that
you'd
like
to
make.
A
M
Thank
and
thank
you,
everyone
and
Aaron
if
you
had
a
second
to
stay
on
the
line
after
everyone
drops
off.
Thank
you.
Everyone,
thank
you
for
your
active
participation,
really
appreciate
it.
M
Thank
you,
Alexandra
I
didn't
ask
you
to
stay
on,
but
I
meant
for
you
too
so
and
Jeremy.