►
From YouTube: Committee on Regulation Meeting #1 | Public Availability of Agency Settlement Agreements
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
A
Okay,
Russell
frisbee.
A
Okay,
so
I
will
move
on
to
the
second
roll
call.
This
is
for
acus
members
who
are
not
on
this
particular
committee
and
any
alternates
of
such
members,
and
first
up
here
we
start
with
our
wonderful
project
consultant
Elisa,
Dishman
I'm
present.
Thank
you.
So
much
and
next
up
I
have
Melissa
alternate
for
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security
Melissa
bowder,
yes,
I'm
here,
wonderful,
thank
you!
So
much
and
Bill
funk
I'm.
A
A
You
and
next
up
Tim
Mullins
alternate
for
Department
of
Transportation
yeah.
A
A
F
F
It
looks
like
we
have
a
a
nice
group
here,
who'll
be
able
to
dive
into
this
subject
matter
and
recommendations.
Today,
it's
a
beautiful
fall
day
here
in
Washington,
at
least
so
it's
a
you
know
it's
a
perfect
day
to
lock
ourselves
in
and
yeah
and
work
on
this,
so
I
I
I
am
grateful
to
all
of
you.
It's
also.
F
If
any
of
you
are
historians,
it's
also
the
60th
anniversary
of
the
first
day
of
the
Cuban
Missile
Crisis,
which
I
am
just
old
enough
to
actually
remember
my
mother
being
very
nervous
that
was
that
was
60
years
ago
today.
F
So
welcome
everyone
thanks
to
to
all
of
you
you
and
to
any
members
of
the
public
who
who
may
be
here
for
being
here
with
us
today
to
to
work
on
this
special.
Thank
you
to
our
consultant,
Alicia
Dishman,
for
an
interesting
and
insightful
report.
F
F
This
is
my
first
committee
meeting
as
chairman,
so
I
look
forward
to
seeing
how
it's
done
from
from
chair
pascoff
and
from
from
all
of
you
and
just
one
last
final,
thank
you
to
the
AKA
staff,
including
especially
Alexander
sibo,
for
all
the
work
that
she
and-
and
they
have
have
done
on
this.
So
with
that
I
turn
things
over
to
your
chairwoman.
B
I
have
faces
and
or
names
I'm,
seeing
for
the
first
time,
I'm
looking
forward
to
working
with
you
I,
my
name
is
Eloise
pasikov
I'm
on
the
faculty
at
Georgetown
law
and
I
am
in
my
second
term
as
a
public
member
of
acus
I've
been
a
chair
and
I've
been
ad
hoc
committee
previously
and
I've
been
a
member
of
the
committee
on
Administration
and
management
for
my
time
on
Aiken,
so
I'm
really
excited
and
delighted
to
be
taking
the
reins
here.
B
I
have
a
script
of
some
sort
of
procedural
things
to
read
to
you
before
we
turn
matters
over
to
Elisa.
Our
consultant
Alexander
I
did
just
want
to
double
check
with
you,
though,
because
I
think
there
are
either
some
people
who've
come
in,
or
some
names
that
I'm
not
sure
got
noted
in
your
record
and
I'm,
just
not
sure
whether
they
fell
into
any
category
or
if
we
should
just
move
on
now.
B
B
Perfect,
okay,
wonderful
well
so
I
will
now
go
and
lay
our
ground
rules.
Then
thanks
for
that,
so
only
acus
members,
which
includes
government
members,
public
members,
senior
fellows
liaison
representatives
and
special
counsels,
whether
or
not
on
the
committee
and
their
designated
Alternatives,
have
full
speaking
privileges
I'd
like
to
ask
everybody
to
keep
your
microphone
on
mute
if
you're,
not
actually
speaking,
and
let's
try
to
use
the
hand
raise
feature
when
you
want
to
contribute.
So
that's
down
under
reactions
on
the
bottom.
B
If,
for
some
reason,
you're
having
trouble
locating
the
hand
raise
feature
feel
free
to
just
say
in
the
chat
in
the
sort
of
reply
to
all
feature,
speak
or
I'd
like
to
speak
or
something
like
that.
But
let's
not
use
the
chat
for
substantive
conversations.
B
If
you
can
unmute
yourself,
When,
I,
Call,
On,
You
great,
and
then
please
remute
yourself
when
you're
done,
if
it's
possible
to
use
your
webcam
to
facilitate
conversations
that
we
are
all
kind
of
present
and
together.
That
would
be
wonderful
with
respect
to
attendees
other
than
acus
members
and
their
alternates
participation
requires
the
unanimous
consent
of
the
committee
members
and
time
permitting.
B
I
will
call
on
such
attendees
at
appropriate
points,
assuming
that
committee
members,
consent
and
I
will
assume
that
committee
members
ascent
and
if
they
don't
raise
an
objection,
if
any
of
the
participants
would
like
to
speak
at
that
time,
please
just
again
raise
your
hand
or
or
indicate
in
the
chat
if
for
some
reason,
you're
having
trouble
raising
your
hand
and
I'll
call
on
you
and
ask
you
to
unmute
yourself
and
then
again
everybody.
Let's
just
remember,
to
keep
on
mute
when
we're
done
speaking.
B
So
only
members
of
the
regulation
committee,
including
again
government
members
and
their
alternates
public
members,
senior
fellows
liaison
representatives
and
special
counsels,
have
a
vote,
and
so
please
don't
vote
unless
you're.
A
member
of
the
committee
and
Alexander
has
a
list
of
committee
members
if
you
are
unsure.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chairwoman.
My
name
is
evisa
Dishman
I'm,
an
associate
professor
of
law
at
Brigham,
Young,
University
and
I.
Do
scholarly
research
in
the
area
of
settlements
with
federal
agencies
and
with
State
enforcers,
and
so
I
was
delighted
to
take
on
this
project
in
a
report
where
it
had
significance
to
my
research
and
more
broadly
and
making
these
agreements
publicly
accessible.
G
Federal
agencies
resolve
the
vast
number
of
their
enforcement
proceedings
through
settlements,
and
these
settlements
can
be
high
profile
in
terms
of
the
dollar.
Figures
involved,
High
penalties
and
restitution,
as
well
as
significant
changes
required
by
business
operations.
Corporate
governance
and
compliance
practices.
Settlements
play
an
important
part
in
the
way
agencies
conduct
their
enforcement
Mission.
They
allow
agencies
to
conserve
Resources
by
settling,
as
opposed
to
engaging
in
ongoing,
adjudication
and
potential
litigation.
They
allow
more
expeditious
redress
to
be
provided
to
Consumers
and
members
of
the
public
who
have
been
injured.
G
They
also
importantly,
allow
agencies
to
transmit
information
about
how
they
interpret
their
enforcement
Authority,
as
well
as
their
Authority
and
the
laws
that
they
enforce
and
the
regulations
they
enforce,
and
they
can
provide
an
important
guide
to
regulated
entities
about
best
practices
and
actions
that
the
agency
may
be
expected
to
take
in
the
future.
G
Public
accessibility
to
settlements
is
also
important
to
regulated
entities,
stakeholders
and
the
public,
primarily
people.
We
interviewed
talked
about
the
importance
of
access
to
these
agreements
for
purposes
of
government
transparency
that
the
access
to
these
settlements
ensures
that
there
are
no
back
room
secret
doors
and
political
favoritism
and
increase
the
public
trust
in
federal
agencies
and
their
enforcement
Mission.
G
Despite
the
importance
of
settlements,
there's
no
centralized
database
available
for
settlements
across
agencies
like
we
may
see
in
the
rule,
making
context
with
regulations.gov
or
with
litigation
and
federal
district
courts
like
we
see
with
Pacer.
It
has
been
proposed
in
Congress
to
create
such
a
centralized
database
for
agency
settlements,
but
such
legislative
efforts
have
stalled.
G
So
as
a
result,
we
see
these
settlement
agreements
dispersed
across
agency
websites
and
the
public
meeting
to
go
to
each
individual
agency
website
in
order
to
get
settlement,
information
or
access
settlement
agreements
and
part
of
the
inconsistency
that
we
can
find
across
agency
websites
is
driven
by
the
legal
framework
and
disclosure
requirements,
so
the
Freedom
of
Information,
Act
and
other
disclosure
laws
do
not
generally
require
that
agencies
proactively
disclose
their
settlement
agreements
on
the
agency
website.
G
Rather,
settlement
Agreements
are
available
through
to
the
public
generally
by
the
foia
request
process
and
and
that
can
create
the
opportunity
for
agencies
to
choose
whether
they
want
to
put
settlement
agreements
up
on
their
website
or
not
and
as
part
of
my
report.
I
have
sampled
several
federal
agencies
and
indeed
saw
significant
variations
across
federal
agencies.
G
In
what
information
they've
decided
to
proactively
post
on
their
websites,
with
some
agencies
being
very
fulsome
in
their
disclosure
of
settlement
agreements,
some
not
disclosing
any
at
all
and
some
disclosing
other
types
of
information
about
settlements
like
summaries
of
settlements,
agreements
or
press
releases
that
discuss
settlement
agreements
so
there's
considerable
variation
among
agencies
in
their
disclosure
practices
and
I.
Think
one
of
the
important
parts
of
this
report
and
the
right
recommendations
is
to
give
agencies
some
uniform
guidance
as
they're
making
choices
about
disclosure
on
their
websites.
G
Another
thing
the
report
found
as
a
result
of
a
sampling
agency
websites
was
variation
in
the
ability
to
navigate
agency
websites
to
get
to
settlement
agreements.
What
type
of
website
design
and
tools
does
the
agency
website
have
available
for
users
of
the
website
to
easily
navigate
to
settlement
agreements
and
again,
I
saw
considerable
variation
with
some
agencies.
Just
it
requires
a
few
clicks
very
easily
accessible
to
a
settlement
agreement
with
others
much
much
more
difficult,
requiring
more
specialized
knowledge
and
time
to
be
able
to
act
access
these
agreements.
G
Another
place
where
there
was
variation
was
the
comprehensiveness
of
the
information
with
respect
to
the
settlement
available
on
the
website.
So
there
are
some
agencies
that
disclose
their
settlement
agreements,
but
they
also
write
summaries
of
the
settlement.
They
link
the
settlement
to
other
related
content,
tent
or
enforcement
action,
say
a
Blog
postings.
They
have
defined
important
terms
or
the
process
of
enforcement
with
the
agency
and
other
agencies
kind
of
have
a
Continuum
of
practices
along
those
lines
too.
So
that
was
another
place
where
there
was
a
variation.
G
Another
I
think
important
part
of
the
report
were
the
interviews
we
conducted
with
agency
officials
and
and
stakeholders
that
discuss
some
of
the
the
policy
considerations
I've
mentioned
previously
about
the
importance
of
accessing
the
public
accessing
settlement
agreements.
During
those
interviews,
the
most
significant
I
think
concern
and
predominant
concern
Rays
had
to
to
do
with
confidentiality
of
agreements
and
legal
obligations
with
respect
to
confidentiality.
G
The
I
think
the
the
report
kind
of
shaped
the
the
recommendations
in
a
couple
of
important
ways:
I
see
the
recommendations
really
kind
of
falling
into
the
two
categories.
The
first
one
is
factors
that
agencies
can
consider.
As
they
are
making
decisions
about
a
disclosing
settlement
agreements
that
really
kind
of
weave.
In
these
conversations
we've
had
in
our
interviews
about
policy
considerations
about
transparency
and
access
to
information
to
comply
with
the
law
and
agency
resources,
confidential
confidentiality
concerns
and
facilitating
dispute
resolution.
G
The
other
category
of
recommendations,
I
see,
is
kind
of
a
how
question
that,
once
agencies
have
made
kind
of
a
threshold
decision
about
the
information
to
disclose,
how
can
the
information
be
in
settlements
be
disclosed
in
a
way
that
is
easily
accessible
on
their
website
through
navigation
tools
and
also
providing
other
explanatory
information
surrounding
the
settlement?
So
with
that,
I
will
turn
the
time
back
over
to
our
chair
and
I.
Look
forward
to
hearing
your
comments
and
discussion
and
answering
questions
where
I
can
be
helpful
to
the
committee.
B
But
before
we
Dive
Right
into
discussing
the
recommendations
themselves,
I
want
to
just
open
it
up
to
see
if
people
have
General
comments
or
questions
for
Elisa
that
might
frame
the
conversation
that
follows
so
we'll
start
with
people
in
the
room
and
then
I
think
Alexander
you're
also
prepared.
To
summarize,
we
got
a
comment
from
one
of
our
members
who
couldn't
be
here
today
and
I.
Think
Alexander
will
summarize
that.
But
let
me
first
call
on
Bill
using
Henry's
feature.
Thank
you
for
that.
Oh.
D
Thank
you
very
interesting.
I
I
had
a
question
about
the
from
your
report
was
about.
It
says
that
there's
and
you
could
reach
enforcement
Matters
by
using
a
search
engine
19
of
the
20
different
agencies.
But
then
later
it's
settlements
are
only
available
in
15
of
the
20..
So
I
was
a
little
confused
about
the
difference
between
the
19
and
the
15.
G
Yes,
thank
you
for
that
question.
So
I
also
also
certain
types
of
subtle
summation
in
the
search
engine,
so
if
I
could
go
to
the
search
engine
and
get
a
summary
of
a
settlement,
it's
not
the
actual
physical
settlement
agreement
sign
is
the
par
by
the
parties.
But
if
the
agency
had
provided
a
significant
summary
of
the
settlement,
I
said
that
there
was
like
navigation
to
settlement
information,
so.
D
G
Yes,
that
is
correct,
or
nothing
at
all,
yeah
so
and
what's
I,
think
interesting
about
the
data.
Just
I.
Don't
want
to
talk
over
you
to
follow
up
is
how
many
subtlemen,
how
many
agencies
of
the
settlements
that
I
haven't
agencies,
I
sample,
do
provide
actual
settlement
agreements.
15
out
of
20
did.
D
No,
that's
that
was
surprising
to
me.
I
I
thought
it
would
be
a
much
smaller
number
and
and
that
sort
of
affects
me
in
terms
of
the
recommendations
that
is.
Are
we
I
mean
the
people
who
aren't
doing
what
we'd
like
them
to
do
seem
to
be
outliers.
G
Well,
you
know,
you
know
this
is
a
it's
a
relatively
small
sample
of
the
the
universe
of
you
know,
agencies
I,
think
when
we
see
an
agency,
for
example
that
doesn't
put
any
settlements
up
on
the
website,
which
EEOC
was
an
example.
There
were
they.
G
They
had
some
very
good
kind
of
legal
obligations
as
to
why
they
could
not
put
particular
settlements
between
federal
employees
and
federal
agencies
up
on
the
website,
so
I
I
think,
like
in
general,
like
there
looks
to
be
a
move
towards
putting
this
information
up,
which
I
think
is
a
very
good
thing
in
in
most
circumstances,
but
I
think
we
want
it
to
be
thoughtful
about
the
different
contexts
in
which
agencies
may
choose
not
to
because
of
their
kind
of
particular
enforcement
Mission
or
their
legal
obligations
for
confidentiality.
B
B
A
Absolutely
thank
you,
madam
chairwoman.
So
we've
received
a
public
comment
in
advance
from
government
member
David
Grahn
from
the
USDA.
He
was
not
able
to
attend
today,
but
he's
hoping
to
attend
on
the
28th
and
to
just
Briefly
summarize
his
really
thoughtful
comment.
A
He
wanted
to
emphasize
sort
of
the
framing
of
the
recommendation
in
terms
of
agencies
providing
more
information
to
the
public
and
regulated
communities,
sort
of
what
tools
agencies
can
use
to
better,
inform
and
better
inform
those
folks
and
looking
at
it
from
the
perspective
of
output,
as
in
terms
of
what
agencies
can
provide
versus
outcome
was
one
of
one
of
his
main
points,
and
he
also
made
a
point
about
how
the
rise
and
significance
of
the
Congressional
review
act
could
implicate
this
as
well.
A
He
he
mentioned
that
you
know.
Litigation
has
been
filed
in
some
cases
and
on
on
guidance
and
and
that
sort
of
thing
has
has
been
very
much
in
the
news
lately.
So,
hopefully,
that
that
covers
what
what
he
had
to
say
and
we
look
forward
to
your
consideration
of
his
comments
as
well,
and
chairwoman
had
wonderful
suggestions
as
to
how
we
could
add
a
little
bit
to
the
recommendations
to
encapsulate
his
public
comments.
So
you'll
see
those
interact,
changes
when
we
get
into
that
process.
B
So
thanks
so
much
for
that
and
I
am
new
to
this
committee.
But
I
will
note
in
the
other
committee
we
did
not
call
the
wonderful
Aaron,
Nielsen
Mr,
chairperson,
so
I
think
I'm
I'm,
totally
happy
to
just
be
called
Eloise.
I
did
not
think
it
was
an
aqueous
style
if
it
is
an
acre
Style,
please
correct
me,
but
I
don't
think
we
need
to
stand
on
formality
here.
B
B
B
So,
let's
start
with
the
lines
that
are
on
this
screen,
so
we
suggested,
as
Jeremy
noted,
adding
this
Jeremy
noted
in
the
comment
bubble
on
the
right,
adding
this
kind
of
preliminary
clause
in
response
to
the
suggestions
that
Alexandra
just
explained
so
I'll
just
take
a
minute
for
people
to
read
this
and
will
then
see
if
anybody
wants
to
make
a
comment
before
we
talk
about
the
actual
factors.
H
B
Oh
right,
sorry
I
thought
that
Jeremy
I
had
read
that
too
quickly.
I
thought
that
Jeremy's
comment
was
for
part
of
the
red
line
there.
Okay,
so
actually
maybe
let's
start
with
the
the
red
line
and
then
we'll
go
to
Jeremy's
comment.
Bill.
Thank
you
for
the
clarification.
So
the
red
line
was
just
an
introduction.
Responding
to
what
Alexandra,
just
read,
I,
hear
no
comments
or
concerns
about
that
so
and
I
see
none
so
I
will
assume
that
49-55,
including
the
red
line,
are
fine,
and
now
we
can
turn
to
Jeremy's.
F
Question:
okay,.
B
B
I
Certainly,
there
are
settlement
instances
of
settlements
in
which
multiple
agencies
are
involved,
often
in
different
roles.
I
think
an
easy
one
is
in
a
split
enforcement
regime
where
perhaps
OSHA
settles
with
a
party
in
in
adjudication
before
a
cyber
agency.
The
occupational
safety
and
health
review
commission
with
ashrik
or
OSHA
in
that
case,
make
settlements
publicly
available,
doesn't
matter
for
them
for
the
sake
of
the
recommendation.
So
that
is
the
the
basic
question.
B
D
I
So
ostrich
provides
settlement
judges,
so
they
might
be
involved
in
the
settlement
in
that
way
and
I,
don't
know
what
ostrich's
practice
is,
but
certainly
in
some
agencies
the
agency
itself
has
to
consent
to
it.
I
don't
know
if
ashrik,
for
example,
issues,
consent
decrees,
but
if
the
agency,
the
adjudicating
agency,
had
to
consent
to
the
settlement
agreement,
it
might
be
involved
in
some
way.
D
Yeah
I'm
sure
OSHA
must
be
involved
if
it's
a
settlement
agreement
Patrick
is
just
a
judge,
but
well
you
see
I
just
wondered
if
it
was
if
it
was
a
big
enough
issue
that
isn't
happens
often
enough
to
justify
even
trying
to
deal
with
it
as
opposed
to
letting
whoever's
involved
with
it
deal
with
it.
Now,
I'd
like
to
hear
from
Eliza
to
see
what
what
she
says
about
that.
G
So
yeah
I
was
thinking
about
this
comment.
It
was
the
environment
that
we
are
right
now,
like
each
agency
seems
to
be
making
decisions
for
itself.
We
don't
have
kind
of
a
a
centralized
process
to
gather
and
in
the
absence
of
that,
I
I
think
it's
kind
of
hard
to
say
well,
as
between
this
agency
and
this
agency,
this
one
gets
to
choose
and
I.
G
My
my
gut
is
here
that
each
agency
that
would
be
involved
in
a
multi-agency
like
enforcement
settlement
would
would
choose
for
themselves
whether
to
post
it
on
their
own
website,
but
also
interested
in
hearing
other
people's
kind
of
reaction
to
this
question
of
kind
of
the
multi-enforcer
issue.
B
I
Right
and
that's
fine,
it
was
only
to
post
the
committee
whether
we
know
this
is
not
specific
as
to
if
multiple
agencies
are
party
to
an
agreement
or
adjudicating
in
and
adjudicating
a
case
in
which
a
party
is
a
kid
in
the
agency
as
a
party
to
a
case
whether
this
recommendation
should
actually
address
that
issue:
I,
don't
I'm
agnostic
on
the
point.
This
is
merely
the
flagger
for
the
committee.
I
That
should
be
made
explicit
if
it's
broader
than
that,
then
I
guess
just
through
the
language,
broader
yeah
I
mean
the
only
other
circumstance
I
could
think
of
where
it
comes
in
is
agencies
that
regulate
other
agencies.
So
you
know
a
mspp
proceeding.
For
example,
an
agency
is
a
party
to
that
case.
If
I
were
looking
for
a
settlement
agreement
would
I
look
at
the
mspb's
website
when
I
look
at
the
agency
that
involved
in
litigations
website.
I
So
that's
how
I
think
it
would
come
in,
but
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
clean
way
to
address
that
in
the
recommendation,
I
merely
owes
it
to
the
committee.
B
So
again,
because
I
don't
think
we
have
a
ton
of
background
research
on
those
particular
questions
in
the
report.
I
am
hesitant
to
suggest
dealing
with
it
in
a
fulsome
way
here,
I'm
willing
to
be
corrected
or
reputed
on
that
point
and
so
welcome
views
from
other
folks,
I'm
I
don't
see
any
hands
raised,
I'm
sort
of
scrolling
through
people
does
anybody
else
want
to
weigh
in
on
this
bill?
B
B
B
Okay-
okay,
all
right
so
I
think
in
the
absence
of
kind
of
deep
background
on
it,
I
think
we
should
sidestep
the
the
complexity
now,
especially
because
we
don't
have
a
sense
of
how
many
agencies
it
involves
and
so
and
so
so.
Okay.
So
thank
you
for
raising
the
issue
Bill.
Why
don't
we
go
to
you
then
and
talk
about
the
last
sentence
of
this.
D
D
If
we
get
okay
to
say
in
determining
whether
to
post
a
settlement
agreement
on
its
website,
an
agency
should
consider
factors,
including
all
right,
because
it
seems
to
me
the
different
settlement
agreements,
even
within
the
same
agency,
will
have
different
considerations
and
so
in
deciding
whether
to
post
I
I
it.
It
makes
it
sound
here
like
it's,
a
generic
all
right,
whether
we're
going
to
post
anything
at
all,
we're
gonna,
look
at
all
these
things
and
I
I
wanted
to
say
well
deciding
whether
to
post
a
particular
one.
D
You
should
consider
this
now,
maybe
in
deciding
whether
to
post
a
particular
one,
you
also
decide
generically
we're
not
going
to
do
any,
but
I
wanted
to
at
least
sort
of
make
it
sound
like
you're
breaking
out
looking
at
each
settlement
agreement.
In
light
of
these
factors
as
to
whether
whether
to
what
extent
you
would
put
it
up.
B
C
Sorry
I
tried
to
push
it
and
it
was
kind
of
slow
to
yeah.
It
was
slow
to
respond,
I,
I,
guess,
I
I
see
the
value
in
signaling
a
case-by-case
assessment,
but
I
had
actually
read
number
one
as
guidance
about
developing
a
policy
on
settlement
posting
and
I.
Don't
know
if
we
ought
to
be
talking
about
that
in
addition
to
case-by-case
assessments,
but
I
had
read
number
one
differently
and
I,
don't
know
how
others
feel
about
that
or
if
Bill,
you
think
it
just
makes
sense
to
go
straight
to
deciding
Case
by
case.
D
No,
if
you
want
me
I
I
mean
I.
I
thought
the
same
thing
that
there
should
be.
The
agency
should
have
a
policy,
but
the
policy
would
be
to
consider
each
settlement
in
light
of
the
factors
as
described
in
in
this
policy,
and
I
mean
it's
just
when
you
get
I
mean
on
the
next
page,
when
we
just
talk
about
whether
settlement
agreements
regularly
attract
public
interest,
the
answer
might
be
well,
some
do
some
don't
and
in
in
making
our
general
policy.
D
We
should
say
those
that
that
the
public
would
be
interested
in.
We
should
make
public
and
those
that
we
don't,
and
that
would
be,
but
would
be
thinking
of
that
in
terms
of
each
individual
settlement
agreement,
rather
than
making
a
generic
determination.
We're
not
going
to
do
any
because
a
lot
of
them
don't
raise
the
question.
E
Sorry,
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
if
you
go
up
the
end,
the
last
paragraph
above
the
recommendation,
it
says
this
recommendation
encourages
agencies
to
develop
policies
that
recognize
the
benefits
of
blah
blah
blah.
So
I
guess
I
had
also
read
this
as
talking
about
how
to
develop
your
policy
rather
than
talking
about
how
to
determine
kind
of
within
that
policy
like
where
a
specific
case
fits,
but
I
just
wanted
to
point
out.
It's
line:
38
yeah,
that's.
B
Changes
bills
comment,
go
through
the
factors
and
then
I
think
maybe
even
let's
consider
after
this,
whether
part
one
recommendation,
one
should
be
the
policies
and
then
maybe
we
insert
a
new
recommendation
that
says
something
about
evaluating
Case
by
case
on
the
basis
of
the
policy
development
or
something
like
that,
let's,
let's
Circle
back
to
that
after
we
work
through
the
policies
or
the
factors
rather
on
the
next
page,
so
I'm
prepared
to
do
that
unless
anybody
wants
to
hold
further
on
this
conversation
right
now,
I'm
looking
for
hands,
Erica
is
your
hand
going
back
up
yeah.
C
I'm,
having
you
know,
issues
with
my
computer
I
I
agree
that
it
makes
sense
to
wait,
but
I
also
think
that,
as
we
read
through
these
I
mean
just
as
Bill
said,
whether
settlements
regularly
attract
public
interest.
He
commented
on
putting
words
in
your
mouth
Bill
I'm,
sorry,
but
you
know
it
might
depend
right.
Some
will
some
won't
I
feel
like
as
we
go
through
these
factors.
C
B
You
know
individually,
to
say
the
same
thing
twice
in
both
halves
of
my
sentence,
so
I
wonder
if
we
should
figure
out
a
way
to
proceed,
developing
the
policy
with
the
idea
that
we
may
really
have
to
allow
agencies
to
make
case-by-case
considerations
after
they
have
figured
out
what
the
policy
is.
So
it
may
be
that
we
just
want
to
make
clear
to
ourselves
right
now
that
we're
going
to
discuss
this
as
though
we're
recommending
that
agencies
develop
policies.
B
Okay,
Bill's
comment
is
making
me
think
that
we
may
want
to
allow
for
the
idea
of
policies
based
on
categories
right,
so
certain
categories
might
fall
into
one
or
the
other.
You
might
need
different
policies
for
different
categories:
I'm,
not
really
sure
I'm
sort
of
agnostic
on
that,
but
I'm
wondering
but
Bill.
Maybe
I'll
turn
to
you,
since
your
hand
is
up
again
before
we
move
on
well.
D
I
wanted
to
say
that
I
certainly
agree
that
what
we
want
is
that
agencies
to
develop
a
policy
but
I
think
the
policy
should
be
to
identify
which
settlement
agreements
should
be
made
public
and
to
what
extent
they
should
be
made
public,
and
so
in
making
that,
as
you
said,
it
may
be
categories
all
right.
So,
for
example,
in
the
a
that
we're
looking
at
here,
whether
proactive
disclosure
or
settlement
agreements
would
help
members
of
the
public.
Well,
we've
already
said
in
our
in
in
the
report
and
in
the
Preamble
here.
D
We
think
that
proactive
disclosure
of
settlement
agreement
does
help
members
of
the
public,
and
so
what
we
really
need
here
is
whether
a
proactive
disclosure
of
particular
settlement
agreements
would
help.
Members
of
the
public
right
rather
than
a
generic,
do
settlement
agreements
generally
help
members
about.
Yes,
they
do.
You
know
so
say
whether
proactive
disclosure
of
settlement
of
particular
a.
B
C
I
want
to
suggest
that
it
might
make
sense
to
take
that
first
thing
that
Bill
said
that
agency
agencies
should
develop
policies
about
whether
and
when,
and
that
might
be
the
that
might
be,
where
we
start
and
that
this,
and
that
we
might
actually
build
in
this
concept
that
you've
just
introduced
that
they
might
want
to
consider
developing
policies
that
are
categorical
that
proceed
categorically.
But
then,
in
addition,
following
Bill's
suggestion,
they
should
may
want
to
consider
making
case-by-case
decisions
and
then
the
list
so
in
other
words
all
clear
yeah.
They
should
have
these
policies.
B
So
then,
combining
bills
and
Erica
suggestions.
It
may
be
that
in
line
54
after
the
word
initiated,
we
just
want
to
hit
hard
return
and
have
indeterminate
and
then
keep
bills
proposed
language
there
and
determining
whether
to
post
a
settlement
agreement
on
its
website
agencies
to
to
consider
the
following,
and
then
we
could
build
in
language
in
Lines,
49,
50
51
that
brought
that
particular
type
or
categories
language.
B
D
B
So
actually,
Alexandra
I
think
we
might.
Are
you
moving
that
language,
because
I
think
we
need
that
just
we
need
to
keep
that
description
of
what
we're
talking.
What
kinds
of
settlement
agreements
here
we
go.
Okay,.
B
B
I
There's
no
rule
against
it,
but
there
is
a
strong
practice
against
it
and
I
guarantee.
If
it's
in
there,
somebody
at
the
assembly
will
say
we
don't
do
that
at
aikis,
so
it.
B
K
Right
hi,
you
could
actually
start
with
that
sentence.
Administrative
forcement
enforcement
proceedings
are
proceedings
in
which
kind
of
civil
penalty
or
other
coercive
remedy
is
sought
against
a
person
for
violating
the
law
and
so
forth,
and
so
on,
ending
at
period
after
initiated
and
then
as
part
of
their
portfolio
and
so
forth.
I
K
B
B
K
K
Do
we
mean
to
limit
it
to
settle
and
settlement
agreements
that
are.
E
I
I
guess
I
I.
My
inclination
would
be
to
have,
since
this
is
the
recommendation
to
have
the
first
sentence,
be
the
actual
recommendation.
I
I
guess
I
just
wondered
if
we
could
say
something
like
agencies
should
develop
policies
addressing
when
settlement
or
when
more
like
what
it
was
before
like
when
settlement
agreements
of
administrative
enforcement
proceedings
should
be
posted
on
their
websites
period.
Administrative
enforcement
proceedings
are
blah
blah
blah
blah.
B
Just
like
a
person
sentence
to
the
to
the
to
the
second
part
again
aikis
question
so
Jeremy
I'll,
look
at
you,
although
anybody
I
guess
if
this,
if
something
is
defined
in
the
Preamble,
do
we
typically
Define
it
again
in
the
recommendation
if
it's
core
to
the
recommendation,
typically.
I
Yes,
okay,
the
purpose
being
that
the
recommendations
can
be
can
stand
alone,
myself.
B
Yeah,
okay,
all
right
I
I
do
think
it
might
be
a
good
style
to
start
with
the
recommendation.
I
remember
many
conversations
about
agency
should
or
agencies
should
consider
or
whatever
so
I
think.
Maybe,
unless
I
hear
strong
objection
will
keep
the
definitional
sentence
after
the
first
recommendation.
H
B
Okay,
thanks
for
that,
so
I
think
we
might
be
ready
to
now
talk
about
the
factors
including
bills,
comments
on
the
subsequent
page
about
it
and
enforcement
a
settlement
agreement
there
unless
anybody
has
an
objection.
Okay.
So
now,
let's
talk
through
the
seeing
no
objection,
let's
talk
through
the
the
factors
so
now
can
we
discuss
the
factors
as
though
we
are
talking
about
and
individual
settlement
agreement,
or
do
people
still
want
to
find
ways
to
make
this
the
categorical
conversation
build?
Does
this
I'll
turn
to
you,
because
it
was
your
suggestion
to
make
this
individual?
B
B
B
K
B
Yeah,
yeah,
okay,
so
that's
language
that
Alexandra
will
work
through
and
see
what
it
looks
like
when
we've
cut
it
I
think
you
still
need
to
do
it
for
C
Alexandra.
Can
we
talk
about
the
substance
of
factor
a
we
had
a
comment
a
few
minutes
ago
that
maybe
this
was
duplicative,
because
we've
already
said
that
it's
valuable,
so
I'm
going
to
confess
that
I
made
a
comment
before
earlier
in
the
week
on
a
draft
draft
version
of
this.
B
Let's
err
in
favor
of
not
disclosing
so
I
think
it's
sort
of,
because
I
had
suggested
that
we
want
some
easy
yeses
that
we
have
some
of
these
first
few,
so
I'm
going
to
ask
for
people's
reaction
on
that
Peter
I
see
your
hand
is
up
and
I'll
remind
everybody
else
that
I'm
happy
to
call
on
you.
If
you,
if
you
want
to
be
recognized
but
Peter
I
see
you.
K
Okay,
so
one
I
agree
with
your
instinct
entirely
two.
You
started
out
by
saying.
Well,
we've
already
said
X
but
I.
Don't
recall
that
we
have
already
said
X
in
the
recommendations,
so
I
think
it's.
This
is
really
a
good
place
to
start.
K
B
B
B
Right,
okay,
so
with
that
lead
in
other
comments
on
the
substance
of
factor
a.
E
Sorry
I
was
just
wondering:
does
members
of
the
public
include
all
regulated
entities
because
I
guess
members
of
the
public
makes
me
think
of
people,
but
a
lot
of
the
people?
The
entities
being
regulated
are
corporations
so.
B
Yeah
I
and
I
actually
think
elsewhere.
We
talk
about
regulated
communities,
I'm,
not
sure
we've
gotten
to
it.
Yet
I
can't
remember
exactly
where
we
are
this,
but
I
think
some
in
some
places
we
might
talk
about
regulated
communities
and
members
of
the
public
and
we
definitely
don't
want
to
only
have
members
of
the
public.
If
elsewhere
we
say
it
Erica.
C
C
H
B
And
then
it
enforces
and
then
I
think
we'll
have
to
make
that
change
wherever
it
goes
on.
Okay
and
Alexandra,
I
saw
you
typed
in
regulated
entities.
Is
that
paralleling
language
that
we
have
elsewhere?
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
consistent
in
how
we
talk
about
yes,.
A
So
we
we
have
in
sub
paragraph
C
entities
regulated
by
the
agency.
Did
we
want
to
change
that
to
regulated
entities
or
use
entities
regulated
by
the
agency?
I
I
think
it's
the
choice.
J
Sorry,
my
computer
didn't
want
to
unmute.
I
was
just
thinking
when
we
were
discussing
the
need
for
the
recommendations
to
stand
on
their
own,
that
it
may
be
worth
considering
whether
where
is
it
now,
I
think
Factor
B
about
the
promotion
of
accountability
and
transparency
and
sort
of
the
public
benefit.
If
that
needs
to
be
reframed.
Somehow
that,
like
rather
than
saying
that
the
agencies
should
consider
whether
it
will
promote
accountability
like
it
could
be,
should
consider
that
disclosure
generally
promotes
accountability
or
something
along
along
those
lines.
B
Okay,
so
let's
Peter
I'll
call
on
you
in
just
a
sec
unless
you're
gonna
be
talking
about
this
particular
thing.
I.
K
How
to
help
with
this
would
help
those
the
agency
regulates
and
the
public
understand
legal
obligations.
The
public
doesn't
have
legal
obligations
so
that
there
is
not,
and
if,
if
we
want
to
focus
on
those,
the
agency
regulates,
let's
just
say
it:
those
the
agency
regulate
and
the
public.
B
K
B
Okay,
so
let's
try
that
Alexander.
If
you
could
capture
that
Melissa,
can
you
help
propose
some
language
that
captures
the
particular?
Maybe
let's
wait
actually
for
Alexandra
to
type
what
she's.
I
So
I
can
clarify
what
the
intent
here
and
maybe
Elisa
can
jump
in
as
well.
These
are
separate
points
in
the
report.
One
is
that
those
who
are
regulated
by
the
agency
can
understand
what
they
can
and
cannot
do.
The
second
is
more
of
a
public
accountability
thing
that
the
members,
the
public
regulatory
beneficiaries,
can
assess
overall
agency
performance,
but.
I
B
J
The
expectation
is
that
releasing
the
settlement
agreement
is
in
the
public
sort
of
like
benefit
for
whatever
reason,
both
A
and
B,
and
that,
given
that
context,
if
we
are
now
reviewing
this
with
an
eye
to
the
fact
that
the
recommendations
would
need
to
stand
on
their
own
I
didn't
know.
If
the
group
thinks
that
A
and
B
really
I
had
first
said
just
be,
but
whether
any
of
these
should
be
written
in
a
way
that
sort
of
bakes
in
that,
as
the
default
sort
of
does,
that
make.
B
So
then
let
me
I'll
keep
your
hand
up
and
I'll
call
on
you
in
just
a
minute,
if
you
don't
mind,
but
with
respect
to
Melissa's
Point
what
if
we
change
all
of
the
weathers
to
the
extent
to
which,
because
weather
is
sort
of
an
on
off
switch
and
the
extent
to
which
actually
yeah
or
the
sort
of
like
holistically
on
balance,
okay,
so
I
think
that
makes
sense
all
right.
So
I
heard
a
yes
from
Peter
and
I
saw
a
nod
from
Bill.
B
Does
anybody
else
want
to
weigh
in
on
the
weather
versus
extend
to
which
okay?
So,
let's
keep
them
like
that
for
now,
although,
as
we
keep
moving
we're
really
only
at
A
and
B,
and
it
may
be
that
when
we
get
to
subsequent
ones,
we
have
to
rethink
whether
we
mean
extent
to
which,
having
just
now
imported
it
somewhat
blindly
Catherine.
Let
me
turn
to
you:
we're
still
talking
really
about
Just,
A
and
B
yeah.
E
This
was
just
about
some
of
the
changes
we
made
I've
gotten
a
little
confused.
Someone
was
talking
about
the
distinction
between
the
points
in
a
and
b
and
I
guess
I'm
a
little
confused
now
how
we
have
a
reading,
because,
if
is
if
a
is
only
supposed
to
be
talking
about
the
regulated
entities,
should
we
take
out
the
words
and
the
public.
B
So
I
think
the
point
as
a
currently
stands
is
that
the
public
may
also
want
to
understand
legal
obligations,
which
is
an
A,
and
the
public
may
also
want
to
understand
accountability
concerns
and
whether
the
agency
is
doing
its
job.
So
they
are
two
different
points,
in
which
case
Peter's
comment.
That's
changing
their
to
just
it's
in
did.
K
K
In
a
you,
could
you
could
take
out
their
legal
obligations
by
clarifying
and
simply
insert.
E
I
I
K
B
But
I
think
that's
on
something
different,
because
Jeremy
that
I
have
no
objection.
Peter
to
that
recommendation,
but
I
don't
think
that
responds
necessarily
to
what
Jeremy
was
saying,
which
is
that
the
first
one
is
still
about
understanding
the
law
and
how
the
agency,
the
law
and
the
second
one
is
still
about
understanding.
K
B
Great
okay,
so
let's
we're
still
working
on
resolving
the
issue.
That
Catherine
has
raised,
though,
which
is
that
in
B
enforces
the
law.
It
doesn't
still
doesn't
quite
capture
the
distinction
between
A
and
B.
So
Jeremy
do
you
have
another
I
know
you
just
offered
something
and
I've
lost
it,
because
we
were
we're.
I
Getting
at
the
idea
of
allowing
the
agency
to
essentially
oversee
how
well
the
agency
is
actually
actually
enforcing
the
law,
how
well
it's
exercising
its
delegated
authority
to
enforce
the
law.
So
it's
more
like
how
many
cases
is
it
bringing
every
year?
Is
it
actually
detecting
all
cases
of
violations?
It's
more
of
a
systemic
issue.
B
I
B
So
I
will
not
put
anybody
on
the
spot.
There
is
no
cold
calling
here,
although
it
is
taking
lots
of
effort
for
this
professor-
not
to
do
that,
but
I
won't
a
different
hat,
different
hat,
so
I
think,
let's
Catherine,
do
you
want
another
minute
or
are
you
all
right,
I
I
think
this
is
capturing
sort
of
the
distinction
we're
trying
to
get
at
between
a
and
b.
K
H
B
I
B
B
B
D
Say
whether
a
settlement
agreement
regularly
tracks-
and
that
would
be
in
the
cat-
that
category
would
be
subject
to
disclosure,
okay,.
D
K
So
if
you
wanted
to
do
that,
you
could
say
the
extent
to
which
a
settlement,
a
settlement
agreement
is
likely
to
attract
public
interest
if
you're,
if
they're,
if
you're
intending
for
them
to
think
proactively.
But
I,
am
attracted
by
the
proposition
that
agencies,
whose
settlement
agreements
regularly
attract
public
interest
should
consider
that
as
a
factor
in
posting
settlement
agreements,
so
I
wouldn't
make
the
change.
B
D
And
it's
not
so
much
singular
plural
as
much
as
all
generally
or
a
a
type
of
settlement
agreement,
or
whether
a
kind
of
I
mean
it's
the
idea
of
a
category
but
not
not
to
which
settlement
agreements
General
generally
speaking,
is
likely
to
attract.
H
K
B
H
C
No
no
I
I,
you
asked
and
I
I
I,
my
computer
I'm
back
still
with
the
a
type
of
which
I
just
I
just
don't
understand
that
sentence
as
written,
because
I
mean
the
lead-in
the
lead
into
this.
If
you
just
go
about
scroll
back
up
for
a
second
and
maybe
I'm
being
in
determining
which
settlement
agreement
agreements
to
post
the
agency,
an
agency
should
consider
the
extent
to
which
that
type
is
that
what
we
mean
that.
H
K
Could
be
that
other
regulated
other
regulated
interests
rather
than
parties.
E
B
B
I
I
K
I,
well
that
maybe
all
kinds
of
confidential
business
information,
for
example,
hey.
G
Yeah,
so
you
know
the
the
studies
are
not
required
under
the
under
the
proactive
disclosure
requirements
to
put
them
on
their
websites,
and
so
I
think
what
those
recommendations
are
trying
to
capture
is:
when
does
an
agency
want
to
kind
of
go
beyond
its
legal
requirements
and
put
settlements
up
on
its
website?.
G
I
B
K
B
B
Okay,
so
I
think
we
are
we're
going
to
delete
proactive
and
we
are
now
finished
with
d
and
are
going
to
move
to
E
I'm,
also
going
to
flag
that
I
think
at
2
30,
so
in
10
minutes
or
depending
on.
Maybe
we
can
finish
E
and
F,
depending
on
where
we
are,
but
I
think
we
should
take
a
five
minute
break
at
the
kind
of
halfway
mark.
So
let's
get
through
these
and
then
we'll
and
then
we'll
take
a
five
minute
break
is
f
the
last
one
yeah
okay.
K
A
foia
perspective,
the
extent
to
which
suggests
redaction
and
I
don't
know
whether
we
want
to
get
into
that
or
not,
and
whether
there's
any
discussion
of
redaction
of
the
settlement
settlement
agreement
to
eliminate
those
sensitive
things,
I
would
think
it
would
be
sufficient
to
to
hear
to
do
whether
disclosure
would,
unless.
H
K
We
want
to
unless
we
want
to
address
the
section
four
sections
one
through
one
through
nine
issues,.
B
B
I
forget
actually
at
the
moment
Jeremy
or
Alexandra
or
Elisa.
Do
we
have
a
redaction
recommendation
below
I
think
we
do
right.
I
B
When
so,
we're
not
talking
about
five,
but
let's
just
look
at
it
to
inform
our
our
thinking
about
this
sub
e
above,
oh
reduction,
covered
below
Peter.
Does
that
change
if
we're
going
to
have
a
redaction
recommendation
separately?
Does
that
change
your
comments.
B
B
B
Are
we
missing?
Anything
in
that
list
is
that
the
right
list.
I
B
B
Okay,
I'm
just
looking
for
cameras
and
hi
Alexandra.
If
you
can
get
our
yeah
words
back
up
on
the
screen,
that
would
be
great
okay.
So,
let's
move
to
the
next
recommendation,
which
is
new
three.
B
So,
let's
I
guess
first
just
think
about
the
the
first,
the
introductory
part
of
this
and
just
see
if
people
have
comments
on
the
direction
that
the
recommendation
itself
is
going
before
we
get
into
the
specifics
of
a
through
f,
so
agencies
that
settle
large
volumes
of
cases
that
do
not
vary
considerably
in
terms
of
their
factual
context
or
the
legal
issues
they
raise
should
consider
posting
and
then
we'll
get
into
the
details.
But
does
anybody
have
a
comment
on
86
and
87?
Just
the
concept
of
having
this
kind
of
almost
carve
out.
B
Okay,
seeing
none:
let's
talk
about
a
a
representative
sample
of
settlement
agreements,
comments.
K
There
we
go
I'm,
sorry,
I
wasn't
quick
enough.
It
seems
to
me
that
D
is
actually
a
the
the
the
form
or,
and
maybe
the
rather
than
a
former
template
commonly
used,
and
then
whether
one
needs
a
given
F
and
the
other
things
is
not
entirely
clear
to
me.
But
I
would
start
by
saying
the
first
thing
they
ought
to
disclose
is
the
general
form.
B
Okay,
I
see
thank
you
for
that.
Peter
I,
see
Bill's
hand,
I,
guess,
there's
part
of
me
that
wants
to
just
get
the
substance,
and
then
we
can
move
things
around
depending
on
after
we
have
kind
of
talked
through
whether
everything
needs
to
be
there.
So
I
think
I
hear
Peter
say
that
these
things
are
linked,
and
so
because.
D
Everybody's
thinking
about
that
I,
just
I
wanted
to
ask
Elise,
Eloise
or
I
mean
no
to
ask
Elisa
Elisa
right
to
what
extent,
because
I
don't
remember
seeing
it
in
the
report.
It's
probably
there,
but
I
just
don't!
Remember
it
to
what
extent
agencies
do
any
or
all
of
these
things.
G
Yeah,
that's
a
good
question
and
so,
for
example,
when
we
talked
to
the
EOC
or
other
agencies
that
had
significant
confidentiality
concerns,
they
don't
post
settlement
on
their
websites,
but
they
do
post
some
forms
of
settlements
on
their
websites
to
give
guidance
to
federal
agencies
who
are
adjudicating
claims
with
federal
employees.
I've
seen
also
a
summary
of
settlements
posted
on
agency
websites,
I
they're.
What
I
have
also
heard
of
database
approaches,
so
I
have
seen
different
approaches
that
agencies
have
taken
that
are
listed
here
in
the
recommendation
and
and
part
of
the
report.
G
D
I
do
if
that's,
if
that's
the
case,
then
isn't
the
introductory
language.
Here
too,
limiting
I
mean
you
mentioned
that
EEOC
has
doesn't
generally
put
out
their
their
documents
because
it's
confidentiality,
but
they
do
one
of
these
things.
So
should
the
introductory
language
not
relate
to
just
because
of
settling
large
volumes
of
cases,
but
agencies
that
do
not
generally
post
their
settlement
agreements
should
consider
posting
on
their
websites.
This.
B
So
I'm
going
to
add
at
this
point
that
I
added
or
I
think
I
recommended
adding
0.4
here
in
part
in
response
to
line
97
and
98.
in
part
in
response
to
the
member
comment
that
came
in
before,
but
actually
what
I
added
what
I
suggested
be
added
at
97
to
98
may
actually
just
speak
Bill
to
what
you're
saying
and
that
it
would
be
better
to
move
to
make
the
language
the
introductory
language
at
80,
It
lines,
86
and
87,
more
General
and
almost
capturing.
B
What's
now
in
97
and
98
I
see
Bill
nodding.
Does
anybody
else
want
to
weigh
in
on
that
I'm?
Looking
really
hard?
It's
it's
it's!
It's
very
I
can
only
I
think
I
see
about
eight
of
you.
I
can't
have
the
screen
open
and,
and
everybody
else
too,
although
there's
probably
some
way
that
I
can
figure
out
how
to
do
that.
Actually,
but
anyway,.
F
B
K
No
okay,
so
this
seems
to
me
again
again
to
suggests
putting
disclosure
of
forms
or
templates
first,
but
then
also
when
we
get
to
four
just
to
signal
that
it
should
be
agencies
choosing
not
to
post
individual
settlement
agreements.
B
B
D
Well,
I
mean
I,
I
thought
your
suggestion
of
taking
four
right
and
bring
it
up
and
just
saying
agencies
choosing
not
to
and
I
would
say,
generally
is
not
the
generally
post
individual
settlement
agreements
and
should
consider
posting
on
their
websites,
blah
blah
blah
blah.
B
Okay,
so
let's
do
that
Alexandra
if
you
can
move
that
part
up.
B
B
K
Well,
D
is
the
one
that's
most
likely
to
be
one
chosen
well,
no,
never
mind
I've
retract.
E
G
Yeah
I
I
think
what
we're
trying
to
capture
here
is,
if
you're
going
to
provide
some
kind
of
like
subset
of
agreements,
that
it
would
be
helpful
to
provide
information
about
why
the
particular
subset
was
chosen
like
maybe
these
are
claims
under
a
certain
statute
that
are
important
to
the
agency.
Maybe
you
know
these
this
unfortunate
action.
G
The
agency
has
made
a
finding
of
egregiousness,
so
I
think
what
we're
kind
of
trying
to
capture
here
is
providing
you
know
a
sample
and
some
explanation
about
why
that
sample
is
significant,
why
it
was
chosen
to
be
made
available.
E
I'm,
just
sorry
like
settlement
agreements
that
raise
particular
legal
issues,
comma,
noting
the
particular
issue,
or
something
or
I
I
guess
it's
just
I
feel
like
it's
the
the
significant.
E
I
About
it,
if,
instead
of
they
are,
as
you
said,
explaining
why
those
issues
warrant
disclosure
or
something
like
that.
B
B
B
G
I,
don't
know
that
I
have
the
right
wordsmithing.
You
know
I
just
I'm,
trying
to
kind
of
capture
this
idea
that
you
know
that
they
were
chosen
for
reason
because
they,
you
know,
provide
or
shed
light
on.
You
know
legal
issues
of
particular
importance,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
that's
the
the
right
language
capturing
that
foreign.
B
H
E
H
K
Well,
it's
not
about
agreements
that
raise
particular
legal
issues
if
I
was
a
general
counsel
of
an
agency,
I
would
think
that
you
might
be
saying
settlement
agreements
that
are
kind
of
chancy
for
the
way
in
which
they
view
the
law.
So
I
don't
think
it's
raising
particular
legal
issues,
but
rather
that
they
entail
they
entail
or
resolve
or
suggest.
B
Which
almost
is
the
flip
of
what
Catherine
was
saying
before,
so
so,
but
but
how?
How
about
settlement
agreements
that
entail
legal
issues
warranting
disclosure
and
but
then
because
there's
the
second
half
that
like
do,
are
we
also
suggesting
that
the
agency
explain
why
or
note
that
or
something
with
some
explanatory
comment
or
something
like
that?
Catherine
did
your
hand
just
go
up.
Fine.
E
Yeah
I
mean
I,
don't
love
this
either,
but
is
what
is
what
you
were
talking
about
like
identifying
or
something?
It
didn't
bother
me
when
you
said
like
having,
on
the
website
cases
involving
section
blah
blah
blah,
because
that
doesn't
seem
like
it's
pushing
the
agency
out
on
a
limb
very
much
to
to
kind
of
like
categorize
the
settlement
agreement,
but
it's
more
like
if
it
has
to
have
like
a
paragraph
explaining
why
this
was
a
novel
legal
issue
or
why
I
was
important
to
the
agency.
B
E
E
B
This
isn't
this
is
not
I'm
not
actually
suggesting
this,
but
it's
almost
like.
We
want
to
say
like
identifying
the
category
of
importance
or
noting
the
subsection
of
relevance
or
something
like
that.
I
think
you're,
saying
Catherine
that
you
don't
want
to
us
to
be
recommending
that
agencies
like
write
a
new
paragraph
of
legal
analysis,
but
that
you're
comfortable
recommending
a
header
of
like
the
the
category
of
disclosure
that
this
falls
into.
Is
that
capturing
something.
E
D
B
So
let's
maybe
go
to
what
is
now
e
in
97
a
summary
of
settlement.
Trends
Peter
I
see
your
hand
well.
K
A
I
think
I
might
be
able
to
speak
to
that
one.
It
was
it's
my
recollection
that
that
was
going
towards
sort
of
the
idea
that
if
you
have
a
famous
sort
of
company
regulated
entity
that
has
a
big
settlement
that
the
public
might
be
interested
in.
You
know
folks
going
to
the
the
agency
website
to
see
if
they
can.
You
know,
get
a
claim
for
some
money
from
something
like
that,
something
that
that
was
not
directed
specifically
at
the
legal
issues
but
more
the
factual
issues,
if
that
makes
sense,
yeah.
B
I
B
K
Comment
down,
it's
just
exactly
that
if
the
issue
is
to
avoid
inviting
on
what
unwashed
foia
inquiries
that
it
it
that
lists
information
about
case
type,
a
case
number
of
parties
and
key
terms,
and
not
that
doesn't
don't
ask
them
to
list
the
agreements.
B
B
B
E
B
Were
trying
to
go
up
a
level
of
generality,
because
there
were
other
reasons
why
agencies
don't
may
not
decide
to
post
individual
settlement
agreements
that
are
Beyond
just
because
they
might
set
a
large.
So
we
thought
that
maybe
settling
large
volumes
of
cases
was
a
subsidiary
point
to
the
larger
macro
point
that
we
were
going
for
Peter.
Do
you
have
a
comment
on
that
as
well?.
K
Well,
it's
a
it's
a
comment
on.
In
some
sense,
an
order
can.
E
It
made
more
sense
to
me
when
it
was
I,
I,
guess,
I
wouldn't
read
this
and
automatically
think
of
cases
that
aren't
posting
them,
because
there
are
so
many
I
had
thought
of
it
as
agencies
that
aren't
posting
agreements,
because
on
balance,
when
they
looked
at
all
the
factors
we
had
just
listed,
they
thought
for
their
agency.
It
was
better
not
to
post
them.
So.
B
I
think
that
might
be
right,
but
is
there
any
reason
why
settling
large
volume
of
cases
changes
the
subject
to
the
substance
of
what
the
recommend
like
how
you
would
as
an
agency,
think
about
that?
In
other
words,
are
there
right
do
these
factors
vary
if
you're
settling
large
volume
of
cases
versus
otherwise.
E
Maybe
another
way
of
putting
it
is,
it
seems
like
affirmatively.
What
we're
saying
is
that
we
realize
that
some
agencies
would
recognize
the
value
in
this,
but
they
settle
thousands
of
agreements
every
year.
So
we're
not
expecting
them
to
sorry
thousands
of
enforcement
actions,
so
we're
not
expecting
them
to
post,
like
thousands
and
thousands
of
settlement
agreements,
whereas
the.
E
I'm,
just
not
quite
sure
what
what
category
of
agencies
we
think
fits
into
this
aside
from
that
group
that
would
they
would
still
want
to
post
something
as
opposed
to
an
agency.
That's
just
decided.
Oh,
we
involve
National,
Security
or
or
the
the
agency
someone
was
talking
about
before
that
it.
You
know,
for
whatever
reason
they
just
categorically
can't
post
agreements.
D
Okay,
I
mean
Elisa,
told
us
that
EEOC
doesn't
generally
post
settlement
agreements
because
it
involves
personal
information,
and
so
that
would
be
a
category
other
than
large
numbers
that
they
don't
why
they
don't
do
it.
So
we
thought
we'd,
just
generically
say
for
if,
for
whatever
reason
you
don't
generally
post
them,
then
here's
some
other
things.
You
should
consider.
E
It
does
I
just
it's
helpful,
because
I
think
it
shows
that
there
are
agencies
that
might
not
be
hostile
towards
posting.
It
may
not
be
that
they
hate
posting
things,
but
just
that
they
have
these
other
reasons
why
they
wouldn't,
and
so
here's
a
way
to
still
achieve
the
goal
of
you
know:
increasing
transparency
et
cetera.
K
Because
what
I
think
is
missing
from
this
from
this
recommendation
at
the
at
the
start
of
it
is
what's
in
four.
Can.
A
Was
it
thank
you
so
much
Jeremy.
Would
you
mind
stating
what
you
said
just
a
few
minutes
prior,
if
you
can
remember
it,
why.
B
Do
sensitivity
event
and
we
have
captured
that
too
and
definitely
then
we're
at
a
committee
of
style
moment.
Okay,
so
Peter
I
know
you
want
to
go
back
now
to
four
and
think
about
bringing
it
up.
No.
K
Well,
at
that
point,
I
want
to
say,
should
consider
other
means
to
achieve
the
goals
of
disclosure
summarized
in
paragraph
two
and.
B
K
B
E
B
B
D
K
This
is
not
a
series
of
whereas
clauses.
B
Okay
so
we've
moved
to
another
recommendation:
I'm
just
going
to
pause
here,
I
I'm,
happy
to
jump
and
nobody
seems
to
have
anything
more
to
say
on
five,
but
I
just
want
to
recognize
that
I'm
happy
to
entertain
anything
else
on
five.
If
anybody
would
like
to
raise
something
and
I
don't
see
anything,
so,
let's
officially
now
move
to
six,
which
is
109
to
111.,
and
we've
made
this
initial
edit.
K
B
G
B
D
B
Agreed,
okay,
can
you
change
that
to
and
thanks
Alexandra
and
so
Bill?
What's
your
substantive
Point.
D
The
introductory
language,
but
we
took
out
the
win
all
right.
It's
now.
Agencies
should
post
settlement
in
a
clear,
logical
and
comprehensive
fashion.
Right.
Okay
I
agree
with
that.
But
then
it
says,
for
example,
and
then
it
says
for
each
completing
proceeding
provides
access
to
a
copy
of
the
settlement
agreement.
We
don't
know
that
because
it
may
be
one
of
those
settlement
agreements
that
shouldn't
be
published,
so
there's
there's
a
disconnect.
D
B
So
wait:
I
I
I
feel
like
there's
two
things
there
bill
and
I
am
a
little
bit
confused
about
them
all
right.
One
of
them,
I
think,
is
that
maintaining
an
enforcement
web
page
isn't
an
example
of
clear,
logical,
comprehensive,
but
a
separate
recommendation,
and
then
the
other
thing
is
that
we
may
not
always
want
to
be
providing
access
to
the
settlement
agreement.
Is
that
right,
correct.
B
B
K
So
I
think
we're
where
Bill
is
going.
Is
that
in
the
introduction?
In
the
introductory
phrase,
we
should
be
directing
this
to
agencies
that
post,
that
is,
agencies,
posting
yeah
foreign
agencies,
posting
settlement
agreements
or
information
about
well.
But
that's
a
couple
of
agreements
on
their
website,
but.
B
Then
it's
redundant,
then
we
don't
need
in
a
the
idea
of
linking
to
the
settlement
agreement,
because
we're
already
saying
that
they're
posting
it
am
I-
am
I
missing
the
thrust
of
the
recommendation,
like
we
not
the
recommendation,
but
your
comment
Bill.
What?
If
we
just
delete,
provide
the
access
in
line
15.?
Does
that
would
that
fix
the
problem.
D
I
I
So
in
some
case
there
may
be
a
docket
page
that
pre-exists
the
settlement
agreement,
but
I,
don't
know
that
it's
necessary.
K
B
B
Does
I
actually
I'm
not
familiar
with
that
I
just
know
it
exists,
but
I
haven't
read
that
recommendation.
Does
it
say
agencies
should
maintain
docket
Pages
for
ongoing
proceedings,
because
if
so,
then
I
think
there
should
be
a
cross-reference
I'm,
just
not
familiar
enough
with
it
to
know
what
the
cross-reference
should
be.
It.
I
Recommends
it
as
an
option,
there
is
an
occasional
acus
preference
against
cross-citing
other
recommendations
and
recommendations,
but
you
can
you
can
I.
I
I
B
K
K
Comma
easily
accessed,
but
whether
this
is
the
recommendation
in
which
to
make
that
suggestion
generally
describe
your
enforcement
proceedings
is
a
different
issue.
I
Sort
of
you
could
flip
it
and
just
say
providing
access
to
a
copy
of
the
settlement,
agreement
or
information
about
the
settlement
agreement
on
any
docket
page
established
for
an
enforcement
proceeding.
So
it
doesn't
it's
neutral
on
whether
or
not
an
agency
actually
establishes
docket
Pages.
It
just
says
if
you
maintain
docket
Pages
put
settlement
agreements
there.
B
D
Think
so
because
it
may
what
I
what
I
was
thinking
was
that
again
we
say
the
what
the
post
the
postage
should
be
clear,
logical
and
comprehensive,
but
then
it
doesn't
say
considered
doing
these
following
things.
It
says
you
shall
do
these
things
all
right.
So
you
know
here
I
mean
it's
before
this:
it
required
them
to
make
a
docket.
Now
again,
this
may
may
solve
that,
but
is
should
all
of
it
should
a
b
and
c
be
mandatory
or
things
that
the
agency
should
consider
doing.
D
Mean
it
should
present
clear,
logical,
comprehensive
fashion
period.
Agencies
should
consider
to
accomplish
this
agency
should
consider
blah
blah
blah,
and
then
you
could
take
out
if
providing
an
access
so
forth.
B
D
The
difference
is
that
as
it's
currently
written,
it
will
not
be
a
clear,
logical
and
comprehensive
fashion
and
that
that's
sort
of
mandatory
they
shouldn't
consider
doing
it
in
a
clear,
logical
and
comprehensive
fashion.
They
should
do
it
and
the
only
way
to
do
it
is
to
do
these
a
b
and
c
and
I
I
was
thinking
that
it
should
be
clear,
logical
and.
D
B
B
Okay,
I
think
I
think
we
still
have
extra
language
hanging
around
in
a
though
so.
Can
we,
let's
just
stick
with
a
and
then
work
through
B
and
C,
first
so
back
to
a
before
working
on
parallelism
or
different
substance,
or
anything
like
that.
Just
let's
look
at
a
lines
112
through
117
I,
think
there's
some
extra
wordage
floating
around
I
suggest
a
period
after
the.
K
B
It's
a
different
okay
right
bill
is
your
hand
back
up,
or
is
this
still
up
for
you?
It's.
B
Okay,
so
does
anybody
have
any
other
comments
on
a
recommendation,
a
only
providing
access
to
a
copy
of
the
settlement
agreement
or
information
about
it
through
an
enforcement
web
page
easily
easily
accessed
from
the
agency's
home,
page,
sitemap
or
site
index
Peter
did
that?
Was
that
your
hand
going
back
up
again?
No.
B
Okay,
I'm
looking
to
just
see
if
anybody
else
has
anything
on
a
before
we
get
to
B
scrolling.
Looking
waiting
hearing,
nothing,
let's
go
to
B
but
Peter
before
I
call
in
you
just
like
I'm,
going
to
give
everybody
a
minute
to
just
read
the
couple
of
lines
and
Bill
I
see
you
too,
but
I
just
want
to
have
everybody
read
the
lines.
K
K
D
B
G
I
just
wanted
to
add
here
that,
like
DACA
page,
was
kind
of
a
way
of
thinking
about
how
to
link
settlements
to
other
supplementary
information,
and
so
some
agencies
do
that
through
a
docket
page,
and
they
have
you
know
their
complaints
and
they
have
other
adjudication
adjudicative
documents.
Others
don't
do
that
and
what
would
be
helpful
is
to
have
like
just
a
grouping
like
if
you're
going
to
have
a
settlement
agreement
have
links
to
the
press
release
or
have
a
link
to
related.
G
You
know
adjudication
materials
that
some
agencies
may
choose
to
do
that
through
a
DACA
page,
but
I
think
it's
also
helpful
for
agencies
that
don't
do
docketing
just
to
kind
of
group
information
about
a
settlement
on
a
page
that
is
separate
from
kind
of
the
general
enforcement
website.
Page.
B
G
B
B
D
Haven't
addressed
docket
Pages,
yet
in
this
recommendation,
all
right
so
a
says,
give
a
copy
of
the
settlement
agreement
through
various
means
all
right,
then
we
say
you
know
maintaining
a
docket
page,
that's
a
different
idea
right
and
now
they
don't
have
to
do
it,
because
this
is
just
something
they're
supposed
to
consider
because
of
our
introductory
language,
but
I
think
the
original
language
of
maintaining
a
docket
page
for
each
agency
enforcement,
proceeding
that
provides
access
to
a
copy
of
the
settlement
agreement
or
something
or
other,
along
with
any
Associated
materials.
I.
K
So
what
I,
heard
and
and
I'd
agree
with
is
that
the
real
thrust
here
is
providing
access
to
any
Associated
materials,
for
example,.
K
B
C
K
B
B
B
Okay,
Erica
your
hand
is
still
up.
Is
this
from
the
previous
question?
Okay,
great!
So
let's
talk
about
C.
Let
me
give
a
minute
to
just
read:
it.
H
B
Okay,
I
think
I
saw
some
a
thumbs
up
from
Peter,
although
I
was
scrolling
and
I
just
caught
the
LA,
the
tail
end
of
the
thumb
coming
down.
Can
we
just
go
back
to
the
lines?
I'm?
Sorry
to
do
this
one
more
time,
but
the
the
introductory
sentences
yeah
and
then
sort
of
just
look
at
the
whole
thing.
Holistically
agencies,
posting
settlement
agreements
or
information
about
settlement
agreements.
K
K
B
All
right,
I
think
we
have
done
a
lot
of
work
today.
So
maybe,
if
you
can
take
us
out
of
the
share
screen
Alexandra
just
so,
we
can
see
each
other
more
fully
again.
B
I
think
let
me
go
back.
I
have
more
that
I
need
to
say
to
close
us
out.
So
let
me
just
go
back
and
open
open
up
to
make
sure
that
I'm
saying
what
we
need
to
say.
Oh,
we
need
to
see
if
there's
comments
by
public
attendees,
I'm
glad
I
double
checked.
Does
anybody
who
has
not
yet
spoken
I'm
going
to
assume
unanimous
consent
here
unless
I
hear
objections,
I
hear
no
objections?
Does
anybody
who
is
not
a
member
who
falls
into
this
category?
B
B
B
Thank
you
to
Alexandra
for
that
amazing
Speedy
typing
capturing
everything.
Thank
you
to
Elisa
for
the
great
report
and
for
sort
of
starting
us
off
here.
Our
next
meeting
is
on
Friday
October
28th
from
1
to
4,
P.M
Eastern
same
time
same
place,
and
we
will
recirculate
Peter.
Is
this
a
you
want
to
be
recognized
or.
K
Is
this
I'm
just
wondering
whether
John
can
answer
this,
whether
it
would
be
appropriate
or
whether
you
need
any
kind
of
vote
to
approve
in
general,
what
we've
done
so.
B
L
It's
probably
a
question
for
Jeremy
is
committee
practice,
but
I
think
the
vote.
The
final
vote
is
usually
on
adoption
of
the
recommendation.
After
the
Preamble
has
been
tweaked.
B
So
two
weeks
from
today
same
time
same
place,
we
will
recirculate
with
said
magic
and
it's
great
to
work
with
you
all
so
happy
to
be
chairing
this
committee
so
happy
to
be
on
this
project
and
thank
you
to
everybody,
and
we
will
see
you
next
time.
Thank
you.
Bye.