►
From YouTube: Committee on Adjudication Meeting #2 | Precedential Decision Making in Agency Adjudication
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
Briefly,
briefly,
thank
everyone
for
attending
on
what
is
turning
out
to
be
a
beautiful
fall
day.
I
was
thrilled
to
see
so
many
of
you
interested
in
this
project
and
and
able
to
join
us
and
I'm
looking
forward
to
a
a
lively
discussion
today.
For
those
of
you
who
don't
know
me,
my
name
is
Matthew
gluth
I'm,
an
attorney
advisor
here
at
acus
and
I'm
staff
Council
on
a
project
on
presidential
decision
making
before
we
get
going
in
Earnest
I'm
going
to
take
two
roles.
A
The
first
will
be
the
names
of
the
committee
members
and
their
alternates
after
each
name
is
called.
Please
say
here,
so
we
can
make
sure
your
mics
are
working
and
we'll
go
from
there.
First
Nadine.
B
A
Kent
Barnett
he
was
a
maybe
there's.
Apparently
something
came
up
today,
so
hopefully
he'll
join
us
soon.
Jack
Biermann,
here
Michael
Cole,
here
Adam
Kress,
is
alternate
for
Annika
Cooper
here,
David
engstrom,
hopefully
he'll
hop
on
later
hi
Thug
blue
here.
A
Okay,
hopefully
he'll
join
us
soon
as
well.
Robert
lesnick.
A
A
A
For
for
Patrick,
until
David
Ross.
A
D
E
G
A
Sorry
Mike:
oh
no
problem,
thanks
for
chiming
in
as
anybody
else
from
the
committee
on
adjudication
here
that
I
have,
whose
name
I
have
not
called.
H
David
angstrom
I
just
got
here
sorry
to
arrive
late
great
thanks.
A
No
I
was
going
to
put
you
in
the
in
the
unable
to
vote
category
so
I'm
going
to
get
to
you
guys
next,
all
right
next
I'm
going
to
call
the
names
of
other
Acres
members
and
our
Consultants
and
again,
please
say
here
if
you're
here,
so
we
can
make
sure
your
mic
is
working.
I
know,
Matt
is
here
and
if
Mike
is
working
so
I'll
just
Mark
You,
Down,
Chris
Walker.
J
B
A
F
Rochelle
Washington
sitting
in
on
behalf
of
departmental.
A
L
A
For
letting
me
know
with
that
I'm
going
to
hand
this
us
over
to
chairman
Andrew
foyce,
who
was
asked
to
say
a
few
brief
words
before
we
get
going
on
our
work
this
afternoon,
Andy.
M
Thanks
very
much
Matt
and
chairman
Nadine,
as
some
of
you
may
have
noticed,
I
wasn't
able
to
make
last
week's
committee
meeting
so
why
I
wanted
to
take
just
a
minute
to
say
hello
and
welcome
to
the
entire
committee
and
everyone
else,
who's
who's
here,
some
of
you,
I
I,
have
not
had
a
chance
to
to
meet
and
work
with
yet
but
I
I
look
forward
to
that
opportunity.
M
Also
a
special
thank
you
to
Nadine
who's,
experienced
and
and
talented
hand
has
been
evident
throughout
this
throughout
this
process
of
meetings
and
the
the
written
product.
A
special
thank
you
as
well
to
our
three
con
consultants
and
to
the
staff
of
acus
Matthew
Bluth,
Jeremy
Alexandra,
any
of
the
others.
M
Who've
worked
on
it
it
it
looked
to
me
like
you,
did
good
work
last
this
week
at
the
first
meeting,
and
you
have
a
full
agenda
today,
so
I
I
look
forward
to
to
following
and
and
helping
if
I
can.
Thank
you
Nadine.
F
Thank
you
so
much
Andy
we're
glad
to
have
you
join
us
today
and
thanks
for
the
kind
words
that
this
work
only
gets
done
by
committee.
Obviously,
so
everybody
here
is
committed
to
doing
this
good
work,
I'm
going
to
run
through
some
of
the
ground
rules
so
that
we
can
get
started
right
away.
F
Some
of
you
know
them
some
of
you
don't
but
I'm
covering
them
I'm
obligated
to
do
so.
As
committee
chair,
please
note
that
only
acus
members,
which
includes
government
members
and
their
designated
alternates
public
members,
senior
fellows
liaison
representatives
and
special
counsels,
whether
or
not
on
the
committee
and
their
designated
alternates,
have
full
speaking
privileges,
meaning
that
a
non-acous
member
should
write
in
the
chat.
If
you
want
to
speak
to
avoid
background
noise,
please
keep
your
microphone
on
mute
and
use
the
hand
raise
function
or
add
a
comment
in
the
chat
feature.
F
If
you'd
like
to
speak,
I
will
call
on
you.
You
can
unmute
yourself
and
then
re-mute
yourself
when
you're
done.
Please
akus
members
I
would
ask
that
you
use
the
webcam
it's
great
to
see
people.
It
helps
the
dialogue.
It
helps
the
interaction.
So
please
keep
your
cameras
on
if
at
all
possible,
regarding
attendees
other
than
acus
members
and
alternates
participation
requires
the
unanimous
consent
of
the
committee
members.
So
time
permitting.
F
I
will
call
on
those
attendees
at
appropriate
points,
and
we
will
presume
that
a
Committee
Member
the
committee
member's
consent
to
that
apps
that
they're
raising
an
objection
if
any
such
participant
would
like
to
speak
again.
Please
indicate
in
the
chat
feature
or
by
using
the
hand,
raise
feature
and
wait
to
speak
until
I
call
on
you.
You
can
then
unmute
yourself
and
re-mute
yourself
when
you're
done
for
all
participants.
Please
use
the
chat
function
only
to
indicate
when
you
would
like
to
speak.
F
Please
do
not
hold
any
sidebar
discussions
or
put
substantive
comments
in
the
chat
feature,
and
only
members
of
the
adjudication
committee
have
a
vote
which
we
hope
to
take
today.
Please
do
not
vote
unless
you
are
a
member
of
the
committee.
We
have
a
list
in
case
you're,
not
sure
whether
you're
permitted
to
vote.
All
three
Consultants
as
Matt
noted
are
members
of
the
adjudication
committee
and
they
will
be
participating
today
solely
in
their
capacities
as
consultants.
So
they
will
not
be
voting.
A
F
My
plan
is
to
start
with
the
Preamble,
since
we
have
not
looked
at
that.
Yet
we've
been
through
the
recommendations
at
the
last
meeting,
so
it
would
be
great
if
we
could
start
with
that,
and
we
have
already
gotten
several
comments
and
suggestions
from
different
members
of
the
committee.
I
think
largely
Russell
and
Jeff,
but
we
get
to
start
right
at
the
top.
With
the
title,
Russell
has
a
suggestion
about
the
title.
E
No
just
just
to
summarize
what
I
said
in
the
comment,
it
seems
to
me
that
the
recommendation
is
much
broader
than
how
to
make
presidential
decisions,
which
is
how
I
would
read
it
and
I
suggested
an
alternative
title
which
may
not
be
any
good.
I,
said
presidential
decisions
and
AG
agency
adjudication
policies
and
procedures.
E
I,
don't
know
if
that's
the
best
way
to
do
it.
I
think
the
Consultants
might
have
a
better
idea.
The
committee
members,
but
I
just
I,
thought
it
was
too
limiting
a
title.
I
This
is
Matt
I,
don't
I,
don't
see.
The
title
is
limiting
I,
don't
I
I,
just
don't
I,
don't
see
that
I
also
because.
I
I
also,
this
strikes
me
as
being
in
accord
with
other
most
other
aqueous,
the
titles
of
most
other
aqueous
recommendations.
E
B
F
Okay,
we
will
move
on.
Then
we
have
some
changes
in
the
first
paragraph
I
think
suggested
by
Jeff.
Initially,
I
don't
know
if
Jeff
wants
to
speak
to
that
I
think
it's
pretty
self-evident
that
essentially
we're
calling
out
what
we're
already
citing
to
in
the
footnote.
G
F
P
P
To
do
it,
sometimes
you
go
through
all
the
comments
first
and
then
go
back
so
I
wasn't
sure
so.
I
I
had
a
a
suggestion.
In
the
first
paragraph
you
know:
I
I,
don't
I,
don't
like
the
way
that
the
when
adjudicating
cases
Falls
at
the
end
of
the
first
sentence,
it's
it
seems
like
kind
of
hangs
there.
So
I
thought
maybe
moving
that
up
to
the
beginning.
When
adjudicating
cases,
comma
agencies
use
many
different
mechanisms
and
so
on
I
thought
that
read
better
I'm,
not
you
know
that's
my
usual
yeah.
B
Q
Well,
that's
not
the
way.
I
read
that
sentence.
I
read
that
the
agencies
use
many
different
mechanisms
to
formulate
policy,
not
when
adjudicating
cases
they
make
they
do
this.
The
adjudicating
cases
I
thought
referred
to
ensure
consistency,
predictability
and
uniformity
when
adjudicating
cases.
P
Well,
then,
you
would
take
the
you
would
take
the
and
out
from
before
uniformity
and
put
and
when
adjudicating
cases
I.
P
Q
G
Q
I
mean
that
that
was
I
mean
I,
didn't
like
the
first
sentence,
because
it
started
off
by
saying
agencies
use
many
make
them
to
formulate
policy,
and
then
it
ends
up
we're
talking
about
adjudication
in
this
recommendation,
and
although
some
agencies
do
use
adjudication
to
make
policy,
I
I
think
that's
more
the
minority
than
the
majority,
so
I
I
thought
it
was,
and
maybe
that's
why
some
people
have
had
difficulty
reading
what
I
think
was
written
there.
B
L
So
this
is
helpful
because
it
wasn't
something
that
focused
on
it.
It
is
really
important
and
I
would
like
to
hear
what
the
folks
who
wrote
it
intended
I
think
based
on.
What's
in
this
recommendation,
we
are
saying
that
agencies
use
don't
put
this
in
yet
let
me
do
it,
but
agencies
use
different
mechanisms
to
ensure
consistency,
predictability
and
uniformity.
When
adjudicating
cases
right
imagine
I'm
not
sure
about
enhanced
efficiency.
L
They
also
use
many
different
mechanisms
to
formulate
policy.
These
include
appellate
review,
legislated
non-legislative
right.
So
the
whole
point
about
this
is
agencies
are
formulating
policy
when
they
adjudicate
cases,
and
so
that
probably
should
be
made
clear
right,
because
all
agencies
have
some
mechanisms
to
ensure
consistency,
predictability
and
uniformity.
When
adjudicating
cases
I
mean
they
may
work
or
not,
but
they
all
have
something,
and
the
point
about
this
recommendation
is
that
case.
Adjudication
is
also
one
mechanism
of
formulating
policy
and
that's
why
having
a
Clarity
around
presidential
decisions
makes
sense.
J
I
didn't
I
didn't
work
on
the
draft
as
much
I
made
a
little
bit
but
I
I
think
our
idea,
at
least
in
the
report-
and
it's
not
word
I,
agree
that
the
progress
wasn't
worded
right,
but
but
I
think
we
really
do
mean
that
all
of
those
these
include
is
not
just
to
make
policy.
It's
also
to
enhance
efficiency,
ensure
consistency,
predictability,
uniformity,
and
so
so
we
view
those
mechanisms,
like
we
viewed
presidential
decision
making
as
one
more
tool
in
the
toolkit
for
advancing
all
of
those
goals.
J
So
I
don't
know
how
we
word
it,
but
but
I
think
that's
that's
that's
what
we're
trying
to
get
out
of
the
report.
Q
No
I
mean
I
was
just
I,
didn't
I
was
I,
agree
with
what
I
read
it
the
way
Chris
met
what
Chris
said,
which
was
that
that
this
idea
for
presidential
decision
making
and
our
recommendations
are
not
just
with
respect
to
because
it
formulates
policy,
but
it's
also
because
it
enhances
efficiency
and
ensures
consistency,
predictability
and
uniformity.
When
adjudicating
cases
that
that
presidential
decision
making
does
all
of
those
things.
L
B
P
You
know
I
think
that
if
I'm
understanding,
this
correctly
I
would
propose
the
following
to
substitute
for
the
entire
first
paragraph
and
the
first
sentence
of
the
second
paragraph
I
would
I
would
recommend
I'm
suggesting
agencies
use
many
different
mechanisms
to
ensure
consistency,
predictability
and
uniformity.
When
adjudicate
adjudicating
cases
include,
including
designating
summer,
all
of
their
appellate
decisions
as
presidential.
P
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
mention
rulemaking
and
stuff
that
sort
of
thing
in
this,
because
that's
not
that's
you
know,
that's
not
the
topic
of
this
recommendation
so
and
then
just
take
out
everything
other
than
and
then
start.
The
second
sentence
would
be
a
definition
of
when
indecision
is
presidential.
P
F
G
G
F
M
J
L
Well,
my
comment
might
be
along
those,
so
I
like
that,
except
now,
we've
lost
to
the
point
that
those
cases
also
sometimes
set
policy.
You
know
and
certainly
I
know
at
EOC.
It
was
a
major
the
way
we
did
it.
We
use
federal
sector
cases.
So
maybe
what
you
say
agencies
use
it
I,
don't
think
you
need.
Many
agencies
use
different
mechanisms
to
ensure
consistency,
predictability
to
informative
when
adjudicating
cases,
including
designating
some
are
all
of
their
appellate
decisions.
L
As
presidential
presidential
agency
decisions
may
can
also
set
policy
for
the
agency
right,
because
that's
to
me
part
of
why
this
recommendation
at
some
point.
B
F
K
K
So
the
second
sentence
there
concerns
me
only
from
the
standpoint
of
and
I
would
really
welcome
others
thoughts
on
this,
the
the
ability
to
set
policy
through
decisions
I
recognize
it
obviously
sets
a
precedent
by
which
others
must
follow,
but
policy
guidance.
Those
are
really
loaded
terms.
These
days
following
executive
orders
and,
like
recent
case
West
Virginia
EPA
regarding
regulations
and
like
authority
to
do
so
I'm
a
little
bit
concerned
about
where
we
might
be
going
with
actually
overtly
stating
setting
policy
through
a
decision.
Thank.
J
Yeah
I
mean
I
I
do
think
a
lot
of
agencies
do
set
policy
through
presidential
decision
making,
but
I
wondered
if
we're
going
to
do
that.
I
wonder
if
we
to
kind
of
water
it
down
a
little
bit,
they're
not
watered
down,
but
we
could
also
say
something
like
presidential
agency
decisions
can
also
set
policy
for
the
agency
as
well
as
communicate
to
the
public
and
court
or.
J
J
F
We
do
have
some
of
that
in
the
second
paragraph
of
the
Preamble,
so
we
may
be
looking
at
ways
to
kind
of
blend
these
issues.
These
topics,
let's
see,
let's
go
to
Roxanna
fresh
new
voice.
O
Sure
I
was
just
going
to
say
that
I
liked
the
fact
that
the
original
language
referred
to
rulemaking
as
a
part
of
the
presidential
decision
making
and
the
reason
I
liked.
It
is
because
that
might
not
be
something
people
usually
think
about.
But
when,
like,
for
example,
when
my
agency
does
rulemaking
sure
we
do
procedural
at
times
which
isn't
really
an
issue.
But
when
we
do
substantive
rulemaking
that
then
directly
informs
our
presidential
decision
making
going
forward.
O
Once
that
final
rule
is
published,
and
that's
why
we
do
the
rulemaking,
because
we
think
that
there
is
an
area
of
the
law.
That's
to
what
the
board
members
are
doing
all
the
time.
But
there's
an
area
law
that
they
feel
needs
to
be
clarified
on
a
broader
scope
and
so
we'll
issue
a
rule
on
joint
employer,
we'll
issue
a
rule
on
some
other
topic
and
then
from
that
point
forward.
Our
presidential
decisions
comport
with
what
the
rule
said.
O
So
it
is
a
part
of
used
as
a
part
of
the
decision
making
and
for
the
agency.
So.
O
F
O
L
L
You
know
so
sort
of
that's
the
formula
policy
was
the
term
used
rather
than
to
set
policy,
so
so
I
I
do
think
it
may
be
worth
going
back
to
original
language,
but
addressing
the
particular
issue
that
came
up
about
the
confusion
about
when
adjudicating
cases.
You
know
what
I
mean
so,
for
example,
it's
almost
like
I'm
just
looking
at
this
agencies
use
different
mechanisms.
I
don't
need
many.
L
L
You
know
the
only
reason
by
the
way
to
keep
legislative
and
non-legislative
at
the
end
is
the
pellet
review,
the
quality
assurance
programs,
the
aggregate
decision
making
those
are
all
connected
to
adjudicating
cases
and
then,
as
Lauren
said,
sometimes
when
you
realize
it,
you
know
what
we
should
just
do:
a
rule
or
guidance
that
is
sort
of
chronologically,
sometimes
at
the
end,
so
I
guess
what
I'm
suggesting
is
that
we
go
back
to
the
original
language
but
make
some
changes
to
address
the
confusion
that
had
arisen.
R
Not
directly
related
to
highest
point,
but
I
I
think
one
problem
here
is,
and
it's
not
unique
to
this
recommendation
and
I
think
the
report
makes
the
point
really
well.
Is
that
no
one
really
knows
what
policy
means:
lots
of
people
Define
policy
very
differently
to
mean
very
different
things
for
a
lot
of
people,
interstitial
decision
making,
isn't
necessarily
making
policy?
R
It's
just
the
active
interpretation,
so
it
might
be
useful
instead
of
using
the
word
policy,
which
is
quite
loaded
to
say,
something
like
agencies
can
also
use
presidential
decisions
to
communicate
how
they
interpret
legal
requirements
or
intend
to
exercise
discretionary
Authority,
which
I
think
probably
makes
the
point
without
using
a
vague
and
loaded
word
like
policy.
R
P
I'm
gonna
I
guess
I'm
gonna
give
it
one
more
try
because
I
I've
sort
of
re
I
Rewritten
my
rewrite
and
I'm
listening
to
as
I.
Listen
to
this
discussion,
I'm
I'm
I'm,
even
more
convinced
that
we
need
to
isolate
our
attention
on
on
presidential
decision
making
in
the
text
and
only
talk
about
other
methods
in.
P
If
an
agency
makes
a
rule,
then
of
course
all
adjudicators
within
that
agency
are
bound
to
follow
that
rule
when
they
adjudicate
cases
and
even
the
agency
heads
that
are
that
are
required
to
unless
they,
unless
they
repeal
the
rule
somehow,
whereas
so
that's
one
method
and
that's
why
those
the
other
methods
belong
in
the
footnote
if
they
belong
in
here
at
all,
whereas
the
method
we're
zeroing
in
on
here
is
president
financial
decision
making
in
the
course
of
adjudication
and
but
I
do
so.
P
I
do
have
a
rewrite
based
on
this
discussion,
because
I
understand
I,
inadvertently,
left
efficiency
out
and
now
I
understand
a
little
bit
more
about.
Why?
Maybe
we
need
to
mention
policy
in
this
also,
so
let
me
throw
this
one
out
there
and
see
what
people
think
about
this.
Agencies
use
many
different
mechanisms
to
establish
and
communicate
agency
policy
and
to
assure
efficiency,
consistency,
predictability
and
uniformity
when
adjudicating
cases,
com,
including
designating
some
or
all
of
their
appellate
decisions
as
presidential.
F
Can
you
go
back
Jack,
slow
down,
okay,.
P
Yeah
it
comma,
including
that
including
designating
summer
all
of
the
repellent
decisions
as
presidential
okay
and
then
in
the
the
footnote,
I
would
say
other
Mech,
the
other
mechanisms,
these
other
mechanisms
include
and
then
in
up
till
as
a
palette,
review,
legislative
and
non-legislative
rules,
I,
would
say
rule
making
rather
than
rules,
but
that's
a
preference
quality
assurance
programs.
F
So
that
would
replace
these
lines.
Four
through
seven
sorry,
I'm
gonna
go
back
up
it.
Wouldn't
it
would
replace
all
of
that.
Okay.
P
K
I
do
still
carry
the
concern
related
to
policy,
especially
actually
after
hearing
Jeremy's
alternative
language
that
I
think
captured
what
I
was
trying
to
say
so
eloquently
we
I
I
am
uncomfortable
with
the
idea
that
our
executive
office
immigration
review
within
the
justice
department
that
we
are
communicating
agency
policy
through
our
board
precedent
decisions,
I
think.
Rather,
we
are
applying
existing
policy.
K
K
However,
I
do
recognize
that
it's
saying
it
is
but
one
mechanism
and
we
are
but
one
agency,
so
I,
you
know
I
wouldn't
go
so
far
as
to
say
I
think
it's
overall
problematic,
but
to
the
extent
others
relate
and
are
concerned
with
that
Precision.
That's
my
piece.
L
Yeah
I
think
maybe
we
can
because
I'd
like
this
redo,
but
I
just
want
to
agree
again
with
Lauren
Jeremy
I,
really
liked
your
alternative
formulation.
If
you
can
remember
it
because
that's
the
one
piece
I
didn't
want
to
lose,
you
know
it's
a
way
of
communicating
the
agency's
position
on
legal
issues.
You
know
in
the
statutes
they're
implementing
so
I
think
if
we
do
that,
then
I
actually
am
comfortable.
I
think
this
is
a
better
sentence.
Can.
L
No
I
think
it's
to
substitute
for,
establish
and
communicate.
They
use
different
mechanisms
to
communicate
how
they
interpret
legal
requirements
and
to
exercise.
You
know
what
I
mean,
but
that's
too
long
that
maybe
you
can
just
say:
I
I,
don't
know
I,
don't
know
I
didn't
to.
L
But
but
you
don't
want
to
use
presidential
decision
when
adjudiced,
including
Dent,
communicating.
L
To
fit
in
that,
you
can
no,
but
you
don't
need
the
how-to
exercise.
Discretionary
Authority
I
mean
I,
think
Lauren's
point
in
the
way
I'm
agreeing
is
instead
of
saying
policy
communicate,
establish
and
communicating
policy,
but
agencies
are
doing
is
establishing
and
communicating
to
establishing
Community
how
they
interpret
Okay
Google
requirements
in
the
statutes
they
Implement
right.
J
O
You
in
terms
of
what
I
was
editing
I
thought
that
if
you
left
Jeremy's
sentence
the
way
it
is
at
the
end,
not
deleting
it
and
then
in
Jack's
new
language,
you
just
say:
agencies
use
many
different
mechanisms
too
then
get
rid
of
establish
and
communicate
agency
policy.
O
F
In
yeah,
yeah
I
think
we
put
a
pin
in
that
I
actually
like
that,
because
I
think
it
melds
Jack's
original
concerns
with
I
think
some
great
language
that
Jeremy
came
up
with
and
takes
into
account
hi
and
Lauren's
concerns
as
well.
So
why
don't
we
leave
that
first
paragraph
delete?
Can
we
delete
yeah,
you're
reading
my
mind,
Matt.
F
F
So,
let's
go
through
I
want
to
be
clear
since
Jack
raised
it
that
we
can
go
through
the
the
comments
and
the
edits
that
are
specifically
flagged
here,
but
that
does
not
mean
that
that
we're
not
open
to
obviously
discussing
the
entire
paragraph.
So
we
have
the
suggestion
from
Jeff
to
indicate
below
the
agency
head
level.
F
I
actually
had
a
question
on
that,
but
I'll.
Let
Jeff
explain
his
thoughts.
G
We're
talking
about
an
agency
adjudicator
that
has
to
follow
its
holding,
and
if
it's
the
agency
head,
they
don't
necessarily
have
to
follow
the
holding.
So
I
was
trying
to
say
below
the
agency
head
level
now
I
realize
that
could
be
just
the
hearing
level
person
aljaj,
but
it
also
could
be
in
the
in
the
case
of
the
Department
of
Justice
Bia,
because
you
know
it's
there's
an
intermediate
stage
in
the
in
the
in
eoir,
so
I'm
I
was
trying
to
just
exclude
the
thought
that
agency
agency
heads
had
to
follow
their
previous
Holdings.
O
Maybe
we
could
put
that
in
a
footnote
or
something
because
at
least
at
my
agency,
our
agency
heads
who
are
also
adjudicators
are
bound
by
precedent,
and
we
have
plenty
of
footnotes
where
a
board
member
will
say.
Well,
I,
don't
like
this,
but
I'm
Bound
by
President.
Unless,
thus
the
majority
is
willing
to
overturn
it,
and
so
they
are
bound
until
they
eventually
get
enough
people
to
agree
to
change
it.
I
had.
Q
F
Q
Yeah,
but
that's
the
point:
whoever
made
the
precedent
the
individual
didn't
make
the
precedent
either.
Whoever
made
the
precedent
is
bound
is
not
bound
by
the
precedent
they
can
overrule
it.
Anybody
below
or
individual
members
cells
are
are
bound,
but
the
people
below,
but
not
the
person
who
made
the
person
or
entity
that
made
the
presidential
decision
that
entity
or
person
can
always
overrule
it.
G
But
I
think
Roxanne's
point
was
something
I
didn't
consider,
which
is
the
individual
board.
Member
might
feel
that
you
know.
G
Q
Right
and
that's
why
I
think
the
idea
of
putting
the
idea
in
a
footnote
explaining
that
the
difference
between
vertical
precedent
and
horizontal
precedent
can
be
something
could
be
explained
in
the
footnote.
Jack.
P
Okay,
so
I
think
this
can
also
be
handled
by
saying
less
and
saying
it
a
little
more
clearly
I,
just
I
here's
what
I,
what
I
think
we
we
should
do,
and
especially
given
in
light
of
Roxanne's
common,
which
is
accurate,
which
is
agency
heads,
are
bound
by
their
own
precedence
until
they
overrule
them
unless
they're
distinguishable,
so
I
would
say
because
otherwise
that's
that's
the
whole
point
of
this.
Otherwise
they
can
be
inconsistent.
P
Another
Wing,
which
is
a
little
Superfluous
I,
don't
know
usually
unrelated,
doesn't
I,
don't
know
why
we
would
need
to
say
that
and
the
other
stuff
about
must
answer
it.
In
the
same
way,
I
mean
that's
just
inherent
in
the
nature
of
precedent.
If
you
don't
understand
precedent,
you
really
don't
have
any
business
reading
this
recommendation
and
doing
anything
with
it.
So.
G
N
One
small
thing,
but
I
can't
tell
if
it
helps
a
little
bit
to
Roxanne's.
Point
too,
is
changing
its
to
the
agencies
holding
because
right
now,
I
think
it's
as
referring
back
to
the
agency,
adjudicator,
I,
I,
think,
which
seems
odd
in
and
of
itself.
But
if
we're
clarifying
that
the
holding
comes
from
the
agency,
then
it
makes
sense
that
one
adjudicator,
even
if
they're
a
multi-member
body,
is
bound
by
the
agency's
holding.
N
F
F
E
E
F
F
F
D
Right
and
you
know
in
your
prior
reports,
who's
laid
out
the
reasons
why
why
presidential
decision
making
just
doesn't
work
for
us?
You
know
the
the
the
the
non-adversarial
nature,
the
numerous
decisions,
and
you
know
we
have
a
as
an
organization,
have
gone
away
from
it
for
good
reason
and
and
gone
to
a
much
more
Cooperative
among
our
policy
component.
Our
our
initial
hearing
component,
our
general
counsel
and
us
to
come
up
with
these,
with
with
a
non-adjudication
Social
Security
rulings
that
reflect
that
they're
signed
by
the
agency.
D
And
are
received
reference
in
courts
and
are
complied
with
by
our
adjudicators,
who
do
you
know
600
000
cases
in
a
year?
So
we
just
wanted
to
be
sure
that
that's
sort
of
an
exception
for
the
for
the
for
our
type
of
adjudication
would
be
reflected
in
the
document.
F
I'm
gonna
ask
Matt:
I,
see
your
hand
up.
It
would
be
helpful
to
hear
from
you
yeah.
I
I
certainly
I
certainly
understand
Social
Security's
concern
I'm,
not
sure
that
I
agree
that
the
cases
that
the
cases
are
so
fact-specific
that
they
don't
lend
themselves
to
presidential
decision
making
SSA
obviously
uses
other
mechanisms
here.
I
The
only
thing
I
would
caution
here
in
terms
of
what
the
committee
does
is
there
are
prior
recommendations
of
acus
I
would
be
a
little
bit
careful
about
saying
that,
having
a
categorical
statement
to
the
effect
that
Social
Security
decision
making
doesn't
lend
itself
to
the
use
of
presidential
decision
making,
because
there
are
prior
Aegis
recommendations,
they're
cited
in
the
report
in
a
rather
lengthy,
footnote
and
I'm,
and-
and
they
do
refer
to
a
SSA,
they
do
recommend
to
some
extent
they
do
recommend
that
SSA
and
they're
they're,
not
recent
recommendations,
they're
a
little
bit
older,
but
they
do
recommend
that
egg
that
SSA
Place
greater
Reliance
on
presidential
decision,
the
use
of
Precedence.
I
Now
you
that
may
beg
the
question.
What
exactly
ache
is
meant
by
precedence
in
those
recommendations?
I
don't
have
them
in
front
of
me.
I
just
saw
the
comment,
but
I
just
do
want
to
make
the
committee
aware
that
there
are
these
other.
The
are
these
prior
recommendations
that
refer
to
SSA,
using
making
greater
use
of
presidential
decision
making.
F
Thank
you.
Let's
go
to
Bill
I
think
your
hand
was
up
first.
F
L
That
was
exactly
going
to
be
mine,
though
yeah.
That
was
slightly
different,
but
this
achieves
a
single.
P
I
had
I
had
one
more
thing
about
this
paragraph
I
don't
know:
is
it
appropriate
to
go
there
now?
So
the
next
sentence,
where
it
says
others
treat
only
some
applies
I'm.
Sorry,
the
following
in
either
case
the
presidential
decisions
come
from
an
agency
head,
I,
would
say
or
heads
and
take
out
the
the
parenthetical
and
then
down
a
couple
lines
below
there,
where
it
says
adjudicators
are
exercising
the
agency
heads
Authority
I
would
change
that
to
agency's
Authority.
P
If
I
think,
agency
and
agency
heads
is
synonymous
the
way
it's
treated
in
many
statutes
and
rules.
When
you
know
you
say
you're
exercising
The
agency's
Authority.
That
means
that
the
head
of
the
agency
or
like
the
multi-member
board
or
whatever
so
I,
think
that's
just
a
clear
way,
simpler
way
of
saying
that.
K
Thank
you
just
that
within
eor
we
would
not
consider
the
board
members
agency
heads
in
sort
of
the
traditional
layaway
of
looking
at
they're.
Certainly
senior
leaders
in
the
agency,
but
I
was
more
comfortable
with
the
parenthatable
okay.
T
I
just
want
to
confirm
that
the
Consultants
studied
20
adjudicating
agencies,
but
we're
all
comfortable
just
saying
saying
most
adjudicating
agencies
not
qualifying
it
to
you
most
of
the
adjudicating
agencies
considered
by
the
committee
and
preparing
this
recommendation,
or
some
qualifier
like
that.
Maybe
that's
not
necessary
if
the
20,
you
know
really,
you
know
we're
comfortable.
That
really
covers
you
know
almost
all,
but
my
understanding
was
that
was.
It
was
really
looking
at
the.
C
F
Okay,
let's
deal
with
that
first
and
then
we'll
go
back
to
the
parenthetical
question,
Matt
or
Chris
or
Melissa.
B
I
I
am
comfortable
with
it,
I
guess
it
does
raise
the
question.
You
know
what
what
adjudications
are
covered
by
this
recommendation.
There
are,
you
know
in
Prior,
acus
recommendations.
I
Sometimes
Aegis
has
identified
the
domain
of
adjudications
that's
covered.
Maybe
it's
probably
implicit
here.
I
think
it's
okay,
Jeremy
Melissa
Chris
may
have
thoughts
here.
Jeremy
may
have
some
thoughts
too,
but
I
I'm
comfortable
with
the
statement.
B
R
Can
I
mean
I
I,
Adam
I,
hear
you're
concerned,
because,
obviously
you
know
some
of
the
biggest
adjudication
programs
to
find
broadly.
Are
things
like
passport
adjudication
where
things
like
presidential
decision
making
is
almost
certainly
absent,
I
think
when
aikis
says
adjudicating
agencies,
people
tend
to
take
that
as
systems
in
which
case
which
there
are
hearings
and
some
sort
of
formalized
trial
like
process,
but
that's
probably
not
obvious
on
the
face
of
this
sentence,
would
using
the
word
many
satisfy
everyone.
I
Basically,
there
are
prior
recommendations
where,
in
the
adjudication
context,
where
acus
has
made
pretty
clear
that
it's
talking
about
adjudications
that
whose
hearing
level
hearing
whose
hearings
are
either
formal
adjudications
under
the
APA
or
are
trial-like
informal
adjudications
under
the
APA,
which
is
to
say
that
they're
at
very
least
the
hearings
are
an
exclusive
record
hearing-
is
legally
required
by
Statute
executive
order,
regulation
so
forth
and
so
on.
There
are
prior
adjudication
recommendations
that
have
identified
sort
of
the
domain
of
adjudications
with
which
the
recommendations
deal.
I
I
think
that
appellate
systems,
of
which
this
is
sort
of
a
child
didn't
not
do
that.
But
I
don't
recall
that
in
particular
offhand.
Maybe
that's
something
to
look
at
if
you
know
if
another
draft's
going
to
be
produced
here.
F
Let's
go
back
to
line
34.
in
terms
of
retaining
the
parenthetical
I.
G
F
I
think
Lauren
raised
the
concern
here
and
I
share
her
concern.
I
think
this
is
probably
the
better
way
to
go.
Lauren.
K
It's
piddly,
but
I,
actually,
The
Ore
is
really
important
because
I
think
without
it
it's
still
implying
that
the
board
is
in
fact
an
agency
head.
G
K
And
again
they
are
leaders,
I
don't
mean
to
take
away.
I
mean
they're,
incredible
legal
Minds
who
do
hard
work,
but
certainly
we
have
a
director
to
whom.
R
L
G
K
Most
certainly,
and
if
we're
considering
that
the
board
as
act,
the
fact
that
the
board
is
acting
under
the
authority
of
the
Attorney
General's
delegation
to
them,
then
you
know
I
think
that's
fine.
That
seems
a
little
nuanced
to
me
without
a
footnote
to
recognize
that
that's
the
fact,
because
the
Attorney
General,
though,
can
certify
decisions
to
himself
the
director
of
uir
actually
cannot
adjudicate,
and
so
it's
it's
just
a
really
unique.
K
A
unique
comparison.
I
wonder
is.
K
F
P
F
P
May
I
make
it
a
suggestion
to
address
this
exact
point:
go
ahead.
Okay,
so
I
think
that
the
problem
is
again
it's
we
can
remove
language
and
we
can
make
it
clear
so
in
either
case
pressure,
relations
can
come
from
an
agency
head
or
heads
comma
and
then
delete
everything
down
to
Delete
the
parenthetical.
You
can
and
then
keep
keep
the
next
sense,
adjudicators
X
any
of
the
agents
and
again
agencies
authority
to
remove
hearing
level
decisions.
P
Adjudicators,
who
review
hearing
level
decisions
which
that
captures
the
board
of
immigration
appeals
right
because
it
says
adjudicators
who
review
hearing
level
decisions.
Voters
decisions
are
subject
to
discretionary
agency
head
review.
Is
that
accurate
on
those
that
the
like
can't
the
the
the
Attorney
General
review?
The
Bureau
is
a
bureau
of
Education
Affairs
in
Justice
now
or
Homeland
Security
I
can't.
K
P
K
Depending
on
how
the
board
is
described
later
and
making
sure
that
agency
refers
to
doj
and
not
our
director,
because
that's
actually
a
very
important
piece
that
the
director
does
not
adjudicate
decisions,
then
I
agree
that
removing
the
parenthetical
and
leaving
the
rest
as
his
works.
K
F
47
through
53.,
we
had
a
comment
here
from
Russell.
Let
me
I'll
go
to
Adam
first
and
then
we
can
deal
with
Russell's
comment.
T
T
It
is
the
word
there
is
designating
the
right
word
there
or
is
it
identifying
and
the
reason
I
ask
is
because
it
seems,
like
the
prior
paragraph,
gets
to
the
recommendations
and,
like
I,
think
it's
like
four
through
nine
to
talk
about
the
procedures
that
are
used
to
designate
decisions
as
presidential,
and
it
seems
like
this
sentence
talks
more
about
the
recommendations
that
I
think
it's
like
10
through
I
want
to
say,
15
of
which
10
11
talk
about.
How
do
you?
T
It's
really
best
practices
for
kind
of
like
labeling
decisions
is
presidential
and
then
and
then
maybe
the
the
remaining
recommendations
talk
about
making
those
decisions
available
to
the
public,
so
it
seemed
when
I
read
it.
I
was
confused,
I
thought.
Maybe
this
was
getting
at
the
same
thing.
The
prior
paragraph
got
at,
but
I
thought
the
idea
was
to
get
it
something
different.
E
E
If
it's
one
or
either
one
requirement
or
two
it
seems
to
me,
you
got
to
do
something
to
to
make
a
little
clear
that
there's
there
tend
to
be
two
separate
or
two
somewhat
separate
items,
one
they
post
their
websites,
all
final
orders
and
second,
some
things.
They
can't
do.
If
that's
a
single
statutory
recommendation,
then
we
couldn't
change
it,
but
there's
any
way
to
just
make
it
a
little
easier
to
read
or
maybe
I'm,
maybe
I'm
the
only
one
who
stumbled
over
it
and
if
that's
the
case,
though,
withdraw
the
suggestion.
R
G
B
E
E
F
F
F
Foreign
we've
been
through
the
recommendation.
We
have
some
edits
that
were
done
by
staff.
We
also
have
some
comments
to
consider
as
well.
We'll
start
at
the
top
with
paragraph
one.
G
A
That
agency
heads
would
also
have
to
follow
it
unless
they
distinguished
or
overruled
it
right.
B
B
B
H
So
this
is
maybe
just
stylistic
but
I.
You
know
I
frankly
found
paragraph
one
to
be
kind
of
sledding.
There's
there's
it's
awfully
long
and
there
are
quite
a
few
Clauses
set
off
by
commas,
and
so,
if
folks
agree
with
me,
I
guess
I
would
recommend
one
of
two
things:
one
we
might
consider
dropping
the
commas
after
decisions
and
opinion.
H
It's
not
clear
to
me
why
that
Clause
needs
to
be
set
off
with
commas
which
might
make
it
read
a
little
a
little
more
clearly
to
my
mind,
alternatively,
if
we
want
to
Define
presidential,
maybe
we
put
that
in
a
separate
sentence.
Maybe
we
just
say
here:
comma
presidential
means
and
and
have
that
be
a
second
Standalone
sentence.
F
I
mean
the
one
thought
is
that
we've
kind
of
already
covered
this
territory
in
the
Preamble.
So
as
it
understood
what
we
mean
by
Presidential,
do
we
need
to
repeat
it
again?
I
bet,
I
will
have
a
thought
on
that
with
implementation,
but
I
think
David.
Your
suggestion
was
to
drop
the
comma
after
decisions
and
the
comma
before
the
as.
L
Yeah
I
one
of
the
things
I
felt
when
I
read
this
is
this
was
a
really
good
document
in
terms
of
implementation.
It
was
short,
it
was
clear,
I
think
in
terms
of
implementation.
L
Folks
will
read
the
Preamble
and
in
fact
that's
what
we
want
to
encourage.
So
I'd
rather
I
mean
I,
know
from
acus
president
or
I
guess
you
know
tradition,
you
sort
of
think
that
but
I
think
that
don't
expect
agency
folks
to
read
the
whole
report,
but
absolutely
expect
them
to
read
the
Preamble
and
have
that
influence
their
understanding
of
the
recommendation.
So
that's
just
my
gut
feeling.
F
L
Right
I
mean
actually
just
looking
at
this
I.
Don't
think
this
is
a
lot
of
language,
so
let's
say
should
consider
as
presidential
meaning
and
inceptionalization
distinguisher
is
overruled.
It's.
L
F
R
All
right,
so
since
the
question
of
aqueous
press
and
come
came
up,
I'll
jump
in
the
there's,
usually
a
preference
that
recommendations
be
self-contained,
I
guess.
The
question
here
is
whether
presidential
is
so
obvious
in
its
intention
that
you
don't
need
to
Define
it
again
here
or
whether
you
think
that
to
make
these
recommendations
self-contained
a
definition
is
necessary
to
include
in
recommendation
one.
So
I
think.
That's
the
that's
really
the
question.
P
F
P
Okay,
so
the
the
there's,
a
the
Clause
other
than
summary
dispositions,
unaccompanied
by
opinion.
That
really
is
a
backwards
way
of
or
a
cryptic
way
of
saying
that
we're
recording
that
we're
saying
that
they
shouldn't
treat
those
kind
of
dispositions
as
presidential
and
I
don't
know.
If,
if
an
agency
says
we
adopt
the
decision
of
the
alj,
is
that
not
allowed
to
be
present
not
allowed
to
be
presidential?
Are
we
recommending
that
they
can't
make
that
presidential
I
mean
I,
guess
I'm,
not
I?
P
I
I
mean
the
only
agency
I
can
sort
of
that
comes
to
my
I
mean
Roxanne
I,
don't
want
to
put
it
on
the
spot
here,
but
nlr
B
is
maybe
a
little
bit
of
an
outlier
here
and
and
basically
just
adopting
as
its
own
alj
decision,
sometimes
with
a
footnote
commentary
that
to
me
is
not
a
summary
disposition,
but
maybe
I'm
missing
something
here
when.
P
I
Yeah
I'm
thinking
yeah
exactly
Jim
I'm
thinking
of
a
case
in
which
you
know
you
have
an
initial
decision,
it's
not
or
so,
whatever
else,
whatever
it's
called
it's,
not
nobody
files,
an
appeal
in
the
agency.
You
know
it's
just
affirmed
under
the
agency
rules
or
statute,
and
that's
not
going
to
be
I'm.
Not
there's
no
agency,
at
which
I'm
aware
that
that's
going
to
be
presidential
I
am
distinguished.
P
I
guess
my
question
is:
are
we
saying
that?
Are
we
making
a
recommendation
that
agency
summary
dispositions
may
not
be
given
presidential
presidential
effect,
and,
if
so,
is
there?
Is
there
a
language
in
the
Preamble
or
in
the
report?
That
explains
that,
in
a
way
that
someone
can
understand
what
that's
about,
because
you
know,
in
other
words,
are
they
going
to
think
it's
about
the
nlrb
sort
of
thing?
Are
they
going
to
think
it's
only
about
something
else,
which
is
an
unappealed
decision
that
by
by
rule
becomes
the
agency
decision.
R
I
mean
one
option:
I
mean
would
just
be
include
these
in
the
list
below
we
have
a
and
b
and
at
a
certain
point
you
would
say
that
the
agency
should
consider
whether
it
issues
I,
don't
know
decisions
in
which
it
doesn't
provide
reasoning
for
its
decision,
and
maybe
those
are
not
useful
as
precedent.
So
I
think
that's
one
option.
B
I
I
think
Bill's
exactly
right
and
Jack's
exactly
right
here
took
the
phrase
would
require
too
too
much
qualification.
F
G
G
E
Well,
that
goes
to
my
comment.
Isn't
that
exactly
the
situation
in
which
you
want
the
agency
somehow
other
to
flag
those
I,
read
C,
to
say
there
may
be
presidential
decisions
out
there,
but
there's
so
many
decisions
in
total
that
that
we're
just
going
to
ignore
them
and
I.
That
seemed
to
me
to
be
a
somewhat
defeatist
approach.
Maybe
I'm
reading
it
wrong.
Maybe.
L
Yeah
I
definitely
thought
that
she
was
the
reason
to
have
some
things
designated,
so
it
was
a
positive
reason,
but
it
also
has
a
piece.
You
know
that
it
because
they
have
so
many
that's.
Why
we're
also
suggesting
procedures
like
an
adjudicator
can
bring
to
the
attention
individual
adjudicator
could
bring
to
the
attention
hey.
You
really
might
want
to
consider
this
so
I
think
it
works
the
way
it
is
so
I
don't
think
we
need
to.
L
Conversely,
I
think
people
understand
that
if
you
just
scroll
up
a
bit,
so
we
see
that
you
know
in
determining
when
agencies
should
consider
and
I
think
often
considerations.
The
pro
con
and
I
mean
I
think
BNC
have
a
lot
to
do
with
each
other.
You
know
you
often
have
a
lot
of
decisions
when
they
also
okay,
specific
but
again
in
terms
of
people,
understanding
it
in
the
agency
when
they
read
it.
I
think
they'll
understand
that
these
are
both
pros
and
cons
and
I.
L
G
L
Don't
either
oh
okay,
well,
I
can
definitely
tell
you
from
EOC
about
Steve.
So
can
you
go
down?
Okay,
so
so
EOC
will
issue
like
4
000,
Federal
sector
opinions
of
the
Year
okay,
most
of
those
are
just
straightforward
applications,
some
of
them
it's
just
the
AJ.
That's
decided
it,
but
that's
not
public,
then,
sometimes
by
the
way.
It's
a
pellet,
sometimes
it's
just
straight
from
the
agency,
but
there
are
a
lot
of
them
right
now.
L
Technically,
every
single
one
of
those
decisions
are
presidential
but
say
that
again,
but
it
doesn't
happen
that
way
because
they're
just
too
many
and
some
of
them
should
not
be
presidential.
So
it's
a
sort
of
combination.
It's
it's
adjudicators
cannot
reasonably
be
expected
to
identify
what
should
be,
and
you
know
what
the
agency
doesn't
want
every
second
one
of
those
to
be
at
least
at
b,
o
c,
because
we
just
delegated
authority
to
this
office
of
federal
operations,
so
I
I
think
thinking
the
recommendations.
L
H
L
Yeah
but
then
may
it
should
be,
should
it's
just
such
that
it
cannot
meet
guidance
to
identify
which
decisions
should
appropriately
control
and
that's
what
so.
For
those
agencies
that
haven't
made
that
clear
distinction
like
EOC,
maybe
others
that's
something
they
should
consider.
It's
just
a
reason
why
they
should
make
that
differentiation.
B
K
Just
again,
sorry,
I'm
I'm,
stuck
on
that
sort
of
the
size
of
the
word
guidance
akin
to
the
way
policy
is
these
days.
It's
it's
loaded,
I'm,
not
clear
who
would
give
the
guidance,
and
so
it
makes
me
a
little
uncomfortable
to
think
about
who
might
say
to
an
adjudicator
hey.
K
We
want
you
to
look
at
this
specific
issue
and
decide
it
in
this
way,
which
I
know
what
this
is
not
saying
in
in
its
black
and
white,
but
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
how
the
guidance
would
be
provided,
and
you
know,
career
political
will
be
providing
and
things
of
that
nature.
K
I
don't
have
an
immediate
suggestion
on
how
to
alter
it.
I
was
fine
with
the
language
as
it
was,
but
wanted
to
share
that
concern.
F
U
Hi,
thank
you
and
I'm
an
alternate
for
Scott
Bullock
who's,
the
the
chief
judge
of
the
patent
trial
and
appeal
board,
and
he
had
a
point
that
some
of
our
decisions
are
trial
decisions
they're,
not
all
appellate
decisions.
Q
I
I,
my
memory
of
the
report,
was
that
this
was
a
negative.
That
was,
this
would
be
a
reason
not
to
establish
something
as
precedent
and
I
can
be.
Maybe
the
the
Consultants
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
in
that,
but
I
think
we've
completely
changed
the
meaning
of
what
was
originally
intended
by
this,
and
that
may
be
okay,
but
it
just
that
struck
me
that
we,
we
are
changing
with
what
was
being
said
in
the
report.
F
R
I'll
defer
to
the
consultants
in
in
terms
of
which
way
they
should
go
candidly
and
reading
this
before
this
meeting,
I
I
had
the
same
confusion,
so
I'll
leave
it
to
determine.
E
F
F
E
E
F
The
extent
to
which
adjudicators
so
you're
flipping
the
yeah
is
that
the
idea,
and
while
we're
gonna,
try
that
Chris
do
you
have
some
input
here,
yeah.
J
I
mean
I
think
this
is
one
of
the
core
findings
of
our
recommendations
of
report.
Is
that,
especially
in
high
volume
communication
systems,
it's
really
important
to
be
selective
about
which
decisions
you
make
the
residential
wow.
That's
that's
got
to
be
that's
what
we're
trying
to
say
here.
I,
don't
know,
I,
think
last.
This
language
was
kind
of
Wordsmith
in
the
last
okay,
the
last
one
as
well,
but
I
mean
I,
think
that's
a
key,
find
I,
know
Social,
Security
and
Veterans.
Don't
do
it
and
that's
fine,
but
well
it's.
B
I
Agree
with
Chris
100
there's
just
going
to
be.
If
you
have
a
high
volume
adjudication
system-
and
you
don't
you
don't
draw
these
distinctions,
I
mean
you're
going
to
have
you're
going
to
have
decisions
in
the
system
that
you're
going
to
have
decisions
out
there
that
that
really
effectively
are
are
not
of
much
use
to
adjudicators.
They
might
be
highly
fact,
specific,
mixed
questions
of
fact
and
law
and
so
forth,
but
in
any
event
they're
just
they're.
I
Just
you
can't
expect
the
adjudicators
to
pick
out
in
a
in
a
large
in
a
high
volume
system
what
they
should
be
focusing
on.
That's
the
point
here.
L
Yeah
yeah
to
do,
can
you
go
back
up
I,
don't
know
how
I
I'm
sorry,
if
I
missed
this
conversation,
okay
in
determining
whether
by
changing
adjudicator
should
treat
that's
not
what
I
thought
we're
doing
here
right,
I
agree.
Look
at
the
first
sentences
right
agencies
should
consider
whether
and
if
so,
when,
to
pre-dependent
decisions
as
presidential
meaning
blah
blah
in
determining
whether
so
this
is
in
the
agency
determining
whether
so
I
would
just
take
out
adjudication
treat.
L
You
know
when
the
agency
determines
whether
all
someone
know
appellate
decisions
should
be
treated
as
presidential
agencies
should
consider
I.
Don't
think
you
need
to
change
anything
I.
Think
in
determining
whether
clearly
goes
back
to
the
first
sentence
of
the
agency
should
consider
in
determining
whether
all
summer,
no
appellate
decisions
should
be
treated
as
presidential
excuse
with
the
agency.
They
should
consider.
Obviously
it's
going
to
be
then
controlling.
O
P
I,
just
wonder
whether
whether
c
I
I
don't
have
language,
whether
C
should
go
back
to
the
concept
of
guidance,
and
that
say
that
adjudicators
need,
you
know,
guidance
from
you
know.
Guidance
is
a
loaded
word,
but
whether
adjudicators
need
indications
from
the
agency.
Something
about
you
know,
so
that
it
goes
back
to
that.
It's
the
agencies,
responsibility
to
tell
the
adjudicators
when
to
treat
them
as
presidential
I.
R
I'll
try
how
about
something
like
the
extent
to
which
designating
some
decisions,
as
presidential
would
identify
for
adjudicators,
which,
among
a
high
volume
of
decisions,
should
control
decision
making
in
future
cases.
F
B
K
R
K
Still
I'm
I'm
still,
and
if
it's
me
then
I'll
I'll
withdraw.
But
it
seems
to
me
that
the
were
saying
that
there's
potential
that
some
of
our
precedent
wouldn't
control
future
decision
making
like
I,
don't
the
focus
on
the
high
volume
seems
to
be
like
you
have
too
many
cases
to
worry
about
that.
The
precedent
would
necessarily
apply
to
all
of
them.
Even
if
it's
applicable.
R
I
take
it.
The
point
is
that
if
you
have
thousands
of
decisions,
it's
difficult
for
this
for
adjudicators
to
consume
all
of
that
information.
So
to
the
point
that
you
want
cases
treated.
Similarly,
it's
useful
to
point
out.
Okay,
these
are
the
10
to
15
decisions
a
year.
You
should
pay
attention
to
don't
worry
about,
reading
and
consuming
all
thousands
of
them.
F
Which
kind
of
takes
us
back
to
the
language
we
had
to
start
with,
which
is
leading
with
the
concept
of
a
high
volume
right,
so
it
mirrors
What,
A
and
B
say,
which
is
to
the
extent
to
which
the
agency
issues
a
high
volume
of
decisions
and
adjudicators
can't
discern
which
ones
are
I
mean
we're
kind
of
right
back
to
where
we
were
hi.
Help.
L
Yeah
I
was
gonna
say:
can
we
just
see
what,
if
we
go
back
to
where
we
were,
whether
like
sort
of
what
the
problem
would
be
with
that,
because
I
do
think
we
had
finally
gotten
so
just
take
that
out.
So
a
third
thing
is,
as
they're
figuring
out
whether
to
do
this,
the
extent
to
which
the
agency
issues
such
a
large
volume
of
decisions
that
adjudicators
cannot
reasonably
be
expected
to
identify
which
decisions
should
that's.
Why
we
take
out
May
which
isn't
taken
out.
L
There
should
control
future
decisions,
like
I,
said
for
those
right
now
where
they
don't
make
that
differentiation
adjudicators
can
just
decide
on
their
own,
which
is
precedent,
and
you
may
not
want
that.
You
know,
and
let
me
tell
you
they
don't
read
everything
every
other
decision,
but
sometimes
if
a
person
raises
cites
that
decision
and
then
they
go
and
then
they
think
oh
yeah,
that's
precedent.
F
F
We
had
commas
on
in
D
from
Jeff
Federal
for
consistency,
Jack.
P
F
Great,
let's
go
to
three:
oh
Jack
used
okay,
I'm
assuming
that
was
still
up
from
before.
Okay,
three
I
think
is
this
Jeff,
adding
generally
and
maybe
Russell
I,
don't
know
who
added
other
was
that
Russell
or
Jeff
yeah
Russell?
Okay,
any
thoughts
on
that.
F
I
You
know
I,
don't
think
that
I
mean
this
obviously
is
a
debate
that
was
all
the
rage
in
the
federal
court
several
decades
ago,
which
resulted
in
an
amendment
to
the
federal
rules
of
pilot
procedure.
I,
don't
know
if
Chris
or
Melissa
recall,
I,
don't
recall
any
agency
rules
that
prohibit
applicants.
Point
prohibit
citation,
There
are
rules
that
say
the
agency
doesn't
have
to
address
it,
distinguish
it
and
so
forth.
I,
don't
know
that
there
are
any
rules
of
prohibition,
I
mean.
I
If
the
Acres
wanted
to
follow
the
rule
practice
of
the
federal
courts.
He
would
not
want
to
acknowledge
prohibition
as
a
sort
of
a
legitimate
practice.
F
H
I
I'm
confused
on
a
quick,
read,
I
was
really
confused
by
paragraph
three
and
just
just.
Let
me
see
if
others
had
the
same
problem,
there's
kind
of
a
weird
greater
lesser
included
thing
going
on
here.
So
the
you
know
it
opens
with
a
strong
statement
that
you
shouldn't
prohibit
but
should
also
specify
you
know,
circumstances
when
you,
you
could
cite
it
and
if
out
of
the
choice
set
of
eight
reasons,
they
could
sign
on
an
unprecedented
decision.
The
answer
is
zero.
H
Well,
that's
the
same
as
prohibiting
it
and
so
I
guess:
I
I
I,
don't
quite
I
really
stumbled
over
it
a
couple
times.
I
read
it
so
feathers
had
that
same
confusion,
or
now
that
I've
noted
the
confusion
of
others,
see
it
I'm,
not
sure
exactly
what
the
fix
is,
but
yeah
again,
I
think
the
best
way
to
conceptualize.
It
is
there's
kind
of
a
general
lesser
included
issue
here.
P
I
mean
I
I
think
it
is
I.
Oh,
it
struck
me
as
a
little
bit
odd,
but
I
assumed
there
was
something
behind
us
that
that
if
they
were
saying
they
shouldn't
prohibit
citing,
but
they
they
can
decide
how
they
will
consider
it
it
would
that
include,
saying
we're
not
going
to
consider
it,
but
yeah.
H
P
I,
didn't
you
know,
but
I
think
maybe
there's
something
I
thought.
Maybe
there
was
something
behind
this
that
I,
just
because
I
hadn't
read
the
report
carefully,
but
the
other
thing
is
I
didn't
understand
the
addition
of
the
word.
Other
I
don't
see.
How
other
adds
anything
to
this,
and
maybe
Russell
will
tell
us
but
I
didn't
understand
how
the
word
other
ads
well.
E
I
read
it
to
say
that
you
you,
you
can't
use
it
in
written
or
oral
arguments,
but
there
may
be
other
circumstances
in
which
somehow
or
other
you
you
could
do
so
I
mean
that
that's
the
only
way.
That's
that's
why
I
read
it.
I
I
was
confused
by
the
same
thing
too,
but
otherwise
it
seemed
to
say
you
can't
do
it,
but
yeah
you
can't.
Sometimes
you
can
do
it.
P
N
Ken
the
way
I
have
always
understood
this
debate
to
play
out
is
whether
or
not
one
can
cite
the
non-presidential
decision
as
persuasive
Authority,
so
I
wonder
if
just
adding
after
oral
arguments
as
persuasive
Authority
period
takes
care
of
the
main
debate.
That's
always
surrounded
this
issue.
J
Yeah
I
mean
this
is
the
this
is
the
thing
that
agencies
have
struggled
with.
Is
they
they
don't
prohibit
parties
reciting
it,
but
they
don't
necessarily
make
it
really
clear
that
when
you
do
cite
it,
it
doesn't
bind
the
agency.
You
know
that
it's
just
persuasive,
it's
just
and
some
agencies.
They
don't
even
want
their
adjudicators
to
view
it
as
persuade
you
know
like
they.
They
want
them
invasive
just
on
the
presidential
decisions
and
not
be
worried
about
interdecisional
existencies
in
other
cases.
J
So
I
think
it
is
worth
kind
of
saying
you
shouldn't
prohibit
them
from
citing,
because
that's
the
federal
court
standard
that
should
be
there,
but
then
say
something
after
that
that
it
could,
but
they
should
say,
remind
the
parties
that
it's
not
binding,
it's
just
persuasive
or
something
along
those
lines.
E
Q
I'm
not
clear
now,
which
is
which
is
they.
They
can't
prohibit
them
from
citing
it
as
persuasive
Authority,
but
they
can
they,
but
they
can.
What
can
they
use
it?
For
I
mean
what
I'm
thinking
of
is
is
the
poor
alj
who
gets
a
bunch
of
things
cited
to
him
and
he
has
to
waste
his
time
looking
at
them,
because
he
didn't
one
if
he
doesn't
know
that
the
what
what
they're
being
used
for
and
why
are
they
there?
Q
F
Well,
one
thought
is
that
you
make
it
clear,
I,
think
our
our
the
agency,
that
the
commission
that
I
work
for
the
agency
makes
clear
that
when
you
can
cite
it,
but
if
you
cite
it,
you
need
to
indicate
that
it's
an
alj
decision
and
therefore
that
would
indicate
that
it's
non-binding
to
the
extent
that
it
it
indicate.
You
know
that
you
shouldn't
prohibit
from
citing
as
long
as
you
know,
provided
that
it's
Apparent
from
the
citation
that
it's.
Q
Not
mining,
we
have
somewhere
else
in
the
recommendations
here
and
I.
Look
for
it
and
I
couldn't
quickly
find
it
about.
If
you
cite
non-presidential
decisions,
what
has
to
be
done,
and
maybe
maybe
that
would
cure
my
concern?
But
it's
can
you?
Can
we
can
the
agency
pivot
parties
from
citing
non-presidential
decisions
period.
Q
I
mean
it
seems
like
they
we're
not
telling
them,
they
can't
just
say.
Oh,
when
do
you
are
prohibited
from
citing
unprecedented
decisions,
because
we've
only
told
them
they
shouldn't.
Do
it
for
persuasive
Authority.
F
O
Yeah
I
think
this
conversation
highlights
why
this
whole
recommendation
is
important,
because
earlier
we
had
said
that
the
agency
should
designate
what
decisions
are
considered
presidential
that
helps
guide
people
in
their
arguments.
O
I,
don't
think
that
agencies
should
prohibit
parties
from
arguing
anything
they
can
argue
whatever
they
want.
As
long
as
it's
not
inappropriate
on
for
the
nlrb,
we
have
published
decisions.
Those
are
presidential.
We
have
unpublished
decisions
which
are
not
presidential
in
our
on
our
web
page,
where
we
post
our
unpublished
decisions.
It
says
at
the
top.
O
The
board
decisions
listed
below
are
not
binding
precedent,
except
for
the
with
respect
to
the
parties,
in
this
case,
or
in
the
specific
case,
and
so
to
that
extent
you
know
we
have
people
cite
unpublished
decisions
at
time,
because
the
facts
are
right
on
point
and
sure,
then
that's
persuasive
but
I,
don't
think
it's
a
problem
for
the
adjudicator,
the
alj
or
whomever,
but
because
they
know
it's
not
a
published
decision,
so
they're
not
bound
by
it,
but
it
might
be
persuasive.
O
N
J
C
I
I
think
one
other
reason
that's
highlighted
in
the
report
mentioned
in
the
report.
Why
they
should
be
cited
is
that
it's
possible
that
a
party
might
want
to
tell
an
agency,
and
especially
the
agency
head,
that
there's
a
line
of
non-presidential
decisions
that
that
the
agency's
deciding
cases
in
an
inconsistent
manner-
and
you
know
there
are
judicial
decisions
that
say,
can't
hide
behind
presidential
decisions.
I
You
can't
you,
you
can't
just
say
well
we're
not
we're
not
following
we're
designing
cases
inconsistently,
because
we're
some
of
our
cases
are
non-presidential
and
so
I
think
parties
should
be
have
the
opportunity
to
point
out
to
the
agency
potential
inconsistencies
that
reside
in
in
their
decisions,
and
that
might
include
in
some
cases,
identifying
non-presidential
decisions.
B
Q
I
found
the
other
place,
oh
good,
that
and-
and
it
reminds
me
of
what
we
did
at
the
last
meeting.
First
of
all,
I
have
no
problem
with
the
agency,
should
not
prohibit
parties
from
citing
non-presidentials
and
written
oral
arguments
period.
I
think
that's
fine,
but
we
we
had
taken
from
a
later
place
in
the
recommendation
and
put
here
the
the
question
of
the
agency
explaining
when
and
for
what
purposes.
Q
A
party
May
cite
an
unprecedented
decision
and
how
the
agency
will
consider
it,
and
that
is
actually
it
was
supposed
to
be
deleted
from
the
later
place
and
put
here,
but
we've
put
it
here.
The
staff
have
put
it
here,
but
it's
also
in
16f
is:
is
the
exact
same
language
except
it's
not
determined
when
but
explain
when
so
I
don't
I
mean
my
original
thing
was
to
try
to
put
all
this
non-presidential
decision
stuff
in
one
place
and
therefore
have
it
all
in
three.
Q
But
you
know
you
could
we
could
argue
about
this.
The
second
sentence
when
we
get
to
16f-
or
we
could
argue
about
it
now.
F
F
So
the
rule.
The
idea
is
that
the
rule
would
explain
I
actually
kind
of
like
it
now
that
I'm
reading
it
like
it
there,
maybe
keeping
it
and
keeping
it
there,
but
hi.
L
Actually
I
was
gonna
recommend
just
putting
that
period.
You
know
not
prohibiting
it
and
then,
when
we
get
to
what
the
agency
should
be
telling
the
public.
Let's
talk
about
whether
it
makes
sense
to
suggest
that
they
make
that
clear
to
the
public,
because
what
Roxanne
said
about
then
it'll
be
made
a
lot
of
sense
to
me.
So
I
think
here.
This
is
about
the
agency
deciding
whether
to
make
things
presidential
and
our
only
thing
on
three
is
and
by
the
way.
L
F
L
F
You
know
what
that's
actually
a
good
spot
to
take
a
break
and
I'm
not
going
to
turn
jack
down
on
that.
Let's
five
minutes,
ten
minutes
at
the
let's
try
for
five.
Can
we
try
for
five
because
we're
running
low
on
time
now
and
we've
got
a
lot
of
paper
to
go
through
five
minutes.
F
F
Well,
actually,
we
have
a
shift
in
the
title
here
of
the
heading
and
and
then
four
any
any
comments.
A
Staff
added
four
at
the
request
of
members
from
the
previous
meeting,
who
wanted
to
incorporate
some
of
the
additional
recommendations
from
the
report.
B
P
Didn't
get
this
one
at
all?
Okay,
you
know,
first
of
all
the
I.
The
word
streamline
kind
of
hit
me
wrong.
So
I
was
looking
at
this.
P
First
of
all,
the
first
sentence:
I
get,
but
then
the
second
sentence
you
know
but
I
would
just
read
it.
I
would
redo
it
as
agency
procedures
for
designating
decisions,
as
presidential
should
not
be
unduly
time
consuming
or
resource
intensive,
because
I
didn't
like
the
word,
streamline.
P
C
P
Unduly
time
consuming
or
resource
intent,
and
then
the
second
sentence
seemed
like
another
sort
of
like
a
half-baked
presidential
designation
system,
which
is
totally
like
comes
out
of
the
blue.
To
me,
like
the
idea
is
that
there
might
be
decisions
that
aren't
presidential
but
might
be
adopted
or
informative,
or
it's.
P
Okay,
but
then
does
it
belong
here
so
so
so
you
know
to
avoid
undue
unduly
time
consuming
or
research
and
sensitive
procedures
agency
may
also
consider
then
I
guess
I
mean
because
it
again
streamlining
I,
just
didn't
like
streamlining.
G
I
think
I
have
a
comment
here,
though,
now
now
that
I
look
at
it
adopted
an
informative
same
two
different
levels
of
of
intermediacy
here
I
mean
adopted,
sounds
more
like
presidential.
Informative
means,
you
know,
take
a
look
at
it,
you
could
say
highlighted
or
you
could
say
you
know,
I,
don't
know
it's
a
guiding
case
or
something
but
I
mean
I.
Don't
know
sorry,
I
I
know
this
is
derived
from
the
report.
But
if
we're
going
to
put
in
the
recommendation,
maybe
we've
got
to
think
about
a
little
bit
more.
F
O
I
was
going
to
ask
if
we
really
need
that
first
section
of
that
second
sentence:
do
we
need
to
say
to
avoid
unduly
time
consuming?
Can
we
just
start
that
sentence
with
sentence
with
agencies,
because
then
you're
just
saying,
okay,
Markham
is
presidential,
and
you
might
also
want
to
consider
marking
some
that
aren't
presidential
in
the
following
ways,
and
if
we
do
that,
then
you
know
to
Jeff's
point
then:
okay,
maybe
some
are
adopted.
Maybe
some
are
informative.
That
may
mean
different
things,
but
that's
okay.
O
We
have
a
section
where
we
call
certain
board
decisions,
notable
because
we
we
didn't
want
to
like
indicate
whether
we
thought
they
were
positive
or
negative.
They
are
of
note
or
notable
you.
B
Q
Oh
yeah,
no
I
I
didn't
see
why
we
should
argue
about
what
between
adopted
or
informative
I
mean
or
similar
term.
The
real
point
is
that
if
they
decide
to
use
a
term
that
they
ought
to
tell
people
what
the
hell
that
means
right-
and
we
don't
have
that
here,
but
that's
okay,
if
we
remember
to
put
it
in
the
park
recommendation
dealing
with
what
the
public
gets
to
know
yeah.
So
that's
my
point.
Okay,.
J
F
I
wondered
I,
wondered
if
the
hearing
level
or
appellate
level
needed
to
be
there
or
should
we
just
say
to
adjudicators
I'm,
not
sure
that
we've
used
that
language
throughout
consistently.
B
F
G
G
F
P
I
think
we
talked
about
this
last
time
that
the
reason
the
public
wouldn't
be
involved
is
because
it's
during
the
process
of
decision
making,
but
I
also
think
that
it
would
be
better
to
leave
it
singular
because
you're
talking
about
like
each
individual
case
in
five,
whereas
in
seven
you're
talking
about
maybe
a
number
of
cases
but
I,
that's
Jeff,
that's
why
I
think
my
memory
is
why
we
five
and
seven
were
different
in
that
way.
Right.
Okay,
thank.
B
L
Yeah
also
referring
to
have
a
conversation,
the
last
meeting
I,
don't
think
six
and
seven
should
be
flipped,
because
five
and
seven
seven
now
are
both
like
you
were
saying
cases
that
are
ongoing
right,
as
opposed
to
existing.
So
I
do
think
there
are
two
things
that
are
important
when
they're
ongoing
we
sort
of
reference,
one
is
okay,
it's
come
from.
You
know
an
AJ
decision
come
up
to
your
palette
with
thinking
we're
going
to
make
this
presidential.
L
You
know
what
maybe
we
want
to
pull
in
a
few
other
adjudicators
not
involved
in
that
case
that
we
want
to
talk
to
right.
It's
I
almost
feel
like
five
is
the
agency
deciding
they
want
that?
Well,
what
is
currently
seven
and
I
think
should
go
back
to
six.
Is
you
know
that
the
adjudicator
refers
it
up
like
hey
before
I
interlocutory
yeah?
It's
the
interlocutory
piece.
You
know
which
I
do
think
it's
going
to
be
very
helpful
in
some
situations.
F
Would
it
help
to
move
the
final
Clauses
up
to
the
start,
I
mean
so
that
I
mean
to
the
extent
that
there
might
be
confusion
about
what
stage
we're
talking
about
so
for
in
seven,
for
instance,
you
could
start
off
by
saying
you
know
and
considering
whether
to
designate
existing
and.
C
C
Q
B
L
F
B
I
I
would
just
recommend
that
maybe
after
the
meeting,
if
there's
going
to
be
another
draft,
that
we
enter
the
staff,
the
consultants
and
or
the
staff
take
a
look
at
the
agency
appellate
systems
and
also
the
model
adjudication
rules.
The
language
there
about
I'm
struggling
to
read
it
a
little
bit
on
the
screen
about
referrals
and
requests.
It's
it's
I'm,
not
sure
it
entirely
comports
with
prior
Aiken's
work
in
terms
of
how
we
describe
how
an
interlocutory
appeal
may
be
may
arise.
R
On
what
is
now
seven
and
I
will
pose
this
more
as
a
question
for
the
Consultants.
My
recollection,
in
putting
this
into
words
is
that
this
refers
to
processes
I.
Think
ptab.
Has
it
I
believe
the
Medicare
Appeals
Council?
Has
it
well,
basically,
there's
a
suggestion
box
on
their
website
where
people
can
nominate
existing
decisions
that
are
not
designated
as
presidential
to
be
designated
as
presidential?
So
it's
not
necessarily
in
considering
whether
to
designate
a
specific
decision
as
presidential,
but
basically
accepting
or
soliciting
input
from
the
outside,
on
which
decisions
might
be
presidential.
G
R
Right
now
I
mean
it
seems
to
me
at
least
it
seems
a
little
ambiguous
in
terms
of,
if
am
I,
considering
whether
to
make
a
specific
decision
presidential
or
am
I
just
soliciting
input
from
the
public
on
are
there
decisions
that
you
think
should
be
presidential?
Let
us
know
so
it's
more
of
a
general
suggestion
box
for
precedent,
as
opposed
to
we're
soliciting
input
on
whether
you
know
case
number,
one.
Five
three
should
be
presidential
or
not.
It.
G
F
B
L
I
think
just
I
think
this
is
one
where
we
don't
want
to
put
in
considering
up
front,
because
was
it
Jeremy
just
made
that
point
I
think
here
it
is,
you
know,
agencies
I
mean
you
can
even
also
have
should
have
procedures,
but
we
don't
need
it.
Agencies
should
consider
soliciting
input
on
whether
to
have
existing
appellate
decisions,
as
presidential
I
mean
that's
I
think
what
we're
not
really
telling
them.
You
do
need
to
go
back
and
look
at
your
existing
appellate
decisions.
B
R
B
F
G
B
F
R
R
F
F
B
B
T
F
T
F
T
I
mean
I
thought
maybe
like
you,
could
strike
it
there,
but
put
it
in
the
Preamble
where
there's
a
place
in
the
premium.
We
kind
of
say
like
what
this
report
or
what
the
recommend,
what
the
recognition
broadly
does
trying
to
pull
it
up.
It
says
the
recommendation
identifies
best
practices
for
agencies
considering
whether
and
how
to
use
presidential
decisions
and
their
adjudicative
systems,
like
maybe
that's
a
place
just
although
it's
kind
of
I
guess
it's
kind
of
implied
by
the
end
of.
C
B
B
B
F
The
list
of
what
we
think
the
rules
should
include
I
know
we
had
Let's
Do,
A
and
B,
and
then
we've
got
anything
on
A
and
B
Jack
nope,
okay,
Adam
nope,
all
right.
Let's
go
down
to
the
the
red
line
now
C.
B
L
Just
a
quick
thing:
who
is
it
that
ones
that
the
adjudicator
decides
that
it's
presidential
I
just
I
mean
again?
This
is
just
a
recommendation,
but
that
just
seems
like
I.
Don't
know
lots
of
adjudicators
could
start
saying:
yeah
I'm,
you
know
half
of
my
cases,
I
I
I'm,
just
not
sure
where
that's
coming
from
I.
F
G
H
I
I
think
you're
either.
Well,
we
may
be
changing
the
whole
thing,
but
you
know
starting
out
with
identify,
but
but
if
not,
you
either
need
a
comma
after
a
term
or
you
need
to
remove
the
comma
after
what
is
now
informative.
B
Q
This
does
not
identify
what
those
terms
mean,
and
that
was
the
point
that
I
made
earlier,
which
is
that
you
know
if
they
use
these
terms.
It's
not
precedent.
Well,
what
the
hell
is
it?
What
does
it
mean
to
say
notable
and
I
think,
therefore,
we
need
something
here
not
only
to
who
decides
on
what
basis
they
decide,
but
also
what
effect
that
designation
has.
Q
In
a
non-presidential
way,
okay,
I
mean
I,
don't
know,
I
mean
I
mean.
If
you
want
to
say
it
could
be.
It
can
be
used
for
as
persuasive
Authority,
that
you
know,
for
example,
but
I
mean
I,
just
say,
identify
you
know
the
meaning
of
the
term
or
how
they
what
they
that
they
mean.
F
O
You
know
if
we
still
have
Roxanne
oh
I'm
here.
Well,
what
we
do
is
we
use
notable
within
our
presidential
decision.
So
we
have.
We
have
a
lot
of.
We
have
a
lot
of
published
decisions
each
year,
but
we
want
to
designate
for
the
public,
which
ones
are
precedent,
setting
or
considering
issues
of
first
impression,
and
so
we
have
a
separate
listing
on
our
public
website
of
notable
board
decisions
and
we,
we
Define
it
right
right
there
on
the
page
at
the
top
of
the
page.
O
We
say
these
are
or
decisions
that
may
be
of
special
interest
to
the
Labor
Management
community,
and
then
we
we
list
the
decisions
with
a
brief
summary
and
they
can
link
and
read
the
whole
decision
if
they
want
to.
But
it's
our
way
to
try
to
keep
our
constituents
informed
of
what
are
the
big
decisions
that
have
come
out
that
they
want.
They
want
to
take
a
look
at.
Q
Well,
that's
a
wholly
different
I
I
mean
that's
for
your
presidential
decisions
right
and
here
we're
talking
about
non-presidential
decisions.
Yeah.
Q
Q
Or
adopted
well
what
the
hell
does
that
mean?
So
that's
that's
I,
don't
know
meaning
of
the
term
or
the
the.
F
Define
define
the
mean
Define
the
term
Melissa
Melissa.
Please.
S
So
I
was
just
gonna
weigh
in
because
ptab
uses
the
term
informative
and
they
Define
it
as
it
provides
board
Norms
on
recurring
issues,
guidance
on
issues
of
first
impression
to
the
board
guidance
on
board
rules
and
practices
and
guidance
on
issues
that
may
develop
through
analysis
of
recurring
issues.
They
specifically
say
they
should
be
followed
in
most
cases
absent
justification,
but
they're
not
binding
wow,
so
that
that's
ptab's
version
of
importance.
Yeah
wow.
F
Okay,
Jack.
P
I
had
something
I
just
had
something
about
three
different
things
in
this
little
area,
but
on
the
issue
of
of
these
different
terms,
I
can
imagine
lots
of
situations
in
which
a
decision
is
notable
but
not
pre.
It
doesn't
establish
new
precedent.
It
could
be
like
an
important
decision
on
a
matter
where
there's
already
precedent
and
they've
applied
the
precedent
to
a
novel
situation.
You
could
have
a
situation
where
you're
talking
about
procedural
practices
where
it
might
be.
P
It
might
not
be
obvious
from
the
rules
how
to
do
something,
and
so
this
gives
you
an
idea
of
a
way
to
do
something,
and
so
I
could
see
something
being
notable
in
the
sense
of
here's,
a
suggestion
where,
if
this
issue
or
this
problem
comes
up
in
your
future
cases,
you
can
use
this
methodology
to
to
deal
with
it
without
it
having
the
same
status
as
like
a
presidential
rule,
so
that
that
doesn't
really
bother
me
very
much.
I
mean
I,
think
the
it
may
be.
P
P
We
should
take
out
all
of
these
explain
the
if
I'm
sorry,
if
the
agency
considers,
if
the
agency
every
time
that
appears
you
just
hit,
get
rid
of
that
and
start
with
the
with
the
with
the
verb,
which
is
like
G
and
H,
is
described
yeah
and
that
you
know
that
they
should
always
start
with
a
verb.
All
of
these
should.
L
And
I
was
back
down
to
the
informative,
notable
yeah
and
because
I
was
going
to
say
that
I
thought
that
Roxanne,
what
you
said
was
very
helpful.
That
nlrb
does
have
certain
ones
that
they
just
highlight
for
folks,
hey
whatever
term
you
use
I
think
you
would
maybe
the
notable
so
I
think
that's
so
I
just
want
to
say
I
think
that's
very
helpful.
L
I
hate
the
idea
of
asking
about
something
in
the
Preamble,
but
that
this
is
a
really
useful
point
and
do
we
have
anything
in
the
Preamble
that
says
you
know,
here's
all
the
reasons
why
you
might
consider
you
know
the
presidential,
but
what
some
agencies
have
done
besides.
That
is
also
identify
these,
because
I
think
some
agencies
might
be
concerned
that
if
they
have
presidential,
then
like
everything
else,
is
you
know,
job,
liver
or
whatever?
You
know
it
doesn't
really
mean
much
and
they
have
some
stuff.
L
F
L
L
L
Other
distribute
only
some
and
maybe
it's
the
sentence.
Others.
F
L
And
actually
one-
and
we
say
a
note
of
both
others-
highlight
certain
decisions
or
certain
decisions.
It
took
because
I
wanted
to
say
a
form
of
a
notable
comma,
but
not
presidential,
and
to
convey
the
point
that
you're
doing
that
because
they're
useful
in
other
ways.
L
So
it's
something
you
know
highlights
certain
I'm
going
to
say
useful
decisions,
but
I
just
know
that's
going
to
be,
let's
just
put
in
useful
in
front
of
decisions
and
then
we
can
decide
if
we
just
useful
and
I
know
people
who
say
what
is
used
filming
but
and
then
it's
not
a
new
sentence,
so
notable
comma,
but
not
presidential.
L
No,
no,
no,
no!
No!
That's
and
I'm,
not
sure
this
sentence
goes
here,
33
to
35.,
it's
really!
If
so,
let's
because
I
think
it
might
be
after
this
paragraph,
okay,
you
know
what
it
does
go
after
this,
don't
just
don't
delete
it
yet,
but
let's
see
in
terms
of
where
we're
going
to
put
it
all
of
this
is
presidential,
go
back,
41,
best
practices
and
how
to
use
it
begins
by
recommending
to
lend
themselves
to
whether
to
treat
all
or
some
criteria
keep
going
down.
L
F
G
I
think
it
would
be
better
to
say
other
others
highlight
certain.
Others
highlight
useful,
non
non-presidential
Decisions
by
labeling
them
right.
L
C
B
G
F
G
F
F
I
think
that's
good
f
is
the
point
that
we
discussed
earlier
about
we're
not
prohibiting
the
parties
from
doing
it,
but
we
want
them
to
explain.
We
want
the
agency
to
explain
for
what
purposes
I.
You
know.
B
G
F
L
No
I
I
I,
don't
think
we
need
that.
That's
just
you
know.
We
should
know
the
proprietary
process.
My
comment
was
going
to
be
on
the
previous
one.
L
L
Yeah
right
it's
just
because
it
was
a
wonderful
back
to
the
Jews
I
think
we
can
just
start
with
describe
any
opportunities.
F
L
F
C
F
P
I
just
thought
in
18
there
was
no
reason
to
have
voluntarily
in
there.
Agencies
should
use
notice
and
comment
procedures.
F
B
B
G
C
F
Q
F
That
might
yeah
did
you
have
something.
L
No
just
in
before
people
just
run
off
after
the
vote
per
my
discussion
with
you.
I
do
want.
F
Okay,
so
the
interlock
a
tour.
This
was
six.
R
I
Also
Jeremy
I
was
thinking
awesome,
also
about
the
model
adjudication
rules
which
which
Kent
Barnett
drafted,
though
I
I
had
that
I
had
the
Appellate
section.
So
I
don't
expect
him
to
remember,
but
maybe
we
ought
to
take
a
look
at
the
Mars
too.
F
R
As
long
as
it's
just
a
terminology
thing-
and
everybody
agrees
to
Principle
as
to
what
it
means,
I-
think
it's
fine
to
go
ahead
and
vote
now.
F
All
right:
well,
let
us
vote
I.
Let's,
let's
do
hands,
can
we
all
do
hands,
show
your
hands,
let's
see,
if
I
can
figure
out
how
to
do
that.
A
C
F
All
right,
well,
I,
I'll,
just
say
and
I'll
I'll
turn
it
over
to
Andy
for
some
closing
comments,
but
I
just
want
to
thank
everybody.
I
learned
so
much
from
these
meetings
from
all
of
you
and
always
really
incredibly
constructive
input,
and
this
work
is
nothing
without
your
contributions,
so
I.
Thank
you
for
your
time
on
a
beautiful
fall
Friday
afternoon,
Andy.
M
Yeah
thanks
I
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
think
this
work
today
that
you
all
have
done
together
is
a
reflection
of
at
least
three
of
acos's
core
values
that
that
that
we
live
by
the
first
is
consensus,
driven
decision
making
I
am,
and
for
that
we
have
so
much
to
to
thank
Nadine
for
I.
Think
it's
just
amazing
that
25
lawyers
can
agree
on
on
a
text
like
this
and
do
it
consistently?
M
Second,
is
volunteerism,
you
know,
you're,
all
volunteering,
your
time
for
improving
how
the
government
works
and-
and
we
all
everyone
at
Acres-
appreciates
that,
and
the
third
is
expertise.
You
know
you
have
your
expertise,
you
you
you
volunteer
it
and-
and
you
create
great
products
for
us,
so
I
just
want
to
say
on
behalf
of
everyone
at
acos,
thanks
to
to
everyone.
M
I
look
forward
to
shepherding
this
through
the
council
with
you
and
the
and
the
full
assembly.
So
thanks
a
lot
and
have
a
good
weekend.
Thank.
F
L
Well,
actually,
my
closing
remarks
fit
perfectly
Andrew
after
what
you
said,
which
is
just
talking
about
our
task
force
and
implementation,
how
to
make
sure
that
all
of
this
hard
work,
Andrew
that
you
said
is
gets
to
the
people
in
the
agencies
that
this
will
be
helpful
for
and
I
noted,
by
the
way
that
Colton
had
an
some
EOC
has
been
able
to
be
listening
to
this.
L
He
was
one
well
one
of
the
folks
in
his
he's
in
the
office
of
federal
operations
was
the
interviewee,
and
so
my
my
recommendation
in
terms
of
helping
with
implementation
is
that
we
know
that
as
Chris
and
others
said,
you
will
be
going
back
to
the
folks
who
interviewed
in
terms
of
the
report,
make
sure
you've
got
stuff
right.
I
would
also
recommend
just
offering
to
have
a
meeting
with
the
folks
whom
you
talk
to
who
are
going
to
have
to
implement
if
they
do
sharing
with
them.
L
A
draft
of
this
you
know
letting
them
understand.
This
is
not
voted
on
yet
by
the
plenary.
This
is
what
we've
come
up
with.
Just
I
mean
if
there's
any
huge
red
flags.
Let's
know
about
that
before
the
plenary,
but
I
think
more
it's
about
how
do
you
see
this
working
in
the
agency
and
just
engaging
folks
in
in
getting
excited?
So
it's
just
a
recommendation
for
that
type
of
meeting.
Andrew
looks
like
you're
shaking
your
head.