►
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
Other
staff
moves
our
program.
Specialist
Jordan
Joseph
also
left,
since
our
last
session
and
she's
been
very
ably
succeeded
by
Amina
Gore
who's
back
there
sitting
next
to
Darren.
We're
also
looking
to
strengthen
our
staff
by
advertising
a
fellowship
to
support
the
growth
of
the
artificial
intelligence
research
agenda.
The
fellow
will
work
closely
with
Jeremy
and
me
to
identify
projects
and
work
with
colleagues
outside
experts
and
all
of
you
to
carry
them
out.
A
Please,
if
you
know
of
any
attorneys
with
who
are
both
lawyers
and
have
some
interest
or
expertise
in
AI,
maybe
a
joint
program,
maybe
a
JD
and
then
an
M.A
or
a
PhD
in
artificial
intelligence.
Please
let
them
know
about
this
opportunity
and
that
the
deadline
for
application
is
is
July
3rd.
A
So
moving
on
to
the
report,
our
statute
requires
the
chair
to
make
a
full
report
at
each
plenary
session
on
the
Affairs
of
the
conference.
So
that's
what
I'm
going
to
do
now?
In
short,
I
can
report
that
the
state
of
the
conference
is
good.
It
has
continued
to
pursue
its
mission
of
making
the
government
work
better.
A
A
We
have
developed
ideas
and
many
ideas
for
future
projects
that,
if
they
work
out,
will
keep
us
busy
for
quite
a
while
and
we've
seen
significant
implementation
successes
which
I'll
talk
about
in
more
detail
later
and
throughout
this
work
we
have
maintained
the
high
standard
of
Excellence.
That
is
a
Hallmark
of
acus,
and
all
this,
of
course,
is
due
to
the
hard
work
of
our
members,
our
consultants
and
our
staff.
A
One
of
the
priorities
I
spoke
to
you
about
in
December,
when
I
I
listed
what
I
hope
to
prioritize
during
my
chairmanship.
The
first
and
foremost
was
to
do
everything
in
our
power
to
maintain
our
funding,
so
we
can
continue
to
do
the
good
work
of
of
acus
I
can
report
that
acus
continues
to
be
a
trustworthy
Steward
of
taxpayer
funds.
A
The
president
asked
Congress
for
an
appropriation
for
acos
of
3.523
million
for
the
next
fiscal
year
fy24.
This
represents
a
modest
increase
of
58
thousand
dollars,
which
we
will
be
used
would
be
using
to
absorb
cost
of
living
increases
over
the
last
few
years.
We
are
all
what
we
are
hopeful
that
Congress
will
approve
the
the
requested
appropriation
to
fundakis
through
the
next
fiscal
year.
To
that
end,
we
have
reached
out
to
people
on
the
hill
and
briefed
staffers
on
the
respective
Appropriations
subcommittees.
A
All
our
budget
success,
of
course,
is
due
to
the
skillful
work
of
our
CFO
CEO
Harry
seidman,
who
is
up
there
in
the
back,
our
budget,
analyst
Nathan
tommaso,
who
is
probably
out
front
and
to
Conrad
Dryland
here
on
my
left,
who,
in
addition
to
being
attorney
advisor
and
a
special
counsel
to
the
chair,
handles
Congressional
Affairs.
For
us,
we
continue
to
be
active
in
the
communications
space.
A
A
It's
something
that
if
it
works
out,
will
raise
acus's
Communications
profile,
particularly
with
the
major
audience
we
we
seek
to
reach
that
being
federal
government
employees,
both
in
the
executive
branch
and
on
on
the
hill
in
in
the
Congress
and
when
it
gets
going
I'm
going
to
ask
many
of
you
to
to
participate
in
it
and
I
hope
you'll
be
willing
to
do
it
it'll
be
a
little
bit
fun,
something
that
that
we're
all
not
used
to
doing
but
as
I
say,
it's
not
entirely
finalized,
so
stay
tuned
and
that's
a
hint.
A
We
have
established
and
begun
to
publicize
two
new
resources
that
I
talked
about
last
time:
legislative
updates
and
judicial
developments.
That
will
improve
our
coverage
of
administrative
law
in
Congress
and
in
recent
and
significant
case
law.
These
can
hopefully
be
a
starting
point
for
both
recent
for
both
the
serious
and
Casual
researcher.
Looking
for
a
quick
take
on
legislation
and
case
law
and
administrative
law,
and
if
they're
not
familiar
with
us,
they
may
look
around
at
the
website
and
learn
more
about
us
for
the
future.
A
In
April,
many
of
you
participated
in
our
second
midpoint
meeting
remote
held
remotely
to
update
members
and
solicit
input
between
plenary
sessions.
These
sessions
seem
to
be
a
welcome
addition
to
our
work
and
we
plan
on
continuing
them
in
the
in
the
future,
as
is
Promised
in
our
last
session.
Also
I
think
we
have
brought
to
you
speakers
and
panels
on
interesting
and
helpful
issues
again
today.
A
Last
time
we
had
a
panel
of
experts
speaking
about
the
Chevron
Doctrine,
and
many
of
you
were
here
for
that
in
just
a
few
minutes
when
he
arrives
we'll
hear
from
Ricky
rivez
Ira
administrator
and
a
long
time
friend,
of
Vegas
after
lunch
we'll
be
joined
by
omb's
associate
director
for
performance
and
personnel
management.
My
name
is
Lauren
Dion
Shulman
and
we'll
learn
more
about
the
administration's
work
on
customer
experience,
and
this
will
be
in
an
interview
format
with
former
Aika
staff
or
Todd
Rubin.
A
It
was
touch
and
go
with
Lauren's
appearance
this
morning
at
the
after
she
was
booked.
She
got
a
summons
for
jury
duty
this
morning
and
we
were
worried
that
we
might
lose
her,
but
she
found
out
early
this
morning
or
last
night
that
they
don't
need
her
as
a
juror
today,
so
so
she'll
be
here
and
hopefully
on
time
we
currently
have
at
least
a
dozen
studies
underway,
most
of
which
we
hope
will
result
in
recommendations
for
your
approval.
A
They
are
important
initiatives
that
build
on
our
past
work
like
to
highlight
just
a
few
recent
and
ongoing
studies.
Now
in
July
2021,
a
bipartisan
group
of
six
Senators
on
the
intellectual
property
subcommittee
of
the
Senate
Judiciary
Committee,
requested
that
the
patent
and
trademark
office
engage
and
fund
acus
to
conduct
an
independent
study
of
issues
associated
with
and
options
for,
designing
a
small
claims.
Patent
report
Susan
Braden
here
in
the
front
row,
was
a
member
of
the
the
folks
who
worked
on
that
and
contributed
a
great
deal.
A
A
Consultants
are
currently
finalizing
two
more
reports
for
us
on
important
questions
regarding
judicial
review
of
agency
action
professors,
Mila
shahani,
Jed,
stiglitz
and
Zach
Clapton
are
working
on
a
report
examining
how
Nationwide
injunctions
and
similar
Equitable
remedies
affect
the
administration
of
federal
regulatory
programs
and
at
the
suggestion
of
the
judicial
review
committee,
professors,
John,
Duffy
and
Aditya
Banzai
are
drafting
a
report
examining
the
timing
of
judicial
review.
Both
reports
will
be
issued
later
this
year.
A
So
I
won't
read
off
each
one
if
you're
looking
for
more
information
about
these
projects,
it's
available
on
our
website,
which
we
keep
updated
each
month
through
these
studies
and
other
projects,
the
office
of
the
chair
continues
to
undertake
initiatives
to
carry
out
acos's
statutory
charge,
to
quote
arrange
for
interchange
among
agencies
of
information
potentially
useful
in
improving
administrative
procedure,
unquote,
in
other
words,
getting
the
agencies
to
to
talk
to
each
other
and
learn
from
each
other
about
administrative
procedure.
A
Current
round
tables
that
have
been
meeting
to
that
end
are
also
listed
on
the
next
slide.
I
won't
I,
won't
read
them,
but
I
do
want
to
highlight
the
the
new
Roundtable
on
state,
administrative,
procedural
practices
and
it
recently
had
its
first
meeting.
The
round
table
is
co-chaired
by
public
member
Kate
Todd
and
Professor
Maria
Panama
Panama
ranko.
It's
intended
to
identify
helpful
lessons
for
federal
agencies
in
the
administrative
procedures
employed
by
state
governments.
A
You
know
usually
we're
we're
in
situations
where
the
federal
government
is
dictating
to
the
state
government,
this
that
or
the
other,
but
as
Justice
Brandeis
was
it
Brandeis.
Yes,
Justice
Brandeis
said
the
the
states
are
Laboratories
of
of
democracy,
I'm
sure
you've
all
heard
that
quote,
so
we
in
the
federal
government
have
a
lot
to
learn
from
State
administrative
procedure
and
we're
trying
to
do
that
through
this
round
table.
A
Thank
you
to
Kate
and
Maria
for
organizing
an
exceptional
kickoff
event
earlier
this
year
year
and
we
look
forward
to
Future
initiatives
through
working
groups.
The
office
of
the
chair
brings
together
experts
to
work
together
to
develop
model
materials.
A
new,
a
new
working
group
is
taking
up
this
body's
proposal
in
recommendation.
2021-10
regulation
of
Representatives
in
agency
adjudication
proceedings
that
the
office
of
the
chair
is
is
what
that
has
asked
us
to
do
that.
The
chair,
developed
model
rules
of
Representative
conduct.
A
The
working
group
is
chaired
by
Aaron
worth
the
chief
administrative
law,
judge
of
the
federal
Maritime
Commission
and
Professor
Lou
varelli
serves
as
the
reporter
for
the
working
group.
The
group
has
already
met
several
times
this
year,
so
thank
you
to
Aaron
Liu
and
all
the
members
of
this
working
group.
A
A
second
working
group
in
progress
co-led
by
the
federal
mediation
and
conciliation
service
is
developing
model
materials
for
use
in
agency,
ADR
programs,
the
White
House
legal
aid,
interagency
Roundtable,
was
reconvened
by
the
president
two
years
ago,
under
the
leadership
of
the
Attorney
General
and
the
White
House
Council
Aegis
is
one
of
about
a
dozen
members
participating
in
this
round
table.
It
met
several
times
in
2021
and
2022
and
acus
contributed
to
its
first.
Two
annual
reports
to
the
president
acres
is
pleased
to
take
on
a
bigger
role.
A
This
year,
Jeremy
an
attorney
advisor
Matt
Bluth
have
been
working
closely
with
lair's
executive
director
Ali
Yang
green,
who
is
the
director
of
the
Department
of
Justice's
office
for
access
to
Justice
to
coordinate
this
year's
activities.
Together,
we
are
leading
an
interagency
effort
to
examine
steps.
Agencies
can
take
to
expand
access
to
representation
in
administrative
procedures,
as
opposed
to
litigation
for
low
and
middle
income,
people
and
members
of
historically
underserved
communities.
A
We
are
focused
on
ways:
qualified
non-lawyers
can
help
expand
access
to
representation
and
assistance.
We're
proud
of
these
efforts
and
they're
expected
to
result
in
a
report
to
the
president.
Later
this
year,
much
more
work
remains
to
be
done
in
this
space
to
enhance
access
to
Justice
in
agency
proceedings
and
acus
continues
to
undertake
new
initiatives
to
make
that
happen.
Accordingly,
acus
continues
to
partner
with
the
Legal
Services
Corporation
on
a
virtual
Forum
that
we
call
assisting
parties
in
federal
administrative
adjudication.
This
multiple
part,
virtual
Forum,
examines
ways
to
improve
support
for
parties
in
administration.
A
Excuse
me
to
to
improve
support
for
parties
in
adjudication
processes
in
which
they
are
frequently
self-represented
first
panel
examine
why
many
parties,
especially
members
of
historically
underserved
communities,
do
not
have
professional
representation
and
address
potential
strategies
for
expanding
access
to
representation.
A
second
panel
that
I
spoke
at
was
held
in
May
focused
on
promoting
effective
representation.
Legal
aid
attorneys
share
their
best
practices
for
training
staff
and
probe
bono
attorneys
to
assist
low-income
clients
with
applications
for
or
appeals
involving
Federal
benefits
and
government
leaders,
discuss
training
and
professional
development
opportunities.
A
Their
agencies
provide
to
help
less
experienced
Advocates
represent
their
clients
interests
effectively.
So
we're
trying
to
make
this
a
public
private
partnership
on
effort.
A
third
panel
will
take
place
later
this
month
to
address
ways
that
agencies
can
assist
self-representative
parties,
this
Builds
on
previous,
this
Aegis
work,
most
notably
recommendation
2016-6,
self-represented
parties
and
administrative
proceedings,
and
at
least
one
additional
panel
being
a
fourth
is
already
in
the
works.
A
We
also
have
issued
Publications
to
keep
acos
members
and
the
public
informed
about
matters
of
administrative
procedure.
The
information
interchange
bulletins,
for
example,
offer
one-page
overviews
of
important
topics.
Another
monthly
series
keeps
agencies
Congress
and
the
public
updated
on
adjudication
related
developments.
A
We
are
also
regular
contributors,
contributors
to
arln
and
notice
and
comment,
and
with
your
input
last
year
we
published
our
first
statement
of
principles
which
provides
a
single
convenient
resource,
summarizing
all
acus
recommendations
on
the
disclosure
of
federal
administrative
materials.
We
continue
to
update
that
document
as
the
Assembly
adopts
new
recommendations
on
the
subject,
we're
working
on
a
second
statement
of
principles.
This
one
focused
on
public
engagement
in
agency
rulemaking
will
circulate
a
draft
version
to
the
entire
membership
soon
and
welcome
your
feedback
before
we
publish
a
final
version
in.
A
These
initiatives,
the
office
of
the
chair,
has
provided
technical
assistance
to
agencies
and
to
Congress
and
promoted
implementation
of
the
assembly's
recommendations
across
all
branches
of
government.
We
all
believe
that,
following
through
on
acus's,
recommendations
to
try
for
implementation
is
a
vital
function
of
acos
and
all
of
us.
Our
thanks
go
out
to
our
implementation
working
group,
which
is
co-chaired
by
public
member
Kai,
felbloom
and
special
counsel,
Andrew
Emery
and
along
the
lines
of
implementation.
A
These
are
all
subjects
on
which
akos
has
made
recommendations,
of
course,
and
in
accompanying
memorandum.
Administrative
revez
directs
agencies
to
several
acos
resources,
including
recommendation
2014-6
petitions
for
rulemaking
and
recommendation
2021-1,
managing
Mass
computer
generated
and
falsely
attributed
comments.
So
there's
a
lot
of
overlap
there.
The
executive
order
also
directs
agencies
to
proactively
engage
with
a
wide
range
of
persons
interested
in
or
affected
by
agency
rulemakings,
including
members
of
underserved
communities.
A
Aikis
serves
as
a
unique
Clearinghouse
for
information
on
best
practices,
including
recommendation
2018-7
public
engagement
in
rulemaking
and
two
forums
held
in
the
fall
of
2021
focused
on
enhancing
public
input
into
agency
rulemaking
and
improving
participation
by
underserved
communities
in
regulatory
policy.
Making
these
resources
are
easily
available
on
our
website
at
acos.gov
backslash
public
participation,
which
will
continue
to
be,
as
you
can
tell
a
theme
of
our
work
going
forward,
and
we
had
another
implementation
success.
A
Sure
oh
I
I
expect
that
Ricky
will
be
talking
more
more
about
these,
so
I
won't
the
the
EO,
so
I
won't
go
into
any
more
detail.
A
So
that's
the
chairs
report
on
the
Affairs
of
the
conference.
This
is
just
some
of
the
work
we're
doing
and
working
on.
In
short,
there
is
a
lot
going
on
to
fulfill
our
statutory
responsibilities,
so
I
I.
Thank
you
and
I
see
it's
exactly
9
30
and
Ricky's.
Not
here,
oh
you
say.
Oh
there
you
are
in
the
back,
oh
I'm,
sorry
I
I
tried
to
not
make
you
wait
come
on
come
on
down.
A
This
is
a
great
breaking
point
before
I
got
into
the
the
business
business
matters.
A
Yeah,
of
course,
to
have
Richard
L
revez,
better
known
to
all
of
you,
as
as
Ricky
I'm
here
with
us
to
speak
this
morning.
How
do
you
introduce
someone
that
the
audience
knows
so
well
I'm
going
to
do
my
best
to
try
anyway?
He
has
accomplished
enough
for
at
least
two
or
three
or
four
legal
careers.
Since
the
beginning
of
the
year,
of
course,
Ricky
has
been
serving
as
the
administration
administrator
of
oira.
A
A
I,
don't
think
I've
read
80
articles
in
major
reviews
and
journals
he
he
served
as
a
professor
and
then
as
the
dean
of
the
NYU
Law
School.
He
is
deservedly
proud
of
establishing
The
Institute
for
policy
integrity
at
NYU,
I,
think
tank
and
advocacy
organization
that
promotes
public
policies
with
the
environment,
public
health
and
consumers
and
Ricky
also
served
for
a
while,
as
the
Director
of
the
American
law.
A
A
Many
of
you
have
seen
that
Ricky
and
oi
were
were
the
subject
of
very
positive
article
in
New,
York
Times
just
a
couple
of
weeks
ago.
A
It
is
my
belief
that,
as
the
administration
relies
more
heavily
on
regulations
and
administrative
policy
because
of
the
the
gridlock
for
his
agenda
in
the
Congress
that
Ricky
and
his
office
will
be
one
of
the
most
important
and
influential
person
in
office
in
the
government,
and
so
you
know,
Ricky
has
agreed
to
take
questions
and
answers
at
the
end,
so
don't
raise
your
hands
during
the
talk.
You'll
have
plenty
of
time
to
ask
Ricky
questions
at
the
end.
So
with
that
Ricky
floor
is.
B
D
Foreign
thanks
so
much
Andy
I
was
sitting
in
the
back,
like
most
students
do,
and
it
was
great
actually
because
I
was
going
to
say
a
whole
bunch
of
things
that
you
already
said,
and
you
said
to
them
in
in
a
better
way,
because
you
also
had
like
high
technology.
D
I
was
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
how
acus
was
influential
to
our
modernizing
efforts
and
I'll
say
a
few
words
about
that.
But
you
already
had
the
slides
up,
and
so
my
work
is
now
easier.
Writing
lots
of
Articles
is
good
in
academic
settings
is
not
good.
When
you
are
being
vetted
for
a
federal
position,
it
makes
the
veterans
extremely
nervous
and,
and
then
you
have
to
like
re,
you
know
like
well.
How
can
we
possibly
read
all
this
stuff?
D
Yes,
I
can
reassure
them
that
you
know
probably
there's
nothing
really
dumb
or
compromising
in
all
these
articles.
They're
just
boring,
but,
as
Andy
said,
my
my
academic
career
has
revolved,
has
sort
of
been
co-extensive
with
different
engagements
with
Acres
I
was
actually
I
joined,
NYU
faculty
in
1985
and
I
was
a
consultant
for
Acres
from
86
to
89.,
so
I
I
don't
know
whether
this
is
a
wise
thing,
but
when
I
started
doing
this
work,
I
was
all
of
28
years.
D
Old
I
may
have
been
the
youngest
consultant
you
ever
had
and
basically
it
worked
out
really
badly.
I
I
was
working
with
my
colleague,
Sam
S
Striker,
who
many
of
you
also
know
on
a
project
on
non-acquiescence
by
federal
administrative
agencies.
It
was
a
great
project,
and
at
the
plenary
session
there
was
a
total
brawl
where
we
were
attacked
by
both
sides
in
a
really
hard
way
and
no
recommendation
ever
came
out
of
this
project.
D
Although
the
article
has
been
cited
extensively
by
the
courts
of
appeals
and
I
think
has
become
pretty
well
accepted,
but
it
seemed
too
toxic
for
an
aqueous
plenary
session.
My
second
time
as
a
consultant
was
also
kind
of
interesting.
This
was
a
very
it
was
very
different
experience.
This
project
was
in
super
fun
settlements.
Everyone
thought
this
was
like
non-controversial.
The
recommendation
was
adopted
very
quickly
and
then
I
was
asked
to
testify
before
Congress.
D
There
was
having
a
hearing
on
on
these
settlements,
and
that
was
all
fine,
but
the
chair
of
the
conference
called
me
and
told
me.
This
is
probably
the
last
time
that
acos
is
going
to
be
mentioned
in
a
congressional
hearing.
This
was
obviously
the
time
when
this
was
kind
of
the
very
close
to
the
end
of
August
1.0,
and
we
don't
have
any
access
to
these
people
anymore,
you're.
D
The
best
we
have
I
was
I
by
33
by
then,
and
so
could
you
please,
in
your
testimony,
say
what
a
great
organization
acres
is
and
how
the
support
of
this
work
was
really
important
and
whatever,
which
I
all
of
which
I
said
and
was
that
was
also
unsuccessful,
because
Acres
1.0
then
came
to
an
end.
But
I
was
pleased
that
in
acres
2.0
I
was
despite
my
lack
of
success
and
earlier
Endeavors
I
was
appointed
a
public
member
and
I
was
actually
a
consultant
on
a
third
project.
D
The
petitions
for
rulemaking,
which
actually
is
somewhat
related
to
work,
we're
doing
now
at
Ohio,
so
I'll
tell
you
a
little
bit
about
what's
going
on
with
modernizing
racial
review,
so
April
6th
was
a
really
big
day
for
the
regulatory
State,
because
a
whole
bunch
of
things
happened
that
day.
The
President
issued
this
executive
order
on
modernizing
regular
review.
The
executive
order
had
pretty
much
been
previewed
by
a
presidential
memorandum.
The
President
Biden
issued
his
first
day
in
office,
also
called
modernizing
regular
review.
D
We
didn't
have
to
like
search
for
a
new
title
and
and
then
accompanying.
That
was
a
draft
of
revisions
to
Circular
A4
Circle
A4.
For
those
of
you
who
follow
it.
Is
this
really
important
document
that
tells
agencies
how
they're
supposed
to
do
the
regulatory
impact
analyzes?
It
was
last.
It
dates
back
to
2003.
D
That
was
that's
when
it
was
put
together
has
not
been
revised.
Since
then.
The
reason
for
the
revision
was
that
scientific
and
economic
understanding
has
evolved
significance
since
then,
as
have
market
conditions
and
circuit
A4
was
a
very
good
document.
It
served
us
well
for
20
years,
but
it
it
needs
some
updating.
D
They
were.
We
also
published
FAQs
that
Andy
already
mentioned
on
on
the
executive
order
and
a
draft
guidance
on
12866
meetings.
These
are
the
meetings
with
the
wire
when
rules
are
pending
before
us.
D
The
executive
order
is
obviously
final,
I
mean
someone
said
well
where
we
file
comments
to
an
executive
order,
so
like
I,
don't
think
presidents
really
want
to
get
those
things.
There's
no
process
for
that,
but
our
documents
and
obviously
the
executive
order-
is
the
president's
document.
The
IRS
documents,
the
draft
of
circle
A4
and
the
draft
guidance
on
our
meetings
are
out
for
public
comment.
Actually,
the
public
comment
for
the
draft
guidance
ended
on
June
6th
and
we
extended
the
public
comment
on
Circle
A4
until
June
20th.
D
We're
also
putting
together
a
panel
to
do
a
peer
review
on
on
on
Circle
A4
and
we're
actually
not
doing
it
ourselves.
We've
hired
a
contractor
so
that
we're
complying
with
best
practices
for
hot,
for
basically
putting
together
an
independent
panel
to
review
that
I'll.
Tell
you
something
about
the
highlights.
I
mean
we
put
all
this
together,
it's
a
pretty
significant
packet
of
materials.
D
So
on
the
executive
order,
there
are
probably
three
things
to
focus
on
I
mean
one
is
the
threshold
for
what
in
this
lingo
is
known
as
F1
significance?
There
are
four
different
ways:
the
regulations
can
be
significant
and
one
of
the
ways
had
been
under
executive
order
12866
if
the
impacts
the
yearly
impacts,
this
yearly
cost
benefits
transfers
are
more
than
100
million
dollars.
D
This
is
only
one
of
a
number
of
ways
in
which
regulations
could
be
deemed
significant,
but
it's
an
important
way,
because
regulations
that
need
that
threshold
then
have
more
extensive
requirements
for
the
regulatory
impact
analyzes,
and
there
needs
to
be
an
analysis
of
Alternatives
that
number.
The
100
million
number
became
200
million
in
this
executive
order,
and
that's
basically
because
100
million
isn't
what
it
used
to
be.
D
200
million
is
roughly
the
100
million
of
1993,
which
is
when
executive
order
12866
was
was
issued
and
it's
actually
less
than
the
100
million
of
1981,
which
was
the
number
under
the
Reagan
executive
order.
So
it
was
an
effort
to
make
sure
that
the
full
regulatory
impact
analysis
and
ounce
of
Alternatives
is
done
for
the
kinds
of
regulations
for
which
this
kind
of
analysis
was
intended.
D
When
the
Reagan
and
Clinton
executive
order
orders
were
promulgated,
you
will
actually
not
have
a
big
impact
in
terms
of
the
number
of
regulations
that
we
that
we
review,
because
some
regulations
that
will
not
meet
that
standard
will
come
in
under
higher
standards
like,
for
example,
their
inconsistencies
with
actions
of
other
agencies,
and
also
it
turns
out
that
there
aren't
that
many
regulations
in
this
100
to
200
million
range.
D
A
lot
of
regulations
have
like
huge
impacts,
like
a
lot
of
environmental
regulations,
have
impacts
in
the
billions
or
tens
of
billions
of
dollars
a
year,
obviously
are
very
far
from
being
affected
by
this.
The
second
significant
move
in
the
executive
order
is
a
call
for
broader
public
participation,
both
before
agencies
and
before
oiro.
So
there
are
sophisticated
players
in
DC
actually
on
both
sides
of
most
issues.
It's
not
that
the
sophisticated
players
are
all
on
one
side.
D
D
Small
community
groups,
small
businesses,
affected
individuals
and
overburdened
communities
and
and
being
able
to
be
effective
in
the
regulatory
process
is
more
difficult
for
that,
and
so
this
is
an
effort
to
make
agencies
be
thoughtful
about
how
to
engage
with
groups
and
individuals
of
that
sort
and
for
a
while
we're
to
be
thoughtful
as
well
and
kind
of
our
part
of
this
is
a
12866
meetings.
D
The
third
significant
matter
covered
by
the
executive
order
is,
it
asks
for
the
revisions
to
circulate
A4
to
be
completed
within
one
year,
so
by
April
6th
of
next
year.
My
hope
is
Will
to
get
it
done
significantly
before
that.
It's
probably
the
most
important
thing
we'll
do
and
I
will
make
sure
that
we
use
the
resources
that
we
need
to
make
that
happen.
D
The
uncirculated
A4
I'll,
give
you
just
a
sort
of
a
taste
of
What's.
What's
involved
here,
I'm,
obviously
delighted
to
answer
questions
about
anything.
That's
on
your
minds,
so
one
issue
that
is
important
in
doing
regular
impact
analysis
is
deciding
on
the
discount
rate
that
converts
to
present
value
future
streams
of
either
costs
or
benefits
and
since
2003.
D
D
This
stuff
gets
complicated
very
quickly,
but
I'll
give
you
kind
of
one
a
focus
on
one
thing:
the
three
percent
discount
rate
have
been
derived
in
2003
by
looking
at
the
real
rate
of
return
on
long-term
government
bonds
for
the
30
years,
proceeding
2003
and
it
was
an
average
of
the
real
returns
for
each
of
those
for
those
30
for
that
30-year
period,
and
that
was
three
percent
and
by
real
return,
I
mean
the
nominal
Return
of
the
bonds
minus
the
rate
of
inflation.
D
Doing
exactly
the
same
formula
following
exactly
the
same
procedure,
which
has
support
in
the
academic
literature
yields
a
number
of
a
different
number.
Now
it's
1.7
percent.
That's
because
the
real
rates
of
return
on
government
bonds
have
been
significantly
lower
over
the
last
30
years
and
they
have
been
in
the
30
years.
20
years
ago,
I
mean
I
think
this
is
actually
pretty
simple.
I
mean
this
is
hard
to
argue
that
we
should
be
using
obsolete
numbers
to
do
this,
and
so
on.
D
D
That
is
not
only
looking
at
what
their
net
benefits
are,
but
also
looking
at
how
the
costs
and
benefits
are
born
by
different
groups
in
our
society,
and
this
is
not
a
New
Concept.
There
is
discussion
about
how
a
record
impact
analysis
take
account
of
distribution
in
both
the
Clinton
executive
order,
12866
and
the
Obama
executive
order.
13563
there's
also
discussion
of
this
in
circulating
for
itself,
but
the
truth
of
the
matter
is
that,
despite
the
fact
it's
two
presidents
and
OMB
called
for
all
this
work
to
be
done.
D
It
essentially
has
not
been
done
in
the
regulatory
process.
I
know
this
because
in
my
prior
life,
as
an
academic,
I
wrote
an
article
about
this
issue
and
and
and
there's
an
effort
here
to
to
learn
about
what
these
distributional
consequences
are
like
and
again
they
might.
You
know
at
this
level
it's
analysis.
What
one
does
with
that
analysis
depends.
Obviously,
on
the
statutory
scheme
under
which
the
agency
operates.
D
Some
agencies
do
a
little
bit
of
it.
For
example,
the
department
of
energy
in
its
Energy
Efficiency
standards
does
look,
for
example,
as
whether
certain
levels
of
efficiency
would
have
adverse
impacts
on
oh
on
poorer
Americans
and-
and
sometimes
you
know,
is
Guided
by
by
that
and
and
and
other
statutes
might
have
other
commands.
D
But
the
point
is
that
we
really
can't
know
this
unless
we
do
the
work
and
we
do
distribution
analysis
for
the
different
Alternatives
I
mean
often
you
know,
because,
ultimately,
the
agency
is
picking
among
those
Alternatives
and
and
if
it's
going
to
pay
attention
to
the
statue,
relevant
statutory
factors
needs
to
know
what
the
analysis
looks
like,
and
so
this
is
an
effort
to
improve
the
analysis,
and
you
already
said
a
lot
of
this
I
I
will
just
add
that
there's
a
lot
in
this
work
that
was
influenced
by
akas's
work,
so
the
executive
order,
for
example,
calls
for
agencies
to
clarify
opportunities
for
interested
persons
to
petition
for
the
issuance
Amendment.
D
The
repeals
of
rules.
This
was
inspired
in
part
by
recommendation.
2014-6
petitions
for
rule
making
the
executive
order
also
calls
for
a
wiring
agencies
to
modernize
how
we
use
technology
in
the
notion
common
process
specifically
calls
for
addressing
Mass
computer
AI
generated
and
falsely
attributed
comments.
This
is
a
difficult
problem,
one
that
worries
us
a
lot.
This
was
inspired
by
recommendation.
2021-1
managing
Mass
computer
generate
and
false
attributed
comments.
D
The
public
participation
efforts
were
inspired
by
recommendation,
2018-7
public
engagement
and
Rule
making
and
recommendation
2014-4,
ex-party,
Communications
and
informal,
rulemaking
and,
and
I
mentioned
this,
not
only
because
you
know
this
is
where
we
are
and
I.
You
know
one
of
you,
you
know
and
I'm
kind
of
grateful
for
the
way
Acres
supported
me
over
the
years,
but
because
actually
acos
does
have
is
called
out
an
executive
order.
D
12866
specifically,
there
is
a
paragraph
in
section
4D,
which
talks
about
this
regulatory
working
group,
which
is
basically
as
a
practical
matter
agency,
Deputy
secretaries
and
uir
administrator.
This
regulatory
working
group,
May
commission,
analyzes
by
acos
I,
don't
think
we've
formally
done
that,
but
instead,
we've
been
consumers
of
the
analysis
that
aikos
provided
I
should
say
in
kind
of
the
end
of
this
discussion
of
modernizing.
Well,
there's
kind
of
new
things
are
happening
in
some
ways.
D
The
main
thing
that
is
happening
is
a
reaffirmness
of
executive
order
12866.,
and
that
is
both
in
the
president's
in
in
the
day,
one
president
Miranda
and
also
in
the
executive
order.
One
last
thing
before
I
take
questions.
D
Undelay,
you
know
Ira
regular
review
and
it
was
an
interesting
situation,
because
a
lot
of
the
public
members
were
kind
of
like
eager
to
push
things
and
and
a
whole
bunch
of
former
wire
administrators
were
here
of
both
parties.
We're
here
defending
the
institution,
I
would
say
the
executive
order.
D
D
There
were
examples
of
lots
of
regulations
that
have
taken
longer
than
90
days
to
complete
I'll.
Tell
you
that
getting
these
this
work
done
quickly
has
been
a
priority
of
mine
and
we
actually
have
a
whole
process
on
day
80..
There's
a
conversation
between
us
and
the
agency
to
see
what
it
would
take
to
actually
get
this
thing
completed
on
day
100
when
we
obviously
did
not
meet
the
90
day.
There's
a
subsequent
conversation
about
you
know
what
went
wrong
and
how
we
can
get
this
completed
quickly.
D
We
actually
are
completing
a
lot
of
reviews
in
way
under
90
days
and
but
there's
one
thing,
I
learned
being
in
the
position.
I
am
now
that
I
didn't
quite
know
sitting
in
the
audience
here,
a
few
years
back,
which
is
whenever
there
is
delay.
D
That
is,
you
know
when
oira
takes
a
regulation
for
review
and
when
the
review
is
completed.
These
are
matters
of
public
records,
so
it
doesn't
take
a
genius
to
figure
out
how
long
it
took
from
the
beginning
of
this
process
to
the
end
of
this
process,
and
this
whole
time
is
attributed
to
Elyria
delay.
But
it
turns
out
that
a
good
chunk
of
this
time
and
I
think
in
many
cases
most
of
this
time
or
actually
doesn't
have
this
thing
at
all,
I
mean
basically
the
when
in
when
regulation
comes
to
us.
D
It
almost
immediately
goes
out
for
interagency
and
Executive
Office
of
the
President
reviews.
So
basically,
every
agency
in
the
executive
branch
and
every
office
in
the
Executive
Office
of
the
President
gets
a
chance
to
actually
weigh
in
on
this
rule
and
in
while
this
is
all
happening.
Ro
Ira
desk
officers
are
doing
their
own
balance
of
the
package
and
then
they
collect
all
this
stuff
and
they
send
a
pass
back
to
agencies
and
some
agents
are
very
prompt
in
responding.
D
Some
agents
are
not
programmed
in
responding
and
some
some
of
these
things
sit
with
agencies
for
a
very
long
time,
but
the
back
and
forth
between
Ohio
and
the
agencies
is
not
a
matter
of
public
record.
So
no
one
knows
what
this
looks
like,
and
so
this
whole
time
is
attributed
to
Ohio.
But
if
one
wanted
to
have
to
do
a
series,
empirical
study
one
would
have
to
get
access
to
this
information,
except
that
you
can't
so
so
so
I
have
a
somewhat
better
understanding.
D
But
having
said
all
that
we're
pushing
very
hard
to
get
things
completed
quickly,
I
mean
in
part,
because
I
think
every
Administration
now
has
been
con
become
concerned
about
the
possible
use
of
the
Congressional
review
act
at
the
end
of
an
Administration,
and
so
there
is
a
real
incentive
to
get
a
regulatory
work
done
quickly.
D
A
G
B
B
I
Experience
as
you
did,
having
been
a
consultant
for
HS
as
a
28
year
old
and
the
same
good
experience
in
discussing
it
with
people
at
the
Acres
plenary
at
that
time,
when
Ken,
Davis
and
others
who
were
notably
kind
to
Young
academics,
gave
me
the
the
appropriate
treatment.
I
I
also
had
the
the
experience
you
did
of
following
that
route,
downhill
to
being
a
Dean
I
wanted
to
find
out
from
your
perspective,
having
come
out
of
Academia
into
what
is
known
as
the
real
world
of
government.
What.
I
D
You
know
I'm,
not
sure
you
know
easy
ways
to
improve
is
a
tough
one
right,
because
a
lot
of
smart
people
working
in
the
government
and
if
these
things
were
easier,
they
might
have
been
done
already.
I've
also
haven't
been
there
that
long
I've
only
been
there
five
months.
It
is
a
very
cumbersome
process.
D
You
know
these
things
come
around
and
the
pass
back
goes
back.
It
tries
to
put
together
all
of
the
conflicting
reactions
that
a
rule
gets
from
agencies.
Then
the
agency,
that's
doing
the
rule,
tries
to
harmonize
this
or
tries
to
isolate
the
areas
where
there's
really
genuine
disagreement
and
then,
if
the
career
and
at
that
level,
this
is
all
being
done
by
career
people
and
then,
if
the
career
people
can
figure
this
out-
or
you
know
basically
can't
solve
the
problem,
it
gets
elevated.
D
D
I
mean
this
whole
thing
takes
a
long
time
when,
when
disagreements
of
this
sort
happen,
on
the
other
hand,
you
know
we
do
want
the
government
to
you
know
not
to
work
across
purposes,
and-
and
this
is
a
mechanism
intended
to
prevent
that
you
know
I'm,
not
sure
there
are
a
lot
of
easy
fixes.
D
I
mean
I've
actually
been
quite
involved,
I
think
having
things
language
is
a
bad
idea
and
and
a
fix
that
I've
been
using
is
urging
my
political
counterparts
to
elevate
things
more
quickly,
because
if
a
career
people
can't
work
something
out,
you
know
my
impression
was
that
it
often
just
sort
of
sat
there,
hoping
that
maybe
like
three
weeks
later,
you
know
inspiration
would
strike
and
they'd
be
able
to
work
it
out,
but
that's
obviously
extremely
unlikely,
and
there
might
be
good
reasons
why
they
can't
work
it
out.
D
I
mean
you
know,
the
these
agencies
may
have
like
different
priorities,
or
maybe
you
know
maybe
looking
at
the
world
in
some
different
ways
and
so
a
fix,
and
it's
been,
you
know,
really
easy
I
think
it's
been
the
fact
that
it
is
to
try
to
urge
for
quicker
a
quicker
elevation,
but
that's
also
a
trade-off,
because
you
know
you
actually
want
the
career
people
to
do
their
work
and
to
try
to
kind
of
work
this
out
in
a
more
technical
way
before
political
appointees
get
involved,
and
so
you
know
you
can
get
this
wrong.
D
Both
ways
and
I've
been
trying
to
optimize
that-
and
maybe
I've
done
it
successfully.
Maybe
not,
but
I
think
you
know
kind
of
more
basically
trying
to
get
conflicts
resolved
more
quickly
is
definitely
desirable.
J
Yes,
hi
Ricky
Kristen,
Hickman
public
member.
Thank
you
for
being
here.
Thank
you
for
your
service.
Thank
you
for
taking
questions.
J
Last
week,
you
signed
an
agreement
with
the
treasury
Department
exempting
all
regulatory
actions
under
the
Internal
Revenue
code
from
Ohio
review.
As
you
know,
the
Internal
Revenue
code
these
days
covers
a
wide
range
of
social
welfare
and
Regulatory
programs
above
and
beyond.
Revenue
raising
I
did
a
little
research
this
morning
and
looked
and
noticed
just
in
the
last
few
years.
J
Regulatory
actions
under
the
Internal
Revenue
code
have
covered
everything
from
low-income
housing:
surprise,
medical
bills,
nuclear
power,
plant,
decommissioning,
publicity
of
information
by
non-profit
organizations
to
State
officials,
carbon
oxide
sequestration,
that's
just
to
name
a
few,
so
I'm
curious
to
know
because
it
hasn't
been
made
public.
J
You
know
you've
got
representatives
from
a
number
of
agencies
before
you
who
I'm
sure
would
like
to
have
their
regulations
Exempted
from
Ohio
review
as
well.
Could
you
explain
a
little
bit
why
you
decided
to
ignore
the
advice
of
GAO
and
exempt
regulatory
actions
under
the
Internal
Revenue
code
from
oy
Riverview.
D
You
notice
that
we
signed
this
thing
yeah,
so
on
Friday
Ohio
in
the
treasury,
Department
signed.
Remember
another
understanding
that
Kristen
described
basically
during
the
40
plus
years
last
40
plus
years
of
the
administrative
state
from
the
beginning
of
the
Reagan
Administration
to
the
present
the
for
all.
But
two
and
a
half
years,
the
state
of
the
world
was
roughly
what
it's
going
to
be
under
our
Moa.
D
It
was
during
about
two
and
a
half
years
of
the
Trump
Administration
that
there
was
a
different
agreement
under
which
Ohio
took
us
somewhat
more
more
active
role
with
respect
to
IRS
regulations.
So
in
some
ways
we
don't
see
this
as
like
kind
of
a
big
move.
We
see
it
as
a
return
to
what
had
been
the
status
quo
under
administrations
of
both
parties.
For
about
a
40-year
period,
I
mean
the
issue.
D
D
You
know
a
lot
of
IRS
work
is
involves
tax
transfers
and
you
know
someone
is
going
to
pay
less
taxes
and
someone's
going
to
pay
more
taxes
and
the
treasury
is
going
to
have
less
money
or
more
money
and
the
the
understanding
overall,
this
period
was
that
these
kinds
of
regulations
were
less
well
suited
for
a
wire
review
than
than
the
Buckle
the
regulations
we
reviewed
and-
and
we
see
this
as
as
a
return
to
essentially
the
status
quo
that
have
been
stable
over
a
very
long
period
of
time.
A
A
K
Although
Kevin
stack
public
member
thanks
so
much
for
being
here
thanks
so
much
for
the
really
Monumental
effort
in
producing
the
draft
revision
to
circular
A4
and
opening
the
comment
docket
on
orm
meetings
and
and
so
I'm
loath
ask
for
more
work,
but
here's
my
kind
of
question
about
whether
you
would
consider
so
the
modernizing
EO
Builds
on
aika's
work,
as
you
mentioned,
by
asking
agencies
to
be
more
proactive
in
including
underserved
communities
in
their
notice,
incumbent,
rulemaking
and
so
I
was
wondering
whether
a
wire
would
consider
putting
forward
some
guidance
a
bulletin
or
something
or
opening
a
comment
docket
on
formalizing
and
making
an
or
recommendations
about
how
agencies
engage
in
that
proactive,
targeted,
Outreach
in
their
notice
in
common,
and
it
seemed
like
it
would
really
really
be
a
natural
way.
K
We've
got
wonderful
work
already
done,
I
think
it's
in
2018,
seven
public
engagement,
rulemaking,
some
other
places
and
just
seemed
like
we
had
natural
one
for
our
guidance
and
so
whether
you've
considered
that
yes.
D
It's
a
great
question:
Kevin
thanks
we
have
and
we
will
do
that.
We
already
had
some
public
listening
sessions
on
participation,
I
mean
not
128
success,
participation,
participation
for
the
agencies
and
we
do
plan
to
issue
a
report
on
that.
Sometime.
In
probably
in
the
coming
months
and
it'll
be
a
rep.
D
You
know
it
would
be
basically
best
practices
on
how
agencies
can
engage
either
through
the
regulatory
agenda,
the
formation,
regular
agenda
or
in
other
ways,
with
kind
of
a
broader
cross-section
of
American
citizens
and
businesses.
A
All
right
we're
going
to
take
a
question
from
the
remote
participation.
Deaf
lovers.
Can
you
hear
us.
H
Oh
yes,
I.
Can
you
hear
me
okay?
Well,
thank
you,
hi
Ricky,
it's
great
to
have
you
in
that
very
important
position
and
I
want
to
say
I
do
really
like
your
agency
non-equiescence
article,
but
the
question
is
about
negotiated
rulemaking.
H
As
you
probably
know,
eo12866
does
urge
agencies
to
consider
consensual
mechanisms
for
issuing
regulations,
including
negotiated
rulemaking,
which
is
a
process
that
acos
had
developed
and
encouraged
for
Years,
yet
its
use
seems
to
to
have
dwindled
despite
some
successes.
So
what
is
your
view
on
negotiated
rule
making
and
do
you
plan
to
do
anything
to
encourage
its
use.
D
Thanks
Jeff
I
think
I
believe
Jeff.
You
were
the
research
director
when
this
non-acquiescence
recommendation
was
discussed.
Yeah.
H
D
I
remember
the
discussion
well
are
modernizing,
effort
does
not
in
does
not
include
the
separate
prong
negotiated
rulemaking.
You
know
we
had
our
hands
full
with
other
things.
Some
agencies
use
it.
Some
ages
are
required
to
use
it
for
certain
regulations.
D
I
have
come
across
in
the
five
months
I've
been
here.
Some
negotiated
rule
makings.
At
this
point.
We
have
not
taken
this
on,
as
we
have
not
taken
like
changing
the
current
practice
on
as
a
project.
It
is
ongoing.
It
sometimes
works.
Well,
sometimes
it
works
less
well,
and
maybe
it's
something
we
will
look
into
at
some
point.
But
right
now
we
have
our
hands
pretty
full.
F
Hi
Ricky
Adam,
White
public
member
domestic
regulation
increasingly
is
involved
in
geopolitical
considerations.
Climate
policy
is
obviously
the
most
maybe
the
most
prominent
example,
but
also
there's
a
lot
of
debates
now
about
the
role
of
domestic
regulation
in
our
geopolitical
competition
with
China
I'm,
not
asking
about
China
but
I'm
curious.
How
does
owira
interact
with
the
other
parts
of
the
White
House,
especially
the
ones
that
are
focused
on
larger
considerations
of
National
Security
yeah.
D
It's
a
great
question:
Adam
there
is
a
very
is
very
robust
interaction
within
the
various
units
in
the
Executive
Office
of
the
President,
of
which
there
are
lots,
which
also
makes
the
rev.
You
know
the
internal
review
and
the
executives
of
the
president
complicated.
So
you
know
for
a
whole
bunch
of
regulations.
People
weighing
in
I
mean
office
is
weighing
in
will
include
the
National
Economic
Council
domestic
policy,
Council,
the
National
Security
Council,
the
Council
of
economic
advisors.
D
You
know
for
some
regulations
of
gender
policy
Council
the
office
of
the
white
house,
chief
of
staff,
the
office
of
Science
and
Technology
policy.
These
people
are
all
way
in,
and
you
know,
and
then
they're
robust
discussions
that
we're
all
been
appointed
by
the
president
doesn't
mean
we
all
see
the
world
in
exactly
the
same
way.
D
Also,
there
are
kind
of
institutional
positions
that
some
of
these
institutions
have
taken
over
a
very
long
time
that
seem
to
actually
transcend
administrations
and
they're,
just
kind
of
like
institutional
to
these
operations,
so
the
White
House
and
the
exactly
the
president
are
are
complex,
our
complex
organizations
and-
and
it
goes
even
beyond
the
kind
of
established
organizations
I
mentioned,
as
you
know,
Congress
in
a
bipartisan
way
past
the
chips
and
science
act.
There's
a
chips
operation
in
the
White
House.
D
They
care
a
lot
about
stuff
like
this
Department
of
Commerce
cares
a
lot,
and
you
know
some
of
these
White
House
offices
have
allies
and
various
cabinet
agencies,
and
so
on.
So
there
is
robust
discussion
which
in
some
ways
makes
the
pro
you
know
going
to
Ron's
question
makes
the
process
more
cumbersome
and,
in
other
ways,
kind
of
make
sure
that
you
know
different
interests
are
represented,
I
mean
in
some
sense.
D
You
know
I'm,
pretty
technocratic
and
parochial
I
want
to
make
sure
that
these
regulations
and
that
benefits
the
analysis
is
strong
that
when
the
regulations
get
challenged,
the
court
won't
say
well,
like
you
know,
this
analysis
wasn't
really
serious
and
you
know
I'll
just
you
know
be
professionally
bad
for
me,
but
you
know
I,
think
other
offices,
care
about
other
things
and
that's
appropriate,
so
yeah
I
would
say
that
there's
fairly
intense
scrutiny
of
anything,
that's
important
across
the
Executive
Office
of
the
President.
L
A
Have
a
parting
version
of
our
game
for
you
know
to
play
now.
This
is
a
a
cherished
item
in
in
acos,
because
they're
they're
almost
gone.
It's
a
coffee,
mug
commemorating
the
beginning
of
August
2.0
that
Pulver
Kyle
had
had
made
I
checked
with
our
ethics
officers.
D
A
Okay,
well,
that
was
a
great
talk
and
Ricky
has
agreed
to
have
ambassadors
in
each
office
points
of
contact.
So
we
have.
We
have
someone
who
checks
in
with
Ohio
and
and
let's
the
other
each
each
one
know
what
the
other
one
is
up
to:
okay,
we're
already
a
little
bit
behind
and
I'm.
Sorry
for
that,
but
I
have
to
read
this
initial
business
stuff
and
do
some
procedural
votes.
A
So,
let's
turn
to
the
rules
for
debating
and
voting
the
privilege
of
debate
extends
to
all
acus
members,
and
that
includes
our
approximately
100
voting
members,
who
together
constitute
the
assembly
when,
as
today,
you
sit
in
plenary
session
and
our
non-voting
members
as
well,
everyone
can
debate
the
voting.
Members
consist
of
all
council
members,
government,
members
and
public
members.
The
non-voting
members
consist
of
all
senior
fellows
liaison
representatives
and
special
counsel.
Only
voting
members
may
move
an
amendment,
however,
or
vote.
A
So
please
remember
what
you
are
before
trying
to
offer
an
amendment
or
or
to
vote.
You
were
provided
instructions
for
participating
in
today's
plenary
session.
Those
include
instructions
for
in-person
and
virtual
participants
for
each
recommendation.
We'll
start
with
the
manager's
Amendment,
these
consist
of
Technical
and
stylistic
changes
some
from
Members
some
from
staff.
That
I
think
we
all
hope
we
can
adopt
by
unanimous
consent.
A
General
debate
or
general
discussion
will
follow
on
the
recommendation
after
General
debate,
we'll
consider
in
the
following
order:
Council
amendments-
and
we
have
a
few
four
three
out
of
the
four
recommendations
and
pre-submitted
member
amendments.
Only
then
after
those
two
are
done,
will
we
consider
first
degree
amendments
from
the
floor,
which
I
hope
will
be
few
because
of
our
bylaws,
providing
that
all
such
amendments
should
be
pre-submitted.
We'll
then
move
on
to
the
final
vote.
A
When
we
finish
amendments
from
the
floor
numbers
here
in
person
can
seek
recognition
by
raising
their
hand,
please
wait
for
us
to
bring
you
a
microphone
and
then
state
your
name
and
membership
affiliation
again
for
the
record.
At
the
beginning
of
your
remarks,
members
participating
virtually
can
seek
recognition
by
sending
a
short
chat
message
in
Zoom,
so
indicating
that
you
are
seeking
recognition.
Recognition,
send
the
chat
messages
please
to
everyone
votes
not
just
to
post,
only
State
briefly,
why
you
seek
recognition,
nothing
more.
A
Please
do
not
use
the
raise
hand
feature
to
seek
recognition,
because
we'll
use
that
Feature
Feature
later
on
I
will
seek
unanimous
consent
on
most
votes
that
appear
non-controversial.
If
you
do
in
fact
object
to
an
action
on
which
unanimous
consent
is
solid.
Voting
members
here
in
person
should
raise
their
hands
and
say
I
object.
Voting
members
participating
virtually
should
send
a
zoom
chat
message
that
says:
I
object
if
unanimous
consent
is
not
possible,
I
will
call
for
a
Voice
vote
next
and
for
a
Voice
vote.
A
Remote
and
in-person
members
should
say
yay
or
nay
when
prompted
by
me.
Finally,
if
The
Voice
vote
is
inconclusive,
I
will
call
for
a
show
of
hands
using
the
blue
voting
cards.
Voting
members
who
are
here
in
person
can
vote
by
raising
their
blue
voting
cards.
On
my
signal,
you
should
find
the
blue
cards
tucked
inside
your
name
tags.
Voting
members
who
are
voting
remotely
should
instead
use
the
virtual
hand,
raising
function
in
Zoom.
A
This
is
when
we
ask
you
to
use
that
hand
raising
function
if
a
member
doesn't
have
that
function
or
doesn't
know
how
to
use
it.
Please
indicate
your
vote
by
sending
a
chat
message
to
everyone
again
that
says
yay
or
nay,
before
we
get
started
with
the
procedural
business.
I
want
to
note
a
few
lessons
that
we
learned
that
I
learned
from
our
last
session.
A
First,
we
received
feedback
that
some
members
were
not
recognized,
who
sought
recognition.
Let
me
assure
you
that
that
was
unintentional
I
tried
to
recognize
everyone
who
sought
recognition.
I
was
not
intentionally
cutting
debate.
Shot
short,
so
I
will
do
or
try
to
do
a
better
job.
Today
of
of
recognizing
people
who
who
seek
recognition,
please
help
me
by
being
more
emphatic
about
raising
your
hands.
Wiggling,
your
arms,
you
know
stomping
your
feet,
something
that
I
I
I
I
can
I
can
see.
A
Second
lesson
learned:
is
we
really
can't
have
the
degree
of
crosstalk
that
we
had
at
the
at
the
last
planetary
session,
where
people
are
talking
to
each
other
without
the
chair,
recognizing
them
and
a
lot
of
people
Express
confusion
on
on
what
was
being
produced
that
way?
So
let
me
let
the
chair
recognize
each
person
before
you
speak.
Don't
pass
the
ball
over
to
someone
else
when
you
have
the
floor.
A
Third,
some
members
express
some
confusion
at
times
about
what
we
were
actually
voting
on
when
we
got
to
the
third
and
fourth
and
fifth
degree
of
of
amendments,
it
indeed
got
confusing.
So
let's
try
to
avoid
as
many
amendments
to
the
amendment
as
we
can.
We
will
try
to
make
it
clear
up
here
when
it
comes
time
to
vote
in
the
you
know
in
the
red
lines.
A
A
Fourth,
several
times
at
our
last
meeting,
I
allowed
members
to
continue
to
debate
after
we
voted
on
something
I'm
not
going
to
do
that
this
time.
After
we
vote,
the
matter
is
closed.
So
please
get
your
your
comments
and
your
your
discussion
in
either
in
general
debate
or
on
when
we
consider
each
Amendment
and
finally
I
plan
to
limit
debate
on
any
general
point
or
thought
that
that
someone
is
making
outside
of
the
general
discussion
in
general
debate.
A
If
you
have
an
incoa
idea
and
you
you
know,
and
you've
got
recognition
and
you're
talking
about
it,
I'm
going
to
ask
you
to
to
stop
to
draft
some
language
and
then
I'll
come
back
to
you
when
you've
got
something
that
we
can
actually
vote
on,
and
all
of
this
is
based
on
feedback.
We
got
from
the
last
session
now
I'll
turn
to
an
initial
procedural
business.
The
first
item
is
approval
of
the
minutes
of
the
78th
plenary
session
in
December,
which
you'll
find
in
your
packets.
A
Is
there
any
objection
to
their
approval,
seeing
none
without
objection
they
are
approved.
The
next
item
is
the
adoption
adoption
of
the
resolution
governing
the
order
of
business,
which
is
also
in
your
packets.
It
provides
as
reflected
on
the
agenda
for
75
minutes
of
debate
on
each
recommendation.
The
time
allotted
can
be
extended
for
an
additional
30
minutes
by
a
majority
vote
or
unanimous
consent,
which
is
about
what
I'll
generally
seek.
If
we
need
to
extend.
The
resolution
also
provides
per
our
bylaws.
That
pre-submitted
amendments
will
receive
priority
as
we
discussed.
A
Is
there
any
objection
to
approval
of
the
resolution
government
governing
the
order
of
business?
Seeing
no
objection
it's
approved
and
then
a
final
piece
of
initial
business
is
to
approve
a
technical
Amendment
to
the
acus
bylaws
I
notice
about
the
proposed
amendment
was
sent
to
all
members
on
May
9th.
Hopefully
you
got
it
and
read
it.
A
The
amendment
is
intended
to
reflect
the
current
organizational
structure
in
the
office
of
the
chair
and
to
clarify
to
whom
members
should
submit
separate
statements
during
plenary
sessions
and
hopefully
everyone's
aware
of
what
a
separate
statement
is
and
your
right
to
submit
submit
them.
If
you
disagree
with
a
vote
currently.
B
A
302.6
D
of
the
acus
bylaws
requires
members
to
submit
any
separate
statement
regarding
an
adopted
recommendation
to
the
acos
executive
director.
The
executive
director
position
is
currently
vacant
and
will
probably
remain
so
indefinitely.
I
have
split
up
the
the
duties
that
were
previously
held
by
the
executive
director.
I
do
some
and
the
rest
of
the
management
team
has
taken
on
some.
So
at
this
time
I
don't
feel
like
the
organization
needs
another
Senior
Management
person
in
the
form
of
an
executive
director.
A
So
the
proposed
amendment
directs
members
to
submit
separate
statements
to
the
chairman
instead
of
the
executive
director
or
anyone
I
designate.
Is
there
any
objection
to
approval
of
this
bylaw
Amendment.
A
Okay,
consideration
of
recommendations
will
now
turn
to
the
recommendations
up
for
discussion.
You'll
find
in
your
packet
each
recommendation
in
both
clean
and
red
line
forms.
The
clean
version
represents
the
recommendation
without
any
amendments,
the
red
line
version
reflects,
among
other
things,
all
pre-submitted
amendments,
including
Council
amendments.
A
I
also
want
to
just
make
the
recusal
policy
clear.
The
bylaws
also
require
anyone.
Any
member
who's
worked
as
a
consultant
on
a
recommendation
must
be
recused
from
any
votes
on
that
recommendation
and
for
our
first
recommendation:
disclosure
of
agency
legal
materials
that
applies
to
Bernie
Bell,
Gary,
coleanisi
and
Michael
Hertz,
who
were
part
of
the
consultant
team
and
will
not
be
able
to
vote
so
if
you're
ready
we'll
get
to
the
to
main
business
of
today's
meeting.
M
A
N
Thanks
so
much
and
on
behalf
of
the
consultant
team,
thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
to
be
here
and
to
provide
some
background
about
our
work,
our
charge
from
aikos
was
to
make
recommendations
for
statutory
reforms
to
better
ensure
that
agencies
provide
ready,
public
access
to
important
legal
materials
in
the
most
efficient
way
possible,
and
the
Very
phrasing
of
that
charge
assumes
what
is
self-evident,
that,
as
a
general
proposition,
legal
materials
should
be
made
publicly
available
and
decades
have
passed,
Aegis
recommendations
on
which
we
relied
heavily
reflect
this
truth.
N
A
report
is
admittedly
long
but
rests
on
four
sort
of
simple
principles
that
I'd
like
to
outline
briefly.
First,
all
legal
materials
not
exempt
from
disclosure
should
be
proactively
disclosed,
rather
than
provided
only
in
response
to
foia
requests.
The
ad
hoc
committee's
proposal
adheres
to
this
approach
that
we
took,
and
a
section
552-a
has
reflected
for
more
than
half
a
century.
N
The
ad
hoc
committee's
recommendation
subpart
1,
which
largely
tracks
our
proposal
would
achieve
this
goal
by
better
specifying
categories
of
agency
legal
materials
that
should
be
subject
to
proactive
disclosure
and
I
want
to
underscore
that
one
of
our
recommendations,
as
adopted
by
the
ad
hoc
committee
listed
at
number
two
provides
a
customization
option
for
agencies.
It
would
allow
agencies
to
exempt
themselves
through
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
from
otherwise
applicable
publication
requirements
when
the
records
at
issue
are
voluminous
and
duplicative
and
thus
of
de
minimis
value
to
the
public.
N
The
second
overarching
principle
that
we
have
taken
is
that
we
are
accepting
for
the
purposes
of
these
recommendations,
foia's
existing
exemptions
to
disclosure
as
a
given.
We
are
not
taking
a
position
on
any
ongoing
debate
about
the
Contours
of
those
exemptions,
and
the
committee
proposal
adheres
to
this
approach
as
well.
N
None
of
our
recommendations
involve
changes
to
the
text
or
judicial
interpretation
of
any
exemption,
and
that
means
that,
as
to
any
records
that
an
agency
would
claim
an
exemption
to
disclosure
in
response
to
a
foia
request,
those
records
would
be
equally
exempt
from
mandatory,
proactive
disclosure.
N
The
third
principle
was
to
be
cognizant
of
burdens
on
agencies
and
not
to
exceed
what
is
realistic.
Accordingly,
almost
all
of
our
recommendations
can
be
found
in
the
actual
current
practices
that
at
least
some
agencies,
and
so
we
can
think
in
some
ways
of
our
recommendations
as
seeking
to
level
up
all
agencies
to
engage
in
disclosure
practices
that
some
agencies
have
already
demonstrated
are
feasible.
N
And
finally,
the
fourth
broad
principle
we
held
to
is
that
the
availability
of
agency,
legal
materials
must
be
meaningful.
A
Cornerstone
of
our
approach
in
this
area
is
another
provision
for
agency
customization
the
requirement
that
agencies
develop
their
own
affirmative
disclosure
plans
so
that
the
public
is
on
notice
as
to
how
and
where
to
access
legal
materials
at
each
agency
and
in
this
recommendation,
we've
expressly
drawn
on
past
acus
guidance.
Well,
we
originally
conceived
that
such
a
requirement
for
affirmative
disclosure
plans
would
be
judicially
enforceable
under
normal
APA
review.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Does
anyone
have
any
questions
for
Roxanne
at
this
point,
if
not
you'll
have
an
opportunity
at
any
point
as
we
move
along
okay.
Thank
you,
Margaret.
That
was
an
excellent
report
and
now
I'll
turn
to
committee's
co-chair
Roxanne
Ross
trial.
O
Thank
you.
Can
everyone
hear
me?
Okay,
okay,
on
behalf
of
myself
and
my
co-chair,
Aaron
Nielsen
I
would
like
to
thank
Aces
for
giving
us
this
opportunity
to
assist
with
this
project.
It
was
certainly
a
very
interesting
topic
and
produced
quite
a
bit
of
robust
debate
and
discussion.
During
the
committee
committee
meetings,
the
ad
hoc
committee
met
four
times,
including
the
first
meeting
where
we
generally
discuss
the
concepts
involved
in
subsequent
meetings.
We
then
delved
into
the
particulars
of
the
project.
O
The
committing
meetings
involved,
much
spirited
discussion
with
a
lot
of
input
from
the
government
agencies
that
were
in
attendance
and
while
the
issues
were
difficult,
the
committee
landed
on
the
draft
recommendations
that
are
presented
today,
which
ultimately
received
strong
support
from
the
committee
members.
The
draft
recommendation
represents
the
areas
and
ideas
upon
which
the
committee
could
reach
consensus
before
I
turn.
This
back
over
I
just
want
to
make
one
little
correction,
which
is
that
Kristen
Hickman
who
is
here
today
is
not
from
Michigan.
She
is
from
my
home
state
of
Minnesota
and.
A
Thank
you
for
correcting
me.
Absolutely
I
knew
that
sorry,
sorry,
Kristen,
okay,
the
next
order
of
business.
The
first
order,
in
fact,
is
to
consider
the
manager's
amendment
of
stylistic
and
Technical
Provisions.
Is
there
any
objection
to
adopting
the
manager's
Amendment.
A
Without
objection,
seeing
none,
they
are
adopted
all
right.
This
is
the
time
for
General,
discussion
or
debate
before
we
get
to
the
council
and
pre-submitted
amendments.
Alan
Morrison,.
P
Morrison
senior
fellow
I
was
part
of
the
consultative
group
and
for
those
of
you
who
have
studied
both
the
report
and
the
recommendation,
you'll
notice
that
one
set
of
documents,
the
legal
materials
is
not
included
in
there.
That's
the
office
of
legal
council's
formal
opinions.
This
was
part
of
the
consultant's
recommendation.
We
discussed
it
at
the
first
meeting
and
it
was
the
committee
at
the
second
meeting
voted
to
exclude
that
and
another
set
of
recommendations
that
had
been
had
been
drafted.
P
I
opposed
that
I
didn't
have
a
vote
and
I
I
concluded
that
it
was
not
ready
to
be
brought
to
the
floor
of
the
plenary
session
as
a
separate
batter,
but
I
hope
that
that
akos
and
the
council
will
think
about
doing
a
separate
study
of
olc
formal
opinions.
They
are
the
most
important
opinions,
legal
opinions
of
the
government,
and
it
would
seem
to
be
to
be
almost
upside
down
down
to
have
various
general
counsel
memorandum
made
public
and
publicly
disclosed
and
not
olc.
P
The
olc
has
on
his
website
a
list
of
the
opinions
that
it
formal
opinions
issues
it
is
incomplete.
Even
that
list
is
incomplete.
So
you
don't
even
know
what
that
what
they
have
available
and
I
just
hope
that
that
the
that
acus
will
be
able
to
do
something
more
on
that
it
may
require
legislation.
P
There's
a
fierce
debate
about
whether
those
opinions
are
are
excluded
by
attorney,
client,
privilege
or
other
privilege,
and
obviously
some
of
them
go
to
the
president,
and
some
of
them
are
classified
all
of
which
complicates
the
matter
greatly,
but
it
seems
to
be
to
be
a
very
worthy
topic
for
acus
approval,
a
review
and
I
hope
it
goes
forward.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
Thank
you
Alan.
We
know,
of
course,
how
passionate
you
are
about
about
this
issue
and
how
you
were
a
strong
advocate
for
the
position
in
the
working
group
in
the
committee.
Do
you
plan
on
offering
an
amendment
when
it
comes
to
floor
amendments?
No
okay,
Roxanne!
You
want
to
speak
briefly
to
what
the
committee
did
on
that.
O
Sure,
as
Alan
stated,
there
was
quite
a
bit
of
debate
at
the
committee
meetings.
We
actually
took
a
vote
twice
on
the
topic.
First,
is
a
straw
vote
just
to
get
it
everyone's
ideas
on
what
they
were
thinking
in
this
area
and
then
another
vote
later
to
decide
whether
to
include
it
or
not
included
and
the
it
was
overwhelmingly
in
favor
of
not
including
those
Provisions
but
as
Sheriff
always
said,
Alan
did
did
participate
in
those
debates
and
you
did
make
a
lot
of
very
strong
points
during
those
discussions.
So
thank
you.
A
Okay,
we've
got
Nina
Mendelson
on
Zoom
Nina.
A
Q
Okay,
great
I
wanted
to
flag
another
issue
that
is
not
is
not
addressed
in
this
recommendation
and
Report.
It's
actually
covered
in
the
report
somewhere
and
that's
the
issue
of
Incorporated
by
reference
rules.
These
are
about
nine
thousand
privately
drafted
standards.
Nine
thousand
plus
privately
drafted
standards
that,
when
agencies
adopt
them,
have
the
force
and
effective
law
just
as
if
they
have
been
promulgated
directly
by
the
agency.
Q
But
as
people
will
recall
who
were
here
in
2011,
they
are
not
accessible
to
the
public
and,
of
course,
as
the
Consultants
reports
discuss
who
are
concerned
about
agency
legal
materials,
these
are
legal
materials
with
the
force
of
law.
Q
We
last
considered
the
issue
in
2011
with
a
recommendation
that
did
not
require
agencies
to
make
these
materials
publicly
available
in
the
same
way
as
all
other
federal
regulations
and
I
think
the
the
assembled
we're
hopeful
that
perhaps
this
would
work
itself
out
with
with
essentially
private
arrangements
for
Public
Access,
but
it
hasn't
panned
out
that
way.
There
are
still
onerous
conditions
on
access
to
these
Incorporated
by
reference
rules
or
or
charges
set
by
the
private
organizations,
and
so
I
wanted
to
encourage
acus
to
take
up
this
question
again.
B
R
I
want
to
ask
about
another
issue
that
I
didn't
see
addressed,
maybe
less
hot
button
than
the
others,
but
I
think
highly
Germaine,
relating
to
the
statutory
provisions
on
proactive
disclosure
in
A1
and
A2.
There
is
a
Troublesome
overlap
regarding
interpretive
rules
and
policy
statements
in
those
two
Provisions,
because
A1
says
that
statements
of
General
applicability
adopted
as
author
and
excuse
me,
statements
of
General
policy
or
interpretations
of
General
applicability,
formulated
and
adopted
by
the
agency
must
be
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
R
R
So
what's
the
difference
between
those
two
well,
the
formers
are
ones
of
General
applicability
as
it
reads,
but
that
would
be
normally
true
of
interpretive
rules
and
policy
statements
and
the
result
is
the
Court's
been
very
confused
about
the
interrelationship
between
those
provisions
and
I?
Wonder
if
the
Consultants
or
the
committee
gave
it
any
consideration.
N
We
did
give
consideration
to
that
question
and
I
will
say
that
the
conversations
that
we
had,
particularly
in
the
consultative
group,
around
the
question
of
guidance
documents
agencies
themselves,
did
not
appear
to
run
into
a
lot
of
sort
of
hurdles
in
terms
of
deciding
what
to
publish
we
were
trying
to.
We
decided
we
would
try
to
level
up
to
make
sure
everything
got
online
and
was
effectively
available
through
affirmative
disclosure
plans
that
the
agencies
would
explain
where
everything
was.
N
That
notice
was
the
most
important
thing,
but
that
we
did
not
weighed
into
trying
to
distinguish
between
those
categories
or
clarify
them.
Considering
that
the
most
important
thing
to
us
seemed
to
be
to
get
everything
out
to
the
public.
O
Mom
not
too
much
I
think
Margaret
addressed
it
fairly.
Clearly,
in
terms
of
the
committee
discussions
we
did
discuss,
you
know
what
does
it
mean
to
publish
and
does
it
mean
something
different
from
one
agency
to
another?
What
about
those
items
that
don't
go
into
the
Federal
Register?
O
How
will
people
find
them
on
an
agency's
website
if
that's
the
only
publication
that
is
made,
but
we
ultimately,
as
Margaret
suggested
decided
it
was
fine
to
leave
that
up
to
agencies
to
figure
out
the
best
way
to
get
these
things
published
and
make
it
easily
accessible
on
their
own
websites.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Warren,
you
had
your
hand
up.
S
Warren
belmar's
senior
fellow
honored
to
be
in
the
category
with
Ricky,
revez
and
Ron
Cass
and
having
made
a
recommendation
as
a
committee
chair
to
the
it
was
acus
1.0,
but
it
was
rejected,
even
though
it
was
suggested
by
the
president
of
the
United
States
1.0
was
a
very
independent
group.
My
question
has
to
do
with
item
eight
in
The
Proposal.
The
proposal
addresses
disclosure
item.
Eight
is
a
different
kind
of
animal.
S
It
calls
for
changing
the
official
record
with
respect
to
the
Federal
Register
by
turning
it
into
a
online
copy,
rather
than
the
printed
version.
I'm
curious
as
to
why
the
committee
recommended
that
and
didn't
consider
any
possibilities
of
hacking
or
artificial
intelligence
interference
with
what
you're
calling
to
be
a
official
record.
That's
on
the
internet.
N
In
the
consultative
group
process,
the
efficiencies
of
this
proposal
were
sort
of
broadly
supported,
and
there
have
been
various
legislative
proposals
in
Congress
to
this
effect
that
have
had
support,
but
have
not
yet
passed,
and,
as
a
result,
we
thought
that
this
was
an
important
sort
of
modernization,
Improvement
that
could
be
made,
albeit
sort
of
a
relatively
technical
one,
but
given
that
our
charge
covered
also
the
manner
of
methods
of
disclosure
how
best
to
to
publish
records.
We
believed
that
this
was
within
our
charge.
O
And
in
terms
of
the
committee's
consideration,
I
can
say:
I
personally
was
very
persuaded
by
the
report's
discussion
of
the
recommendation
to
move
to
a
just
an
online
or
electronic
version
of
the
Federal
Register,
but
for
the
committee
discussion,
perhaps
everyone
else
was
really
persuaded
too,
because
there
was
very
little
discussion
at
the
committee
about
this.
Everyone
seemed
to
agree
pretty
quickly
that
this
was
a
good
recommendation.
S
I
I
do
I
tend
to
disagree.
Of
course,
I
didn't
participate
in
the
discussion,
but
I
think
that's
not
really
Germaine
to
disclosure
and
it's
a
major
issue
which
hasn't
cleared
the
Congress
yet
and
so
I
would
suggest.
I
can't
make
a
motion
but
I
delete
that
provision
as
being
not
your
main
to
the
disclosure
aspects
of
of
the
recommendation.
A
Okay,
thank
you
Warren,
and
this
is
an
example
of
one
of
the
good
characteristics
of
the
plenary
session
that
we
got
get
to
see
each
other
and
and
and
debate
various
views.
So
thank
you
for
that.
Yes,
ma'am
yeah
get
your
mic
foreign.
M
With
EPA
I
have
a
question
on
1C
of
the
recommendation
that
I'm
still
struggling
with
it's
the
written
legal
opinions
and
memorandum
issued
by
or
under
the
authority,
the
chief
legal
officers
that
bind
agency
officials
as
a
matter
of
law
in
the
performance
of
their
duties,
I
think
you're.
M
Trying
to
what
walk
that
fine
line
of
not
saying
we
should
be
disclosing
like
privileged
like
attorney-client
product,
but
I'm
struggling
to
figure
out
what
you
think
would
this
would
look
like
what
kind
of
opinions
or
memorandums
you
think
would
fall
under
it
as
the
bind
officials
as
a
matter
of
Law
and
their
performance
of
their
duties
that
wouldn't
fall
under
the
attorney-client
privilege.
So
I'm
just
really
trying
to
understand
what
we're
trying
to
do
here.
N
I
think
an
important
aspect
of
this
proposal
is
that
it
is
I
think,
as
your
comments
demonstrate,
narrow,
there's
a
narrow
set
of
categories
of
General
counsel's
opinions
that
are,
in
fact
the
final
decision
of
the
agency
or
sometimes
have
a
body
of
decisions
that
act
as
agency
precedent
that
are,
in
fact,
the
final
decision
as
opposed
to
legal
advice,
and
so
it
is
that
question
of
what
is
binding
agency
officials
as
opposed
to
Simply
providing
advice,
and
it,
as
I
mentioned
in
my
opening
comments.
N
Nothing
that
would
be
exempt
under
current
law
would
not
would
be
subject
to
proactive
disclosure
right.
So
any
exemption
that
could
be
claimed
in
response
to
a
request
could
be
claimed
to
exempt
from
proactive
disclosure.
So
this
is
a
relatively
narrow
category
of
Records,
which
some
agencies
may
not
produce
any
at
all.
N
A
Roxanne
was
the
committee
active
on
this
issue
yeah.
O
And
the
committee
we
did
discuss
this
issue
and
where
that
line
was
drawn
and
some
people
raised
the
exact
point
that
you're
raising,
which
is
oh.
No.
What
are
you
talking
about?
I,
don't
mean
to
minimize
that,
because
we
were
concerned
that
you
know
are
you:
are
you
trying
to
force
agencies
to
disclose
legal
advice
from
their
their
general
counsel?
To
you
know
an
agency
head
Etc
and
but
after
quite
a
bit
of
discussion,
you
know
the
Consultants
made
it
clear
and
we
understood
that
this
was.
O
We
did
debate
and
I
will
just
say
that
you
know
there
was
some
angst
during
the
committee
meetings
about
the
foia
exemptions
and
making
it
clear
that
the
foia
exemptions
are
not
overruled
by
what
we're
trying
to
recommend
here,
but
we
so
certain
people
were
saying.
Well,
we
should
be
inserting
foia
exemptions
to
into
each
one
of
these
lines,
to
make
it
clear
we're
not
trying
to
go,
go
that
route,
but
then
we
realize
the
the
recommendations
would
become
incredibly
cumbersome
if
we
were
in
inserting
the
foia
exemptions
that
might
come
into
play.
O
So
we
tried
to
just
say
at
the
beginning:
this
does
not
change
foia
exemptions.
Anything
that's
currently
exempt
would
remain
exempt,
and
then
we
just
stated
here
are
our
recommendations
with
those
exemptions
in
mind.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Gonna
go
to
two
people
who
are
here
remotely
and
then
get
into
the
Amendments.
Please
we
have
17
amendments
to
get
through
Miriam
Vincent.
Are
you
there.
T
Thank
you
so
with
respect
to
the
official
Edition
and
then,
unfortunately,
thanks
to
covid
I
missed
our
last
discussion
of
this
I
would
like
to
offer
a
friendly
amendment
to
this,
so
that,
just
at
the
end
of
the
line
that
the
we
we
would
recommend
that
Congress
look
at
making
the
online
version
an
official
version
in
the
context
of
a
the
full
modernization
of
the
Federal
Register
act
itself,
because
simply
removing
references
to
print
is
kind
of
like
if
you're
playing
a
game
of
Jenga-
and
you
just
say:
oh
here's,
some
here's,
here's
a
piece
I,
really
don't
like.
T
Let's
just
take
that
out,
if
you
just
take
it
out
and
there's
nothing
there
to
hold
the
rest
of
the
thing
up,
you
lose
your
whole
Tower.
The
print
portion
of
the
Federal
Register
Act
is
is
one
of
the
main
sort
of
bands
or
rails
on
which
the
entire
publication
and
codification
system
rests.
T
So
you
know
at
the
office
of
the
Federal
Register
we're
more
than
happy
to
get
rid
of
print
and
to
develop
a
new
system,
but
even
just
the
citation
system
for
the
Federal
Register
relies
on
the
print
issue
of
the
Federal
Register.
T
So
if
we
get
rid
of
print
without
anything
else
there,
there
are
a
whole
host
of
issues
which
could
then
impact
some
security
issues
online
issues
so
to
address
in
part
the
earlier
initial
comment
and
our
concerns
of
just
sort
of
removing
print
without
looking
at
the
statute
and
the
system
as
a
whole.
A
If
you're
going
to
be
making
an
amendment,
can
we
I'm
sorry
I.
A
Either
way,
whatever's
whatever's
easier
for
you,
but
I
think
holding
it
will
will
be
best
and
then,
when
we
get
the
floor,
amendments
I'll
recognize
you
and
it
sounds
like
you
have
specific
texts
so
we'll
be
able
to
to
deal
with
your
Amendment.
Then.
T
I
think
concerns
that
were
raised
earlier,
but
also
to
give
a
little
bit
more
context
of
the
problem
that
it's
it's
not
just
print.
It's
the
entire
system
rests
on
the
concept
of
print.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you
for
that
Miriam
and
final
General
debate
point
from
Jen
Dickey.
Please.
U
Hi,
thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
respond
to
the
comment
earlier
that
this
seems
like
out
of
place
with
the
rest
of
the
rule
and
I
think
the
reason
that
the
committee,
or
at
least
I
and
the
committee
thought
that
this
made
sense
is
that
so
much
of
this
recommendation
is
focused
at
you
know,
putting
things
online,
making
them
more
easily
available
to
the
regulated
public
and
the
regulated
public
obviously
does
not
have
easy
access
to
the
print
copy
of
the
Federal
Register.
U
Maybe
in
some
law,
libraries,
but
I,
don't
think
your
average
Library
contains
it
and
so
making
I
thought
it
made
sense
to
make
it
the
official
version,
because
that's
much
more
easily
accessible
from
like
every
library
that
has
an
internet
connection
around
the
country
and
I
thought
that
was
consistent
with
the
idea
of
proactive
disclosure
of
you
know.
Legal
materials.
A
Okay,
thank
you
Jen,
and
hopefully
this
will
be
the
last
General
debate
from
Don
Cohen,
please
yeah
danco.
V
And
D.O.T
sorry
I,
don't
remember
so
just
one
quick
question
on
number
nine
and
it
goes
to
the
nature
of
this
recommendation,
which
is
a
little
different
from
the
typical
atheist
recommendation,
because,
because
here
we're
talking
about
legislation,
you
know
statutory
change
for
Congress
to
adopt
so
number
nine
talks
about
the
chair,
Office
of
the
chair
preparing
and
submitting
to
Congress
a
draft
Bill.
Basically,
so
the
the
typical
process
for
any
executive
branch
agency
doing
that
is
a
go
through
OMB
and
this
sort
of
an
interagency
review
process.
Are
you
all?
V
W
Why
don't
I
take
that
one?
So
this
is
actually
not
the
first
time
this
has
been
done.
There
was
a
recommendation
a
year
or
two
ago
on
a
clarifying
statutory
access
judicial
review.
This
paragraph
is
specifically
take
that
also
made
recommendations
to
Congress
and
directed
The,
the
chair,
assisted
by
staff,
of
course,
to
prepare
draft
legislation
that
would
Implement
that
bill
and
transmit
it
to
Congress.
So
this
is
actually
a
a
strategy
the
assembly
has
previously
adopted
in
in
recent
memory.
B
A
X
Hi
hi,
yes,
thank
you.
So
much
I
hope
you
can
hear
me.
You
know
Dan.
We
considered
whether
or
not
to
offer
an
amendment
here
and
ultimately
declined
Matthew,
and
our
thinking
was
that
the
proposed
legislation
would
be
a
ministerial
act
reflecting
the
will
of
the
conference,
as
expressed
in
the
recommendation,
and
therefore
the
OMB
review
would
not
be
needed
in
the
way
that
OMB
review
is
not
needed
for
a
good
recommendations.
More
generally,
I
do
think
that
if
OMB
were
to
review
this
legislation
that
it
would
open
a.
B
X
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you
Stephanie.
Let
me
just
say
about
this
paragraph:
nine
and
proposing
legislation
to
Congress.
It's
not
unprecedented.
This
body
has
has
done
it
before
and
it
keeps
this
body
more
involved
in
the
development
of
that
legislation,
because
we
will
form
a
working
group
to
address
it,
and
some
people
in
this
room
will
be
asked
to
be
on
that
group
as
a
practical
matter.
A
The
Congress
is
going
to
ask
us
anyway,
if
you
know,
if,
if
we
don't
propose
specific
legislation
and
we're
going
to
wind
up
proposing
drafting
that
legislation
under
the
rubric
of
of
technical
assistance,
so
we
we
think
that
recommendation
number
nine
is
is
a
good
one.
So,
okay
I'm
going
to
cut
off
General
debate
now,
because
we
have
17
amendments
to
to
get
through
and
11
15
being
the
first
cut
off.
First,
we
have
six
Council
proposed
amendments.
A
Council
amendment
number
one
is
a
proposal
that
would
remove
the
last
sentence
of
the
third
Preamble
paragraph.
It
appears
in
lines
23
to
24
of
the
red
line
and
I
recognize
Ron
Cass
to
explain
that
microphone.
Please.
I
Ron
Cass,
council
member.
We
think
that
the
item
the
sentence
there
is
just
not
necessary
not
that
there's
anything
wrong
with
it
now.
Obviously,
there
are
mistakes
made
in
lots
of
different
pieces
of
legislation.
I,
don't
see
any
reason
in
the
council
to
see
any
reason
to
note
that,
specifically
in
the
Republic.
A
Would
you
just
check
the
the
mic?
Please
make
sure
it's
it's
on.
It
is
on
okay,
all
right!
Roxanne
I
want
to
turn
to
you
for
a
reaction
to
Ron's
memo.
O
Sorry,
I
don't
think
we
have
any
concerns
with
that.
Okay.
A
Any
discussion
from
the
floor
all
right,
seeing
none
can
we
go
to
UC
on
this
I
I
ask
unanimous
consent.
Does
anyone
object,
seeing
no
objection?
The
council
amendment
number
one
is
adopted.
Council
amendment
number
two
adds
additional
language
to
the
preamble
to
emphasize
that
nothing
in
this
recommendation
would
require
agencies
to
proactively
disclose
any
records
that
are
currently
Exempted
or
excluded
from
foia's
General
disclosure
requirements.
It
appears
in
lines
36
to
43,
which
are
are
shifted
now.
A
So
please
look
at
the
screen
and,
if
adopted,
there
are
also
corresponding
parallel
amendments
and
changes
in
paragraphs
one
and
two
that
will
have
to
be
made
so
I
think
that's
clear
enough
without
with
without
explanation
Roxanne.
Is
that
consistent
with
the
committee's
intent?
Yes,.
A
Okay,
does
anyone
wish
to
be
heard
on
this
amendment.
A
Seeing
no
objection,
the
amendment
is
adopted
by
unanimous
consent.
The
third
Council
proposed
amendment
adds
a
new
paragraph
H
to
recommendation
paragraph
one
to
include
agency
determinations
of
first
assistant
positions
under
the
federal
vacancies.
Reform,
Act
and
and
O'connell
was
supposed
to
be
here.
Anna
you
on
the
oh
there
you
are
I'm,
sorry,
usually
said
yeah,
yeah
and
O'connell
to
to
explain,
as
only
she
can,
the
federal
agency's
Reform
Act.
Y
I
just
think,
if
we're
in
G
having
orders
of
succession
that
it's
related,
because
the
first
assistant
is
the
default.
Acting.
A
Seeing
No
Hands
we'll
go
to
I'll,
ask
for
unanimous
consent
again.
Does
anyone
object,
please
raise
your
hand,
reject
or
object
to
adoption
of
the
amendment?
Yes,.
M
Y
Yeah
so
I
the
thank
you
Eloise,
so
I
think
it
may
be
confusion
into
language
that
I
propose.
So
the
thought
lies
with
me.
Y
Determinations
is
not
meant
to
be
Decisions
by
those
I
meant
to
say
that
any
agency
agency,
identification
or
statutory
identification
of
first
assistant
positions
that
would
be
publicly
disclosed
so
I
mean
some.
For
example.
Many
statutes
declare
that
the
deputy
secretary
is
the
first
assistant
to
the
secretary,
but
for
lower
level,
Senate
confirmed
positions.
It's
often
agency
regulations,
which
will
say
this
particular
Deputy,
is
the
first
assistant
to
a
senate,
confirmed
position
and
all
of
those
are
the
default.
Y
O
Would
it
be
clear
If
instead
of
using
the
word
determinations,
it
used
the
word
designations?
Yes,.
Z
A
A
The
amendment
is,
as
amended
is,
is
adopted
by
unanimous
consent,
council
member
of
a
council
amendment
number
four
removes
pursuant
to
notice
and
receipt
of
public
comment,
except
for
good
cause
pursuant
to
five
USC
553
in
the
end,
that's
in
quotes,
as
well
as
the
actual
language
to
be
removed,
and
this
is
yours
again.
So
let
me
turn
to
you.
Y
A
So
let
me
turn
to
Margaret
for
explanation
of
of
the
committee
position.
N
Yes,
so
we
end
the
committee,
we
as
consultants
and
the
committee
were
fully
aware
that
agencies
could
ordinarily
promulgate
such
a
rule
without
notice
and
comment,
but
both
the
consultants
and
the
committee
discussed
this
issue
at
length
and
settled
on
this
approach
for
I
think
several
important
reasons.
N
One
is
that
this
is
a
novel
and
an
extremely
sensitive
discretionary
choice
that
is
added
to
permit
agencies
to
withhold
proactive
disclosure
of
agency
legal
materials
that
otherwise
would
be
the
default
requirement,
and
so
we
determined
that
there
should
be
full
public
involvement.
It's
also
based
on
this.
N
This
ability
to
invoke
the
sort
of
work
around
or
alternative
compliance
is
based
on
the
fact
that
the
agencies
would
have
determined
that
these
add
very
little
value
to
the
public
and
so
having
public
the
public
input
on
whether
there
is
value
or
value
that
the
agency
might
not
be
able
to
see
is
particularly
relevant
and
also
since
the
agency
will
be
specifying
alternative
means
of
compliance.
So
what
kinds
of
aggregate
statistics,
or
example,
documents
they
will
be,
providing
that
the
Public's
input
on
what
those
Alternatives
would
be
would
be
particularly
important.
N
Also
note
that
aikis
has
historically
promoted
the
use
of
notice
and
comment
rulemaking,
even
for
rules
that
you
know
might
not
need
to
go
through
notice
and
comment
under
the
APA.
It
has
a
oh
there's.
Actually,
a
I
think
a
I've
got
a
sort
of
a
list
of
past
recommendations
that
have
both
recommended.
You
know
kind
of
limiting
the
number
of
exemptions
in
the
statute
itself,
also
encouraging
agencies
to
use
notice
and
comment
when
not
even
required,
and
so
I
think
this
is
consistent
with
akins's
past
practice.
N
So
I
would
say
that
the
Consultants
actually
feel
strongly
about
this
and
think
that
this,
this
sort
of
customization
option
for
agencies
of
alternative
compliance,
you
know,
may
not
even
be
appropriate
without
notice
and
comment
that,
in
fact,
the
exemption
should
not
stand
if
there
is
not
robust
public
input
into
when
it
is
going
to
be
invoked.
Otherwise
it
seems
that
the
exception
might
start
to
swallow
the
rule,
even
inadvertently
if
agencies
are
not
engaged
in
that
full
procedural
vetting
of
the
times
that
it
invokes
the
exemption.
A
Thank
you,
Margaret
Roxanne.
Does
that
fully
expressed
the
committee
version
or
you
want
to
add
something.
A
Thank
you,
Jack
Biermann,
I
understand
you
seek
recognition.
G
Yes
thanks:
you
know
I'm
not
sure
about
whether
this,
whether
whether
this
is
a
correct
interpretation
of
the
APA
or
not,
but
I
would
just
suggest
that
if
the
original
language
is
kept
in
that
the
words
receipt
of
be
changed
to
opportunity
four,
because
obviously,
if
no
one
comments,
that's
still
a
proper
use
of
notice
in
common
I
would
I
would
just
say
opportunity
for.
A
Okay,
and
do
you
have
any
response
to
that
language.
Y
J
Y
Mean
I
would
say
that,
for
example,
in
the
70s
aikos
put
forward,
that
agency
should
proactively
seek
notice
and
comment
on
benefits,
for
example,
which
were
excluded
and
then
kind
of
later.
You
know
agencies
have
revoked
some
of
those
kind
of
additional
notice
and
comment
opportunities,
so
I
just
think
that
there
are
obviously
there
are
incredible
benefits
to
the
notice
and
comment
process,
but
there
are
also
some
costs
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
raise
it.
I
don't
feel
super
strongly
about
it,
but
I
I
just
think.
AA
Yeah
Sam
baggin's
house
from
HHS
and
may
not
feel
super
strongly
about
it.
I
feel
super
strongly
about
it.
There
is
nothing
that
is
more
difficult
and
more
straining
of
agency
resources
than
additional
obligations
to
engage
in
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
already.
This
set
of
proposals
would
impose
great
costs
on
agency
time
and
resources
if
we
were
to
do
it
and
and
the
the
way
of
providing
some
way
out
of
this
through
regulations
that
would
be
published,
that
would
be
open
to
the
public.
You
know
people
could
see
them
people
who
could
challenge
them.
AA
That
feels
like
enough
to
satisfy
the
the
concerns
that
seem
to
be
animating,
this
underlying
this
underlying
proposal,
but
to
add
an
additional
layer
of
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
for
our
agencies
we
are
swimming.
You
know,
I
am
Ricky
rivez's
biggest
customer
just
by
the
way,
40
of
regulations
that
go
through
a
wire
or
these
might
or
might
not,
depending
on
whether
they
determine
them
significant,
but
40
of
them
come
from
HHS.
We
have
a
ton
of
notice
and
comment
rulemaking.
It
takes
an
enormous
amount
of
time,
an
enormous
amount
of
agency
resources.
AA
The
transparency
interests
here
are
real
and
they're
important,
and
you
know
that's
why
I
would
be
ultimately
supportive
of
this.
This
underlying
proposal,
but
the
costs
are
very
real
and,
let's
not
add
to
the
cost,
so
I
I
very
much
support
what
Anne
has
to
say
here.
Alan.
P
Alan
Morrison
senior
fellow
there's,
two
things
I
want
to
say:
one
is:
if
you
don't
like
the
cost
of
notice
and
comment
rule
making,
then
you
don't
ask
for
an
exception.
That's
all
it's
very
simple,
and
the
second
thing
is
Sam
just
said
this
could
be
challenged.
I,
don't
think
that's
right!
I!
Think
of
the
agencies.
Have
these
exemptions
and
there's
no
notice
in
comment.
P
There's
essentially
no
way
that
any
court
is
ever
going
to
overrule
them,
so
unless
you're
prepared
to
give
absolute
discretion
to
the
agencies
to
accept
themselves
from
the
basic
thrust
of
the
statute,
I
think
as
as
Margaret
said,
she's,
not
at
all
clear
that
we
would
have
recommended
this
going
forward
without
the
without
the
notice
and
comment
to
the
exception.
Thank
you.
B
AB
Dave
rosker
liaison
from
the
office
of
advocacy,
small
business
administration,
I
I,
have
to
weigh
in
here
with
the
other
federal
agencies
here
about
the
burden
of
noticing,
comment,
rulemaking
and
it
and
to
offer
a
a
pathway
that
says
no
exemption
can
avoid
the
burden
of
notice
in
common
rulemaking.
So
the
the
the
offer
is
then
the
burden
of
proactive
disclosure
of
significant
volumes
of
duplicative
records.
That
does
not
seem
to
be
an
even
trade-off.
AB
However,
it
would
seem
to
be
that
requiring
rulemaking
itself
would
be
a
significant
win
in
that
it
provides
in
the
regulations
than
a
road
map
to
Future
foia
requests
and
for
many
small
businesses.
The
ability
to
know
what
records
there
are
is
actually
a
significant,
a
significant
Advantage
rather
than
having
to
file
foia
requests
that
are
essentially
shots
in
the
dark,
as
it
frequently
happened
to
be.
A
Okay,
thank
you
Sam
again,
probably
responding
to
Alan.
AA
Yeah,
just
not
to
Guild
the
Lily
I
I,
just
wanna
on
one
minor
Point.
If
we
don't
do
notice
and
comment
rulemaking,
that
does
not
mean
it's
not
going
to
be
challengeable.
In
fact,
our
experience
in
litigating
is
even
when
we're
not
required
to
do
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
or
we
feel
like.
AA
Actually
don't
think
this
is
an
easy
way
out
for
us
and
I
do
want
to
emphasize
the
burden
of
proactive
disclosure
is
quite
significant
and
fundamentally
we
have
a
trade-off
here
between
transparency
and
governance,
enabling
us
to
do
the
job
of
governance
as
agencies,
and
you
know,
I
think
it's
a
fair
trade-off
to
have
a
set
of
rules
that
say,
expand
your
proactive
disclosures.
If
you
have
a
way
out
of
it
for
duplicative
records,
Etc
I,
don't
think
it's
a
fair
trade-off.
B
A
Anyone
else
before
we
go
to
a
vote:
okay,
here's!
What
I
propose
to
do
we're
going
to
vote
on
the
Ann
Joseph
O'connell,
Council
Amendment.
It
isn't
in
fact
a
council
amendment
to
support
Anne's
position.
If
that
fails
and
the
and
the
sentence
stays
then
we'll
consider
it
Jack
biermann's
opportunity
for
a
minute.
Okay,
so
I
don't
think
we
have
unanimous
consent
on
this.
So
let
me
go
right
to
to
a
Voice
vote.
A
All
those
in
favor
of
Anne's
amendment
to
strike
the
language
quoted
police,
say
I,
I
yeah.
We
heard
you
up.
There
opposed.
A
Okay,
I
think
the
eyes
have
it
and
and
deletion
Council.
Amendment
number
four
is
adopted:
okay,
Council
amendment
number
five,
the
fifth
Council
Amendment,
proposes
changes
to
paragraph
4C.
That
paragraph
currently
recommends
that
Congress
require
the
Office
of
Management
and
budget
to
update
its
guidance
on
agency
websites
at
least
every
two
years.
A
The
council
proposes
replacing
that
language
at
least
every
two
years
with
periodically,
which
would
give
OMB
discretion
to
update
its
guidance
as
needed
and
consistent
with
available
resources
and
other
priorities,
and
this
came
from
government
member
Steph
prothem
do
that
stuff.
A
That's
right,
she
proposed
the
same
thing.
It's
a
council,
Amendment
and
I
think
we
should
hear
from
Margaret
on
this.
N
I,
don't
think
that
the
Consultants
are
concerned,
that
sort
of
as
appropriate,
instead
of
specifying
a
particular
amount
of
time,
we'll
leave
we'll
sort
of
let
this
requirement
language.
N
A
X
Yes,
thank
you
very
much
Steph
state
from
OMB.
We
do
update
this
guidance
periodically
and
are
occasionally
directed
by
Congress
to
update
it,
we're
currently
working
on
such
an
update
right
now.
Our
view
is
that
every
two
years
is
two
prescriptive
and
you
know
we
aren't
able
to
anticipate
the
circumstances
that
might
require
Amendment,
so
we'd
be
uncomfortable
with
having
a
particular
Cadence
in
place,
but
we
do
think
it's
a
best
practice
to
occasionally
refresh
this
we're
actually
working
on
it.
A
O
A
Okay,
that's
a
such
thing.
Succinct
do
we
have
do
we
have
any
general
discussion
by
way
of
support
or
opposition.
A
Okay,
then
I'll
call
for
unanimous
consent
vote.
Does
anyone
object
to
unanimous
con
consent
of
adoption
of
of
this
amendment
all
right?
Seeing
none
Council
amendment
number
six
is
adopted
by
unanimous
consent.
A
Okay,
now
we
go
to
conference
member
amendments
pre-submitted.
We
have
11
we'll
start
off
with
the
first
one.
Alan
Morrison
has
a
a
suggestion
to
change
the
title
of
the
recommendation
from
disclosure
of
agency
legal
materials
to
proactive
disclosure
of
agency
legal
materials.
A
Before
we
move
further
to
see,
if
anyone
will
will
make
an
amendment
on
that
make
a
motion
Roxanne
or
Aaron,
do
you
have
any
reaction
to
that
change?
Roxanne.
A
No
concerns
all
right.
That
sounds
good.
Would
anyone
offer
the
amendment
for
Alan
Ron
Cass
offers
it
any
other
discussion
on
this
title?
Amendment?
Okay,
then,
let's
go
to
unanimous
consent.
Does
anyone
object
to
unanimous
consent
to
adopt
the
change
in
the
title,
seeing
none?
A
The
amendment
is
adopted
by
unanimous
consent,
our
our
Second,
Amendment
or
or
suggestion
also
comes
from
senior
fellow
Alan
Morrison
in
line
18,
which
is
different
now
to
change,
could
to
should-
and
that
seems
fairly
objectionable,
and
let
me
see
if
anyone
would
offer
that
Amendment
for
Alan
Ron
Cass
offers
it.
Thank
you
Ron
any
discussion
or
objection
to
changing
could
to
should
there
all
right,
then
by
unanimous
consent.
The
amendment
is
adopted
all.
A
Right
we'll
get
to
that
in
a
minute
all
right.
The
third
pre-submitted
suggestion
comes
from
government
member
from
OMB
Steph
tatham
to
state
that
these
statutory
reforms
would
impose
not
only
additional
upfront
costs,
but
also
ongoing
costs
on
agencies.
Steph.
Anything
you
want
to
say
on
this.
A
Okay,
Roxanne:
do
you
there's
many,
have
a
position.
O
A
A
That's
that's
what
I
thought
you
said:
okay,
any
discussion
from
anyone
on
this
all
right,
then
I
seek
unanimous
consent
to
adopt
this
amendment.
Any
objection.
A
Okay,
seeing
none
potassium
amendment
number
one
is
adopted
by
unanimous
consent.
Thank
you.
The
fourth
pre-submitted
suggestion
comes
again
from
government
members,
Steph
tatham.
A
Line
33-36
in
assigning-
and
it's
quote
to
insert
this
in
assigning
responsibilities
for
overseeing
the
development
and
implementation
of
the
proactive
disclosure
plans
and
for
overseeing
the
agency's
compliance
with
all
legal
requirements
for
the
proactive
disclosure
of
agency
legal
materials
agencies
may
wish
to
consider
existing
officials
and
the
potential
for
overlapping
or
shared
responsibility.
All
right.
That's
a
long
ways.
Everybody
clear.
B
X
X
A
sorry
secondary
question
was
whether
the
person
who
is
responsible
for
developing
the
proactive
disclosure
plan
should
be
the
same
person
as
who
is
overseeing
compliance
with
the
proactive
legal
disclosure,
and
so
we
just
thought
that
it
might
be
helpful
for
agencies
to
consider
these
issues
as
they
select
an
official
or,
potentially
you
know,
multiple
officials.
If
the
committee
and
Conference
were
amenable
to
a
subsequent
amendment
that
we
have.
Thank
you.
O
No
concerns
this
seems
to
be
clarification
of
what
agencies
can
do
to
try
to
make
this
work,
and
that
should
not
be
a
problem.
Margaret.
A
You
want
to
add
anything
nope,
okay,
then
anybody
want
to
weigh
in
on
this
General
discussion
nope.
All
right,
then
I
seek
unanimous
consent
for
adoption
of
the
amendment.
Anyone
object.
A
Seeing
no
hands
are
there
any
hands
online
I've
been
neglecting
to
ask
for
that
negative
on
that
and
those
folks
online.
Don't
worry
if,
if
you
are
voting
appropriately,
I
I
am
being
told
by
staff.
So
we're
not
skipping
you
all
right,
so
tatha.
A
Amendment
number
two
is
adopted
by
unanimous
consent:
okay,
but
back
to
Alan
Morrison,
the
fifth
pre-submitted
suggestion
it
comes
from
Alan
and
it
provides
for
in
line
52,
adding
the
words
these
and
in
quotes
these
and
after
identified
in
to
clarify
that,
even
in
the
absence
of
congressional
action,
the
conference
encourages
agencies
to
adopt
the
best
practices
set
forth
in
the
recommendation.
I'm
Alan.
You
want
to
speak
to
that.
A
Okay
yeah.
It
is
indeed
pretty
clear
any
discussion
on
it:
okay,
seeking
unanimous
consent.
Does
anyone
object?
Yes,
we
have
a
hand.
Oh
that's
true!
Thank
you.
Iran
I
figured
you
would
move
in
in
his
on
his
behind
it
a
benefit
I'm.
Sorry!
Oh
okay!
Jack!
You
have
your
hand
up
for
discussion.
Yeah,
yeah,
I,
just.
I
A
Right
we'll
work
that
out
Jack
on
the
committee
on
style,
so
I
seek
unanimous
consent
on
on
this
amendment
proposed
by
Ron
on
behalf
of
of
Alan.
Has
anyone
object.
A
Seeing
objections
this
of
this
amendment
is
adopted
so
Alan.
A
All
right
now,
let's
continue
with
tathim
amendment
number
three,
a
numbered
paragraph
three,
as
currently
drafted,
the
recommendation
would
recommend
that
Congress
require
OMB
to
supervise
certain
agency
responsibilities.
Steph
proposes
removing
the
words
quote:
the
Office
of
Management
and
budget
to
ensure
that
placing
the
duty
to
supervise
on
individual
agencies
instead
and
Sam's
gonna,
just
love
that
anyone
want
want
to
discuss
that
stuff.
You
want
to
talk
about
it.
X
I
do
thank
you.
I'll
just
say
that
there
are
two
separate
points
wrapped
up
in
this
amendment.
The
first
is
that
is
the
conference
wants
agencies
to
do
this,
then
I
would
recommend
that
Congress
place
that
obligation
directly
on
the
agencies,
as
it's
currently
formulated.
X
Only
OMB
has
an
obligation
to
ensure
that
agencies
do
this
and
without
agencies
being
required
to
do
it.
Also,
that
would
be
challenging
for
us
beyond
that.
You
know
as
to
omb's
role
and
whether
we
would
like
a
central
oversight
role.
We
appreciate
the
conference
thinking
of
us,
but
we
currently
aren't
well
situated
to
provide
that
oversight,
so
we
would
also
move
to
remove
ourselves
from
this
recommendation.
Thank
you.
O
There
was
some
debate
during
the
committee
meetings
as
to
whether
the
agencies
would
do
a
good
job
of
policing
themselves,
but
certainly
if
OMD
does
not
feel
that
they
are
currently
well
situated
to
provide
this
oversight
there,
then
the
agencies,
then
we
don't
have
a
problem.
I,
wouldn't
think
we'd
have
a
problem
with
this
and
Margaret
actually
did
you
want
to
comment
as
well.
N
I
think
the
Consultants
originally
did
not
have
this
directed
to
OMB.
That
was,
in
addition
at
the
committee
process
and
so
I
think
we
are
fine,
reverting
to
its
original
form
with
the
primary
obligation
on
agencies,
assuming
that
there
would
be
judicial
review
for
failure
to
engage
in
a
in
an
affirmative
disclosure
plan,
just
like
any
other
failure
to
act
under
the
APA.
P
Alan
Morrison
senior
fellow
at
the
committee
level,
it
was
an
objection
to
the
the
consultant's
original
recommendation
of
the
agencies
be
held.
Responsible
agencies
came
in
and
said.
If
this
is
in
the
way
it
is
now
we're
going
to
get
sued
for
not
promulgating
the
plan
and
not
following
the
plan
we
promulgated,
it
I
believe
I
composed
that
OMB
be
responsible
for
for
supervising
it
on
the
theory
that
this
was
less
onerous
for
the
agencies
and
for
the
government
overall,
but
I
think
we
need
to
get
the
government
to
answer.
P
You
know
which
way
they'd
rather
have
it,
because
we
need
to
have
somebody
in
charge
of
this
and
I,
don't
know
who
it
should
be.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
indeed,
anyone
from
an
agency
went
away
in.
AC
AC
It
was
all
the
difference
to
from
my
good
friend
Alan.
We
just
went
through
a
lot
of
things
and
everyone
in
town
went
to
their
little
project
done,
and
they
said
they
put
it
on.
Omb
and
OMB
doesn't
kind
of
have
those
those
type
of
resources.
So,
if
the
if
it
seems
to
me
if
the
representative
from
on
B
says
this
is
a
problem
and
it
wasn't
brought
up
by
the
experts
that
did
it,
it
seems
to
me
that
you
don't
need
to
put
another
task
on
OMB.
Particular
it
wasn't.
AC
AC
AE
Thanks
Renee
Landers
senior
fellow,
this
is
not
germane
to
what
we
should
do
about
the
text,
but
perhaps
this
is
a
should
go
on
the
list
of
things
that
Acres
should
pursue
to
follow
up.
If
we
don't
have
a
record,
you
know
some
sort
of
supervisory
Authority
sort
of
keeping
track
of
what
the
agencies
do.
A
Okay
can't
commit,
but
we'll
certainly
consider
it.
No
okay,
Ron
microphone.
F
A
I
Might
I
suggest
some
language
that
might
split
the
difference
here
instead
of
saying
Congress
should
require
the
Office
of
Management
budget
or
the
Congress
should
require
agencies.
Perhaps
we
should
say
congress
should
provide
a
mechanism
for
assuring
that
agencies
and
then
go
back
to
the
where
we
had
before
and.
X
I
would
support
that
friendly
Amendment.
Thank
you.
A
Oh
you're,
good
with
that:
okay,
wonderful,
Dave
was
president's
hand
first.
AB
Yes,
Dave
rosker
office
of
advocacy
liaison
Acres,
just
to
note
that
OMB
has
some
current
responsibilities
under
foia
and
the
Privacy
Act
they
are
relatively
limited,
but
he
but
OMB
does
issue
OMB
circular
a130,
which
deals
with
information
resources,
and
it
may
be
that
there
is
some
appropriate
role
for
OMB
in
providing
guidance
to
agencies
in
implementation,
but
not
in
the
development
of
plans
and
oversight
of
those
plans.
Okay,.
P
Alan
Morrison
senior
fellow
I,
put
myself
in
the
position
of
the
chair.
Looking
at
recommendation,
number
nine
and
asking
what
the
statutory
language
would
be
the
chair
would,
it
would
write
if
Ron
cass's
Amendment
were
adopted.
Perhaps
we
could
find
some
other
thing.
It
may
be
that
some
that
Congress
should
designate
an
appropriate
agency
within
the
federal
government
to
do
a
agency
or
agencies
within
the
federal
government
to
assure
that
this
happens,
but
we
can't
leave
it
as
as
a
general
term.
P
The
way
that
Ron
had
done
it
specific,
particularly
because
we're
going
to
have
to
write
some
statutory
language.
B
I
B
C
C
I
I
Text
would
be
Congress
should
provide
a
mechanism
for
assuring
that
agencies
and
then
Coleman
and
the
rest.
A
And
add
on
nope
that
was
a
no
okay.
Okay.
Does
everyone
understand
what
we're
going
to
vote
on
we're
going
to
vote
on
the
the
Chatham
Amendment
as
amended
by
Ron,
Cass,
okay,
I
think
there
might
be
some
some
opposition
here.
So
let
me
go
right
to
a
Voice
vote
who
supports
the
amendment
as
amended.
A
A
Didn't
mean
that
I
didn't
mean
that
to
be
a
laugh
line,
okay,
the
the
amendment
as
amended
is
adopted
by
Voice
vote.
Thank
you.
A
B
A
That
any
discussion
about
it,
if
not
I,
will
ask
unanimous
consent
that
we
adopt
this.
This
change
without
objection,
any
objection
seeing
none
is
adopted
by
a
unanimous
consent.
The
eighth
pre-submitted
suggestion
also
comes
from
government
member
Stephanie
tatham
in
lines
108
to
109,
to
replace
the
federal
web
managers
council
with
other
relevant
interagency
bodies,
because
Steph
points
out
there
may
be
other
relevant
bodies.
Omb
should
consult
in
updating
its
guidance
and
because
relevant
bodies
may
change
and
evolve
over
time.
A
A
A
Eight
minutes:
okay,
with
three
amendments
to
go.
Maybe
we
can
make
this.
The
ninth
pre-submitted
suggestion
comes
from
again
from
government
member
Stephanie
tatham
in
paragraph
four
C
to
add,
as
appropriate
after
present
legal
materials
or
present
legal
materials
Steph.
Would
you
like
to
speak
to
this
one?
Please.
X
Yes,
and
let
me
clarify
that
the
as
appropriate
was
intended
to
modify
legal
materials
and
not
the
periodicity
of
the
guidance
update.
Our
thinking
here
was
just
that.
You
know
this
does
prevent
legal
materials
that
could
perhaps
be
read
to
mean
all
legal
materials
when,
in
fact
we're
only
referring
to
the
specific
set
of
legal
materials
addressed
in
recommendation.
One
so
not
tied
to
language
here,
but
you
know
perhaps
recommended
legal
materials
would
be
better,
but
just
wanted
to
note
that
it
wasn't
all
legal
material.
A
N
Mark,
instead
of
as
appropriate,
which
is
vague,
could
I
suggest
perhaps
required
to
be
disclosed
proactively
so
that
we're
specifying
what
legal
materials
it
is
that
our
at
issue
with
respect
to
the
actual
statute.
B
A
Steph
Stephanie
I
recognize
you.
What
do
you
think
about
required
to
be
disclosed
all
right,
proactive.
A
Yeah,
okay,
anyone
want
to
be
heard
on
that
on
that
Amendment
to
the
amendment,
Margaret
can't
can't
vote
so
I'm
going
to
need
someone
to
offer
it
if,
if
they
would
I'll
move,
this
Fernando
will
offer
it.
Thank
you
so
a
vote
now
on
the
Fernando
laguarda
Amendment
to
the
Statham
Amendment.
A
Can
we
go
to
unanimous
consent
on
this
I
I?
Don't
see
any
objection,
any
objection
nope
then
the
the
Statham
Amendment,
as
amended
by
Fernando,
is
adopted
by
unanimous
consent.
Thank
you.
Everyone.
The
the
10th
pre-submitted
comment,
also
comes
from
Steph
tatham.
In
paragraph
five,
she
asks
if
legislative
rules
refers
to
just
the
text
of
regulations
or
also
Preamble
published
in
the
Federal
Register,
she
also
suggests
that
a
link
to
the
ecfr
or
Federal
Register
should
suffice.
A
Steph
that
doesn't
propose
text
really.
Did
you
give
any
thought
to
text.
X
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
clarify
the
intention.
First.
You
know
our
thinking
was
that
a
link
should
suffice
because
it's
resource
intensive,
as
opposed
to
each
of
these
individually.
But
if
the
consultant
and
committee
had
a
different
view,
you.
O
I
believe
we
had
discussion
during
the
committee
that
a
link
would
hopefully
suffice
here,
so
if
that
needs
to
be
changed
in
order
to
make
it
clear
that
that
would
be
considered
acceptable
under
this,
then
perhaps
that
would
be
a
good
idea,
so
maybe
it'd
be
as
simple
as
saying.
Each
agency
should
post
each
of
its
legislative
rules
or
a
link
to
those
rules
on
its
website.
A
Okay
and
where
would
it
go
Roxanne.
A
Okay,
is
everyone
clear
on
the
the
proposal
from
from
Margaret?
Thank
you.
Five
for
five
minutes.
The
Proposal
from
Margaret
to
amend
the
staff
of
amendment
I
will
need
someone
to
to
offer
it.
Please.
A
Yeah
I'm.
Sorry!
Yes,
of
course,
committee
chairs
were
allowed.
Thank
you
all
right.
Well
then,
it's
the
Rothschild
Amendment
to
the
Taft
Amendment
go.
A
The
objection
seeing
none
adopted
by
unanimous
consent.
Thank
you
Roxanne
for
solving
that
one.
Amendment
number
eight
is
our
11th
pre-submitted
suggestion
again
from
Stephanie
tatham
in
line
118
to
add
existing
Steph.
Can
you
explain
that
real,
quick,
we're
running
out
of
time.
X
Yes,
hopefully
this
is
not
controversial,
but
just
our
thought
was
that,
in
order
to
exhaust
the
administrative
process
or
pursue
a
judicial
review,
there
had
to
be
actual
records
that
were
not
being
disclosed
that
were
in
existence
and
I.
Think
at
the
end
of
the
sentence,
it
says,
you
know,
disclose
the
records
that
have
not
done
so
that
that
is
intended
to
refer
to
existing
records.
So
just
a
minor
clarification.
Thank
you.
A
B
P
A
X
Yes,
and-
and
this
is
why
I
think
it's
a
little
bit
complicated,
I
I
would
ask
report
to
limit
the
Court's
Authority
in
that
way.
But
I
do
think.
It's
somewhat
problematic
to
have
a
sort
of
open
cause
of
action
that
continues
forever
for
records
created
in
the
future
and
I'm
not
quite
sure
how
to
thread
that
needle,
but
certainly
I,
think
that
a
court
should
be
able
to
say,
and
you
should
continue
to
disclose
these
materials
that
already
exist
in
the
future,
or
you
know
that
will
be
created
in
the
future.
X
A
To
Jack
Biermann
and
then
to
Roxanna
Margaret.
What's
my
time,
Sean
two
minutes
Jack?
Can
you
talk
in
less
than
two
minutes
absolutely.
G
The
law
is
clear
that
under
the
APA,
only
existing
records
are
ever
required
to
be
disclosed.
The
the
I'm
sorry
the
foia
doesn't
ever
require
agencies
to
create
records.
G
So
I
think
that
the
word
is
unnecessary,
and
but
if
you,
if
you're
concerned
about
this,
the
the
second
reference
to
records
I
would
say
at
the
end
of
the
sentence-
change
the
the
to
them
and
delete
records
so
that
it
would
say
at
the
end
the
requester
legislation
to
be
required
to
proactively
disclose
them,
but
has
not
done
so,
but
existing
is
redundant.
The
law
is
clear:
if
it
doesn't
exist,
it
doesn't
have
to
be
disclosed.
A
Okay,
Margaret
or
Roxanne.
N
Yeah,
this
I
think
the
Consultants
are
concerned
about
adding
the
word
existing,
because
for
exactly
the
reasons
that
Jack
just
outlined,
that
you
know,
A3
has
always
only
applied
to
existing
records,
and
this
might
seem
to
somehow
distinguish
this
from
other
A3
requests
in
some
way.
That
might
produce
confusion
instead
of
clarify.
N
I
will
note
that
this
provision,
originally
from
the
Consultants,
was
one
that
was
simply
designed
to
ensure
that
an
A3
option
was
not
taken
off
the
table,
because
these
records
were
supposed
to
be
proactively
disclosed,
and
so
this
was
really
just
meant
sort
of
as
a
belt
and
suspenders
to
ensure
that
a
person
who
believes
that
records
should
have
been
proactively
disclosed
has
the
option
to
request
them
under
A3.
Instead
of
bring
a
lawsuit
to
enforce
proactive
disclosure
requirements,
it
also
originally
had
some
additional
sort
of
shortcuts
expedited
processing.
N
You
know
an
elimination
of
the
ability
to
charge
fees
for
these
records
that
were
rejected
in
committee
process.
So
I
think
this
might
be
sort
of
a
weird
sort
of
path,
dependent
language
that
ended
up
here,
but
existing
does
not
seem
to
help
in
this
regard.
So
I
would
suggest,
if
we're
going
to
clarify
to
do
that
in
some
other
way.
A
A
Understanding
some
credits
have
been
have
been
used,
so
we
have
to
go
to
unanimous
consent
to
extend
beyond
the
75
minutes.
Do
I
have
unanimous
consent
to
stand
for,
let's
say
10
minutes.
We
can
extend
more
if
we
need
more
okay,
seeing
no
objection
we'll
extend
by
by
10
minutes.
A
Okay
Steph.
Do
you
have
any
reaction
to
Margaret.
X
A
Withdrawal-
okay,
that's
what
I
was
going
to
ask
you
next.
Thank
you
very
much.
The
amendment
is
withdrawn.
So
now
we
get
to
the
point
of
opening
the
floor
for
any
non-pre-submitted
amendments.
Yes,.
AD
Andre
Emery
special
counsel,
just
about
paragraph
eight.
Currently
the
government
publishing
office
GPO
publishes
on
govinfo.gov
what
they
claim
to
be
the
official
version
of
The
Daily
funnel
register
so
I'm,
just
not
clear
on
what
paragraph
Aid
is
solving
for
yeah
that
we
already
have
an
official
version
online
accessible.
AD
A
Okay,
let's
go
to
committee
for
that
or
Margaret.
N
This
was
part
of
our
research
was
looking
at
prior
legislative
proposals,
including
the
Federal
Register
monetization
act
that's
been
proposed,
and
this
this
was
a
piece
of
that
was
to
try
to
ensure
that
consistent
with
our
overall
proposals,
that
online
access
be
a
primary
form
of
access
for
the
public
to
access
legal
materials
and
that
they
always
be
able
to
and
to
locate
them
online.
That
an
official
version
be
the
online
version.
A
AD
AD
It
already
is
an
official
version
online,
it
is,
there
is
I,
mean
the
govinfo.gov
provides
official
versions
of
of
the
CFR.
The
daily
Federal
Register
has
us
code,
it
has,
you
know.
Status
at
large
has
a
whole
bunch
of
stuff,
it's
the
government
publishing
office
and
they
on
their
website.
They
say
this
is
an
official
version,
so
I'm
not
I'm,
not
so
it
is.
AD
A
E
That's
correct:
I
I
use
the
the
print
version,
that's
online
all
the
time
and
it's
online
it's
accessible
and
I.
Also
so
I
would
move
to
delete
this,
the
entire
paragraph
eight,
unless
somebody
comes
up
with
a
reason
for
having
it
also
the
gentleman
that
spoke
at
the
very
beginning
of
the
of
the
discussion
that
said
that
this
really
wasn't
consistent
with
the
rest
of
the
the
recommendation.
A
Okay
committee,
again
or
Margaret
any
anything
more.
N
I'll
just
add,
I
believe
this
was
really
about
cost
and
and
sort
of
updating
for
the
times.
So
I
don't
think
this
was
something
that
was
a
sort
of
a
central.
Please.
A
AG
John
Duffy
public
member
I
also
have
trouble
with
paragraph
eight
I
was
going
to
suggest
that
it
just
be
a
recommendation
that
Congress
holds
hearings
on
this,
but
I'm
perfectly
I.
I
would
also
support
deleting
the
paragraph,
because
here's
the
problem
finding
having
an
official
version
is
really
incredibly
important
in
our
legal
system,
in
fact,
actually
there's
an
enrollment
process
for
bills.
That's
very,
very
careful
and
there's
one
official
version.
AG
It's
held
in
The
Archives
of
the
United
States
I've
even
had
a
research
assistant
when
I
was
a
professor
here,
go
and
and
view
the
version
when
there
was
a
question
about
exactly
what
was
what
was
the
law?
What
was
the
Statute
that
was
passed?
This
is
a
big
problem
and
saying
that
something
is
electronic.
Is
a
huge
issue
in
our
society
that
people
who
know
technology
are
really
really
concerned
about
one
solution:
one
possible
solution.
If
you
make
an
electronic
version,
the
official
version
is
to
use
some
sort
of
blockchain
thing
to
lock
it.
AG
But
if
you
don't
do
something
like
that,
the
the
print
version
you
know
you
can
put
the
print
version
online
and
that's
great
and
that's
the
way
you
know
if
I
want
a
statute.
I
get
the
online
version,
but
there
is
still
a
version.
So
anyway,
it's
it
is
a
much
more
complex
issue.
That's
not
just
about
cost
savings.
You
need
an
official
version,
you
need
it
to
be
in
some
way
locked
and
distributed,
and
that's
what
printing
actually
does
it?
AG
It
locks
it
into
one
thing:
you
distribute
it
to
a
number
of
repository
libraries
across
the
country
and
then
it's
hard
to
hack.
So
anyway,
this
is
a
much
more
complex
issue
than
than
is
is
is
put
in
here.
It's
not
just
cost
savings.
It's
a
very,
very
important
legal
issue.
I
would
suggest
either
deleting
it
which
is,
which
is
the
thing
that's
on
there.
If
that
fails,
I
would
say
congress
should
just
hold.
We
should
just
recommend
the
Congress
hold
hearings
on
something
that's
much
more
complex
than
I.
Think.
Perhaps
the
committee
recognized.
A
Okay,
all
right
I've
got
several
people
wanting
to
be
heard
on
this
Miriam
I
think
you
were
first
then
Jen
Dickey.
U
Yes,
I
just
had
a
question
because
it
seems
like
this
is
floating
around,
but
no
one
has
been
has
pointed
out.
My
understanding
is,
it
does
impose
costs
to
have
to
prepare
the
print
version
that
they're,
like
you
know,
there's
formatting,
there's
like
there
was
always
a
lag
when
I
was
in
government
between
the
time
between,
like
where
you
had
the
text
and
where
it
could
go
into
the
print
version,
and
so
I
think,
like
one
of
the
reasons
here
for
eliminating
it
would
be
a
cost
savings.
U
T
There
will
not
be
an
incredible
cost
savings
because
there
is,
there
are
still
costs
associated
with
preparing
it
formatting
it
publishing
it
that
you
know
are
all
inherently
part
of
the
process,
even
if
print
is
eliminated,
but
we're
not
going
to
go
to
an
immediate
push-up
button.
It's
available
online
unless
Congress
changes
the
entire
statute
and
says
hey
you're,
just
going
to
put
whatever
document
you
get
online.
T
We
when
you
get
it,
which
is
not
the
same
as
an
actual
publication,
so
GPO
estimated
there
will
be
a
cost
Savings
of
between
I
think
30
and
40
percent
by
eliminating
the
actual
paper,
because
you're
going
to
eliminate
the
actual
paper
and
you're
going
to
eliminate
ink
and
you're
gonna
eliminate
some
of
the
actual
physical
press
costs,
but
you've
got
other
costs
related
to
you
know:
secure
certificates
and
AWS
annual
costs
to
have
the
websites
up,
and
then
you
still
got
just
employee
hours
in
time
for
Preparation,
and
you
still
got
the
entire
review
of
the
document.
T
It's
not
going
to
save
time.
It's
still
going
to
be
at
this
point
two
to
three
day
flag
for
publication.
T
A
Z
Yeah
Emily
Bremer
public
member
I'm
persuaded
that
this
touches
on
a
whole
bunch
of
issues
related
to
the
modernization
of
the
Federal
Register
act.
That
I
think
is
very
much
needed
for
a
lot
of
reasons.
Beyond.
Those
that
have
just
been
stated
so
I
would
suggest
that
if
we
delete
this
paragraph,
which
I'm
beginning
to
think
we
should
then
maybe
the
Aegis
considers
the
possibility
of
taking
up
a
project
on
modernization
of
the
Federal
Register
act.
Z
A
Thank
you
always
looking
for
good
ideas,
all
right.
We
need
to
extend
by
another
10
minutes.
Please
do
we
have
unanimous
consent
to
do
that
and
we
do
have
Jack
dearman
lined
up
for
some
different
amendments.
No
objection,
okay,
10,
more
minutes.
Anyone
else
on
the
pending
amendment
to
delete
paragraph
eight
Roxanne.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
It's
Roxanne,
Roth
child
Amendment,
delete
paragraph
eight.
Do
we
need
a
vote
or
is
anyone
against
online
all
right,
then
we'll
move
to
unanimous
consent,
seeing
no
objection
less
less
chance.
No
objection,
then
we'll
we'll
accept
the
Roxanne
Rothschild
Amendment
clarifying
the
staff,
Amendment
Amendment,
a
unanimous
consent.
A
Okay,
it
wasn't
a
staff
of
amendment,
so
let
me
take
that
back.
Okay,
we've
got
Jack
Biermann
for
a
couple
of
amendments
from
the
floor,
jack
great.
G
Okay,
can
we
go
to
line
four?
Please
I
recommend
in
line
four
deleting
the
words
issued
after
notice
in
comment,
because
there
may
be
some
rules
that
are
issued
without
notice
in
comment
that
we
would
still
like
to
be
disclosed.
A
One
at
a
time,
please,
okay,
any
any
discussion
on
jack's.
First,
one.
A
Anyone
want
to
be
recognized,
then
we'll
move
to
unanimous
consent.
Please
do
I.
Have
you
see
on
Jack
bemer's
Berman's
Amendment
yeah?
Okay,
so
you
know
objection,
Jeff,
congratulations!
Your
amendment
is
adopted
by
unanimous
consent.
Next,
one.
G
My
second
one
is
really
my
monumentous
momentous
or
Monumental
in
line
11.
Are
we
sure
there
are
dozens,
because
if
there
are
not
dozens,
I
would
change
the
word
to
numerous
okay.
AF
Jack
wrote
to
me
before
the
plenary
with
that
question
and
so
I
looked
back
at
the
statement
of
principles
on
the
disclosure
of
federal
administrative
materials
which
was
presented
to
the
assembly
last
year
and
was
was
published
on
our
website
last
year.
There
are
at
least
36
records.
G
A
lot
of
eggs,
great
okay,
actually
go
back
to
line
ten
the
the
phrase
given
their
nature
content.
That
makes
it
sound
like
it's
some
sort
of
a
discretionary
decision
that
they're
exempt
from
disclosure
when
really
it's
based
on
the
foia,
so
I
would
change
given
to
based
on
there.
Let
me
see
what
I
wrote
here
based
on
their
their
nature,
content.
A
Nope
then
I
ask
unanimous
consent
to
adopt
it.
Does
anyone
object.
A
H
Yes,
I
have
a
comment
or
a
question
on
paragraph
five
I
think
it's
a
friendly
suggestion.
The
there's
still
a
little
bit
of
ambiguity
as
to
what
the
term
legislative
rule
means
here.
H
Does
it
mean
only
the
text
that's
published
in
the
CFR,
or
does
it
also
include
the
Preamble
in
the
final
rule,
as
it
was
published
in
the
Federal
Register,
so
I
would
suggest
online
107
to
say
something
like,
and
this
is
based
on
Kevin
Stack's
study
of
green
apples,
which
he
showed
us
our
our
guidance
documents
in
and
of
themselves
to
say,
such
as
preambles
and
other
guidance
documents
explaining
the
rule
so.
W
Preamble
clarification
Jeff:
where
do
you
want
that
language.
A
A
Sirassio
Helen,
of
course,
all
right
Helen's
moved
an
amendment.
What
that
Jeff
described.
Does
anyone
have
any
objection
to
unanimous
consent.
A
V
An
amendment
just
sort
of
a
just
sort
of
a
point
in
request,
going
back
to
my
earlier
question
about
the
drafting
of
the
legislation
for
this,
and,
as
you
know,
as
we
see
from
this
conversation,
this
is
a
there's
a
lot
of
detail
here
and
with
anything
that
the
devil
is
always
in
the
detail
when
you're
actually
trying
to
put
it
down
on
paper.
So
even
if
OMB
and
I
take
Steph's
point
in
what
she
made
it,
even
if
OMB
is
not
going
to
be
reviewing
this.
V
This
draft
legislation
through
the
the
normal
executive
branch
Fitness
process
process,
I,
guess
I,
would
ask
that
before
anything
be
submitted
to
Congress
that
the
the
the
the
draft
be
provided
back
through
the
committee,
potentially
as
as
a
way
to
let
people
take
a
look
at
this
and
give
it
a
careful
review,
because,
obviously
you
know
just
it
just
there's
a
lot
going
on
here
and
and
the
words
matter
greatly.
A
Yeah
Dan,
we
will
have
a
drafting
committee
and
we'll
invite
certainly
members
of
the
assembly
and
non-voting
members
to
be
represented.
So
you
you'll
have
a
lot
of
input
if
you,
if
you
want
to
be
on
the
committee,
we're
happy
to
start
with
you,
I
I.
V
Will
vote
in
my
my
buddy
John
Allred,
my
companion,
who
was
on
the
committee
and
and
contributed
greatly,
would
be
happy
to
participate.
Oh.
F
A
B
B
AH
AI
AI
Ansis
liano
senior
fellow
I'm,
following
up
on
a
point
made
by
government
member
Helen
cerasio
earlier
today
about
paragraph
one
C.
This
is
the
one
that
talks
about
written
legal
opinions
and
memoranda
issued
by
legal
officers,
and
my
proposal
is
that
we,
my
amendment,
is
that
we
insert
that
bind
the
public
and
delete
everything
that
follows.
AI
My
reasons
are,
as
my
reasons
are
the
following.
First,
in
line
two
in
our
Preamble,
we
talk
about
legal
rights
and
obligations
of
the
public.
My
second
set
of
reasons
are
that
each
of
the
preceding
paragraphs,
a
talks
about
adjudications
public
B,
members
of
the
public,
D
settlement
agreements
and
E
members
of
the
public.
AI
My
the
program
office
accepts
that
advice.
They
feel
bound
often
They
Do,
by
what
the
general
counsel
says
is
that
encompassed
here.
I
think
the
intent
based
on
the
colloquy
earlier
today
was
that
it
would
not
be
encompassed
and
general
counsels
and
their
delegates
their
Associates
routinely
give
advice,
state
legal
opinions,
issue
memoranda,
so
I
think
I'm
trying
to
articulate
or
my
proposal.
Maybe
it
could
be
amended,
it
could
be.
E
AI
A
You,
okay
before
I,
ask
the
thank
you
very
much
before
I.
Ask
the
committee
chair
to
to
respond.
Does
anyone
move
the
amendment
on
her
behalf?
Anybody
remember:
okay,
Kristen
Hickman
does
so
then
Roxanne.
What's
your
thought
about
the
amendment
I'm.
N
This
thank
you
so
I.
Let
me
try
to
be
more
specific
about
what
types
of
Records
we
are
trying
to
include
and
then
perhaps
that
clarifies
where
the
line
should
be.
There
are
cases
in
which
the
DC
circuit
has
concluded
the
general
counsel's.
Decisions
of
certain
kinds
are
not
exempt
because
they
have
an
actual
binding
effect.
So
if
I
can
provide
an
example
or
two-
and
these
are
detailed,
I
recognize-
you
may
not
have
gotten
to
the
very
specifics
on
page
80
to
84
of
our
report,
but.
A
Margaret
Mark,
if
I
stop
you
right
there,
because
we're
out
of
time
do
I,
have
unanimous
consent
to
use
the
last
10
minutes
that
we
have
no
objection
so
adopted,
go
ahead.
Margaret
I'm,
sorry,.
N
So
one
example
comes
from
the
maritime
Administration
there's
a
an
administrative
order
that
delegates
to
general
counsel,
The
Authority
under
various
statutes,
where
the
agency
officials
must
obtain
legal
clearance
from
the
chief
Council
before
taking
certain
actions
and
exercise
of
that
agency's
Authority
under
those
statutes
and
those
were
routinely
made
available
to
the
public,
and
then
they
stopped
being
made
available
in
a
court
order
that
they
were
not
exempt
because
they
were
in
fact
binding,
and
these
were
not
just
legal
advice
but
actually
legal
clearance
that
had
to
be
obtained
in
order
to
act.
N
A
similar
situation
occurred
in
two
different
sets
of
orders
from
the
IRS,
where
the
agency
General
Council
opinions
were
classified
as
legal
materials,
not
just
deliberative
or
not
just
advice
and
outside
of
privilege.
These
included
field
service
advice,
memoranda
and
general
account
so
memos
that
were
the
subject
of
DC
circuit
opinions.
N
These
are
documents
prepared
in
the
national
office
in
response
to
requests
from
field
attorneys,
but
they
are
in
fact
binding
in
that
way,
and
so
these
are
sort
of
bodies
of
law
that
come
from
the
general
counsel's
office
that
are
not
simply
advice
and
that
have
been
deemed
to
be
have
that
effect
of
the
agency's
sort
of
final
decision
in
a
matter
and
not
advice.
So
perhaps
adding
that
binds
the
public
or
an
agency
official
or
The
Binding
in
some
other
way,
but
I
I'm
not
sure.
N
Actually,
that
binding,
the
public
works
for
the
kinds
of
records
that
we
found,
the
D
that
the
courts
have
been
declaring
not
to
be
exempt,
and
that
in
fact
could
constitute
the
agency's
working
law
in
a
particular
case
and
so
I'm
not
sure.
If
that
completely
answers,
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
sure
this
amendment
actually
gets
at
the
records
would
get
at
the
records
that,
in
our
research,
we
concluded
should
be
part
of
the
proactive
disclosure
requirements
because
they
are
working
law
of
the
agency.
According
to
the
courts.
M
So
what
I'm
hearing
is
this
is
much
more
complex
than
the
next
minute
is
going
to
resolve.
I,
don't
know
if
we
want
to
strike
this
completely
or
my
other
trying
to
resolve
I
feel
like
this
is
too
important
to
try
to
resolve
in
a
very
short
amount
of
time,
because
a
couple
of
Courts
have
interpreted
things
in
a
certain
way.
M
We
haven't
really
been
able
to
have
the
time
to
delve
in
if
we
want
to
accept
that
as
the
standard
that
we
want
to
apply
to
all
agencies
in
all
places,
so
I
I
just
want
to
take
a
step
back
a
moment,
and
so
maybe
what
I'm
hearing
here
is
when
it's
illegal
action
that
is
basically
acting
as
a
final
agency
action
or
a
decision
document
that
binds
the
public
or
an
agency
official.
That's
what
you're
trying
to
capture.
A
F
M
That
true,
then,
maybe
we
can
come
up
Amendment
with
it,
but
if
not
I
would
just
move
that.
We
just
strike
this
whole
provision
right
now,
because
it's
going
to
cause
us
there's
a
lot
of
unintended
consequences
here
right
now
that
I'm
seeing
that
really
need
to
be
thought
out
before
I
feel
comfortable.
By
putting
this
recommendation
in
here.
E
A
He's
it
was
Warren
Belfort.
He
said
that
he
had
he
had
another
amendment
and
he
apologized
for
that.
He
shouldn't
be
speaking
now
so
I'm.
Looking
for
any
other
debate
on
the
Hickman
Amendment
to
the
lead
paragraph,
eight.
A
N
N
I
think
that
might
as
a
legally
binding
address
the
concern,
because
that
would
take
off
the
table,
the
sort
of
advice
and,
and
maybe,
if
it
wasn't
directed
at
a
particular
person.
It
would
simply
eliminate
this
confusion.
AI
Think
agencies
will
construe
it
very,
very
I
think
as
you
intending
very
narrowly
where
it
is
the
only
statement
by
the
agency
of
that
position
and
I
think
it's
imperative
that
this
point
be
made
in
the
Preamble,
because
statements
by
The,
General
Counsel
are
often
seen
to
be
quote
binding
on
agency
personnel,
whether
as
a
matter
of
law,
they
actually
are
so
in
short,
I
can
live
with
that
Amendment
and
I
appreciate
that
although
I
I'm,
not
at
all
speaking
for
any
government
member
I,
think
that
there
should
be
Clarity
in
the
Preamble.
Thank.
I
I'm
Ron
Cass
council
member
I.
C
A
A
Okay,
all
right
so
we're
voting
on
The,
Margaret
Poca
Amendment
to
the
Kristen
Hickman
Amendment,
you
can't
vote.
Oh
then,
I
didn't
I,
didn't
mention
you
earlier
to
recuse
Emily,
okay,
the
Bremer
Amendment
to
the
Hickman
Amendment
Kristen.
You
want
to
be
heard.
No!
No!
Okay!
Can
we
have
unanimous
consent?
Give
that
a
try,
any
objections:
Carol,
you're,
good,
okay,
I,
see
no
objection,
we'll
pass
the
grammar
Amendment
to
the
Hickman
Amendment
as
written
by
Margaret
and
Ron.
Thank
you
very
much.
Okay,
we're
we're!
A
Almost
out
of
time
now
and
Warren
you're
going
to
be
the
last
Amendment.
S
Warren
Bellmore
senior
fellow
I
share
Dan
Cohen's
concern
with
item
nine
has
explained
to
us:
we've
only
drafted
legislation
once
and
it
looks
like
we're
now
going
to
embark
on
a
process
of
doing
it
more
than
once
and
so
I
would
suggest
changing
the
language
in
section
9
by
it
currently
reads
the
conferences
Office
of
the
chair
shall
prepare,
and
and
after
the
end,
I'd
suggest,
adding
comma
subject
to
council
approval
and
any
other
executive
branch
requirements
and
then
continue
submit
to
Congress
proposed
statutory
changes
consistent
with
this
regulation.
S
A
You
clarify
executive
branch
requirements,
it's
a
big
executive
branch.
You
mean.
S
Or
others
I
I
don't
know,
but
it
could
be
olc.
It
could
be
OMB
if
no
one
comes
forward
to
say
it
in
clear
with
us,
we'll
know
who
they
are.
A
On
this
drafting,
which,
as
a
practical
matter,
you
know
again,
the
the
hill
will
ask
us
for
a
specific
language
and
I
would
I
would
oppose
limiting
acus's
ability
to
to
draft
and
submit
with
input
from
everyone
or
I
I
would
opposed
get
having
to
get
a
yes
or
no
from
OMB,
which
we
may
run
it
by
them
anyway,
but
I
wouldn't
want
to
make
it
a
condition.
A
V
Can
just
jump
in
since
Warren
Warren
is
following
my
thoughts.
You
know
in
all
honesty,
acos
is
no
different
from
any
other
executive
branch
agency.
In
that
regard
there
are
OMB
circulars
that
apply
to
the
approval
process
for
a
legislative
legislative
proposals
from
any
executive
branch
agency.
I
know
Steph
said
earlier
that
OMB
you
know
it
sought
to
take
a
pass
on
this
one,
but
acus
is
a
as
an
entity
isn't
different
from
any
other
executive
branch
agency.
In
that
regard,
I.
W
A
And
and
as
Jeremy
points
out
very
articulately,
the
the
authorizing
statute
itself
gives
us
Power
to
make
independent
recommendations
to
to
the
Congress,
which
we
will
not
do
in.
In
this
case,
we
may
run
it
by
OMB,
but
you
know
I
don't
want
to
have
their
their
technical
stuff.
You
know
prevent
us
from
from
moving
your
the
assemblies
will
on
this.
So.
V
Just
to
follow
that
Jeff
lovers
and
I
have
been
having
sort
of
a
sidebar
conversation
on
this
dude.
That's
not
unique
to
acus.
There
are
other
agencies
with
similar
legislative
executive
branch
agencies
with
similar
legislative
directions,
and
those
proposals
are
subject
to
OMD
review.
Just
just
it's
just
a
fact
of
that.
We
don't
need
to
bog
down
on
this.
It's
just
the
fact.
I
know.
Steph
has
her
hand.
At
least
you
know
they.
A
Okay,
we're
done
we're
we're
out
of
time,
so
we're
gonna
have
to
leave
it
there
with
this
last
amendment
by
by
Dan
that
Warren
articulated
no,
we
have
we're
going
to
vote
on
the
amendment.
B
A
AJ
Yes,
I'd
be
recognized
for
one
second
I
think
this
is
inconsistent
with
the
statute
concerning
the
council
role
here.
This
is
not.
This
is
not
a
role
contemplated
by
the
statute
for
the
council,
so
that
would
be
another
concern
that
I
think
the
assembly
should
be
aware
of
before
voting
on
this.
Thank.
A
You
Matt,
okay,
so
I,
don't
think
we're
going
to
get
unanimous
consent
on
this.
So
let's
try
a
Voice
vote.
All
those
in
favor
of
the
Dan
Cohen
Amendment,
please
say:
yay
all
those
opposed,
nay,
nay,
okay,
the
Nays
clearly
have
it.
The
cone
amendment
is
not
adopted.
A
Okay,
I
would
just
the
last
bit
of
business
is
a
final
vote
on
the
on
the
whole
recommendation.
As
amended
Alan.
We
can't
go
into
more
amendments.
You
don't
have
time
we're
out
of
time.
It
would
be
unauthorized.
A
So
with
that,
let's
go
to
a
vote
on
the
recommendation
as
amended
Voice
vote.
First,
all
those
in
favor
of
adopting
the
recommendations
say:
aye
aye,
all
those
opposed,
nay,
nay,
okay,
the
eyes
have
it.
The
recommendation
is
adopted
as
amended.
Thank
you
very
much.
It's
not
yet
lunchtime
we're
gonna
move
on
to
another
recommendation,
but
let's
take
a
couple
of
minutes.
A
break
don't
go
far.
B
A
Okay,
our
second
recommendation
is
called
virtual
public
engagement
and
agency
rulemaking,
which
comes
to
us
from
the
committee
on
on
rulemaking
for
their
work
on
this
recommendation.
I'd
like
to
thank
virtual
Ross,
the
chair
of
the
committee
and
attorney
advisor
Naja
kowaki,
who
served
as
in-house
researcher
and
staff
Council.
This
is
one
of
the
ones
where
the
staff
did
both
the
trial.
Are
you
there.
A
Great
we'll
hear
from
Kaiser
first
on
the
report
and
then
we're
trial.
Please,
on
the
committee
considerations,
the
proceedings.
AH
Hi
everyone
Kajun
novotsky
attorney
advisor
Aegis,
so
I
conducted
the
research
for
this
report,
similar
to
what
Margaret
had
said
earlier.
My
charge
from
acus
was
to
prepare
a
report
that
identified
best
practices
to
promote
enhanced
transparency,
accessibility
and
accountability.
When
agencies
use
Virtual
tools
to
engage
in
various
types
of
public
engagement
sessions
in
the
process
of
rulemakings,
it
encourages
agencies
to
structure
virtual
public
engagements
in
a
way
that
meets
public
expectations
and
promotes
valuable
input
for
agency
decision
makers.
AH
AH
AH
AH
In
some
cases,
for
example,
the
subheading
would
include
public
participation,
information
about
90
Pages
after
the
initial
heading,
which
meant
that
any
participants
would
have
to
scroll
through
the
entire
Federal
Register,
just
to
find
an
Access,
Link
or
any
type
of
access
information,
for
example,
for
the
unclear
purpose
or
goal
of
virtual
engagements.
AH
This
was
also
not
always
communicated
and
something
that
I've
thought
would
be
very
important
for
participants
in
terms
of
being
able
to
communicate
how
the
agency
expected
to
utilize
that
type
of
input
and
whether
or
not
there
were
any
types
of
speaking
procedures
such
as
time
limits,
whether
questions
would
be
asked
or
answered,
and
what
educational
resources
would
be
available
at
those
types
of
sessions
as
well.
AH
And
lastly,
there
was
a
very
interesting
siloing
of
departments
that
I
came
across
in
my
interviews,
meaning
that
certain
types
of
regulatory
offices
that
prepare
these
rulemaking
notices
weren't
always
communicating
with
the
offices
of
public
engagement
or
public
relations
or
similar
types
of
offices.
So
that
informed
my
report
and
my
recommendation
or
if
the
committee's
recommendation
I
should
say
so
I
will
turn
it
over
to
birchall.
Now,
who
is
virtual
I
believe
yes,.
L
I
am
thanks:
Kaja
I,
guess
this
is
a
Time
For,
That
Old
Canard
about
me,
being
the
only
person
that
stands
between
you
and
lunch,
but
I
realize
that's
only
partially
true,
because
you
also
stand
between
you
and
lunch.
So
that's
so
there
is
that
for
for
consideration,
going
forward,
I'll
say
that
the
rulemaking
committee
had
two
very
productive
meetings:
they're,
perhaps
less
spirited
than
the
prior
committee's
meetings
that
we
discussed,
but
equally
robust,
I'm
sure
the
focal
point
of
the
recommendations
as
as
Kaja
has
put
forth
in
her
report.
L
You
know
we're
thinking
about
the
committee
was
thinking
about
how
do
we,
you
know
in
a
sense,
enhance
opportunities
for
public
engagement
with
rule
making,
and
the
recommendation
does
not
seek
to
change
or
diminish,
pre-existing
forms
of
public
engagement
or
shift
pre-existing
forms
of
public
engagement
to
Virtual
forms.
L
L
The
recommendations
also
seek
to
recognize
the
logistical
costs
and
other
feasibility
considerations
that
agencies
face
in
terms
of
implementing
the
virtual
public
engagement
options
and
the
recommendations
and,
as
chair
of
the
rulemaking
committee,
I,
think
the
proposed
amendment
from
the
council
that
add
the
use
of
the
term
generally
in
two
parts
of
the
recommendation
or
as
the
agency
resources,
allow
quote
unquote
in
another
part,
reinforce
what
we
as
a
committee
were
trying
to
do
in
terms
of
recognizing
that
all
agencies
might
not
be
well
positioned
to
adopt
and
Implement
all
of
the
virtual
engagement
tools
that
we
suggest.
L
So
the
recommendation
includes
a
preamble
of
course,
and
three
topic
areas:
virtual
public
engagement
planning
management,
virtual
public
engagements
and
third
recording
and
transcripts
and
I'll
I'll
open
or
you
know,
turn
it
over
to
Andy
to
open
the
floor
and
I'd
be
happy
to
address
any
questions.
At
any
point.
A
AJ
A
Seeing
none
I
will
find
by
unanimous
consent
that
the
manager's
amendment
is
adopted
before
we
get
to
council
amendments.
Any
general
discussion
on
the
recommendation
itself.
AK
I
feel
with
all
that,
build
up,
I
would
say
something
really
good.
Fernando
laguardo,
council
member
for
General,
discussion
and
I.
Think
I
will
try
to
figure
out
how
to
propose
an
amendment.
I
strongly
support
this
work
and
I
I
felt
that
the
proposal
was
very
well
done.
What
I,
don't
see
and
I
think
is
important.
Somehow
to
note
is
frequently
when
institutions
make
accommodations
generally
for
populations
that
are
excluded.
They
tend
to
default,
to
imposing
the
cost
of
the
accommodation
on
the
excluded
group,
for
example,
accessibility.
AK
The
first,
the
default
of
many
managers
is
to
figure
out
a
way
to
you
know,
impose
the
cost
of
an
accommodation
on
the
employee,
who's
seeking
the
accommodation
rather
than
absorbing
it
into
the
cost
of
the
Enterprise
and
I
I.
Don't
think
we
were
trying
to
do
that
here,
we're
not
trying
to
say
that
to
make
proceedings
more
open,
there
should
be
costs
that
can
be
recouped
from
those
who
need
to
have
barriers
lowered,
but
I
think
it's
an
important
point
that
should
be
made
somewhere
in
here
and
and
otherwise.
AK
I
think
the
work
is
very
well
done
to
point
out
all
the
ways
in
which
these
recommendations
can
help,
but
they
don't
make
clear
that
you
know
by
making
something
technologically
accessible
there
shouldn't
be
a
fee
associated
with
it
for
the
privilege
of
being
able
to
participate
because
you
otherwise
wouldn't
be
able
to
and
I
do
think.
There
are
other
points
and
subsequent
recommendations
that
I
want
to
also
include
that
General
type
of
amendment,
but
I
want
to
make
it
also
here
as
a
general
point.
So
thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
Fernando.
Anyone,
one
else.
V
AL
David
Lewis
public
member
I
just
have
a
question
for
the
for
the
committee.
The
first
is,
if
there's
any
evidence
that
expanding
participation
in
this
way
actually
works,
that
is,
are
more
people
actually
likely
to
participate,
because
it
does
impose
a
burden
on
the
agency
to
to
do
additional
meetings.
AL
This
way-
and
the
second
question
is
related
to
that
which
is
there-
was
discussion
in
the
report
about
registration
requirements
and
doing
away
with
those
and
I
do
wonder
whether
the
registration
requirements
also
have
a
virtue,
in
the
sense
that
they
allow
agencies
to
plan
for
how
many
people
are
likely
to
come.
AL
If
people
are
gonna
are
gonna,
come
at
all
and
the
reason
I
say
this
is
you
know
if
there's
main
lobsterment
that
you
think
are
going
to
participate
in
rulemaking
if
they're
going
to
overcome
the
burden
of
participating
in
a
public
meeting,
they
probably
already
were
going
to
overcome
the
burden
by
participating
by
submitting
a
written
comment,
either
on
their
own
volition
or
at
the
volition
of
another
group.
L
I'll
just
speak
briefly
and
I'll
turn
over
to
kanja,
because
she
did
the
the
line
share
of
the
work
in
terms
of
engaging
agencies,
but
I
imagine
it
might
be
hard
to
know
on
the
first
question
whether
it
actually
works,
I
think
virtual
public
engagement
became
more
of
a
prominent
feature
of
rulemaking
processes
during
the
pandemic,
and
you
know
circumstances
were
quite
you
know
it's
difficult
to
compare
the
circumstances
during
the
pandemic
to
what
might
be
happening
post-pandemic
so
because
you
might
have
more
information
as
to
whether
you
know
there's
increased
public
engagement
post
pandemic
with
the
virtual
tools,
but
that's
all
I'll
say
about
that.
AH
Thank
you,
I'm
actually
going
to
address
your
second
question
first,
so
you
had
mentioned
the
registration
requirements,
so
registration
requirements
were
usually
required
if
somebody
wanted
to
speak
or
attend
as
a
participant.
The
recommendation
and
I
believe
the
reports
still
kind
of
emphasized
that
distinction
between
just
attending
as
a
participant.
If
you're
attending
as
a
participant,
for
example,
there
shouldn't
be
a
registration
requirement,
meaning
that
you
can
join
a
live
stream
link
and
that
that
doesn't
really
cause
any
type
of
burden
on
on
the
agency.
AH
If
they're
already
doing
a
live
stream
link,
whereas
you
know
the
zoom,
for
example,
might
cap
out
at
250
participants,
they
might
want
to
do
a
registration
deadline
for
that
and
the
recommendation
does
clarify
that
as
well
with
the
first
one.
You
know,
I
I
tend
to
agree
with
virtual
in
that
you
know
we're
just
coming
off
the
pandemic
and
I
think
agencies
are
are
kind
of
reverting
now
back
to
this
hybrid
situation
and
I.
AH
Don't
think
it's
entirely
clear
whether
or
not
one
worked
better
or
the
other,
whether
or
not
they're
reaching
more
people,
but
it
does
seem
that
they
are
reaching
different
audiences
in
some
capacity,
and
the
ability
for
people
to
join
last
minute
based
on
the
ease
of
access
is
also
something
that
some
agencies
have
noted
so
I
think
generally,
what
I've
heard
from
agencies
is
the
the
benefits
definitely
outweigh
the
marginal
costs.
A
B
A
B
A
Well
as
footnotes,
six
seven
and
ten
language
emphasizing
accessibility
requirements
with
which
agencies
must
apply.
It
borrows
language
from
our
our
acaces
2021
recommendation
on
Virtual
hearings
in
agency
adjudication.
The
proposed
amendment
would
also
acknowledge
that
the
use
of
use
of
video
conferencing
may
present
barriers
for
some
people,
and
this
may
be
where
Fernando,
when
the
time
comes,
can
can
insert
something
just
think
just
thinking
this
was
a
council
Amendment.
It
was
proposed
by
Kristen
Clark,
the
Assistant
Attorney
General
for
the
Civil
Rights
division.
A
She
feels
very
passionate
about
issues
of
of
exclusion
and
access
and
and
language
differences,
so
I
will
sort
of
offer
it
through
the
Council
on
on
her
behalf.
She
might
have
been
here
this
morning
online
for
a
little
bit,
but
she
said
she
had
to
go
at
11,
30,
so
she's,
certainly
not
here.
A
Bertrude
you
have
and
and
and
what
we
did
was
we
worked
with
her
and
got
approval
of
the
council
for
for
this
language
and
this
amendment
for
trial.
Any
concerns
with
this
no.
L
Objections,
I
I,
agree
completely
with
the
spirit
of
what
it's
trying
to
say.
The
only
I
guess
slight
concern
I
have
is
perhaps
it
I
don't
know
if
this
would
lead
agencies
to
feel
that
perhaps
they
shouldn't
attempt
to
adopt
virtual
public
engagement
modes
because
of
these
accessibility
concerns
and
just
to
make,
if
there's
a
way
to
make
clear
that
we're
again
not
trying
to
take
away
any
pre-existing
forms
of
Engagement
we're
seeking
to
add
another
form
of
Engagement.
L
But
the
point
being
that
you
know
these
form
of
engagements,
ideally,
would
be
you
know
accessible
to
to
marginalized
communities,
particularly
those
with
disabilities
and
and
people
in
rural
areas,
and
so
I
I
agree
again
with
the
spirit
but
I
I
don't
want
to
dissuade
agencies
from
necessarily
adopting
if
it's
feasibly
possible
virtual
public
engagement
opportunities.
A
Okay,
so
do
you
want
to
offer
any
any
language
by
way
of
amendment
or
just
a
general
point,
just.
L
A
Okay,
nope
nothing
from
Kaiser.
Okay,
any
debate
on
this
First
Council
Amendment,
any
amendments
to
the
amendment.
Okay,
then
I,
ask
you
that
a
jack
Biermann
online
Jack
go
ahead.
G
I
asked
to
be
recognized
on
on
numbers
two
and
four,
not
on
not
on
this
one.
Okay,.
A
We'll
get
to
those
then
again
going
to
unanimous
consent.
Does
anyone
have
any
objection
to
adoption
of
the
amendment.
A
Seeing
none
the
amendment
will
be
adopted
by
unanimous
consent.
Thank
you
very
much.
Council
amendment
number
two
is
in
paragraph
one.
It
would
change.
Each
agency
is
quote
each
agency
that
engages
in
rulemaking
should
utilize
video
conferencing
to
newquote
agencies
that
engage
in
rule
making
generally
should
utilize
video
conferencing.
The
proposed
amendment
would
recognize
that
in
some
circumstances,
the
costs
of
video
conferencing
as
a
way
to
broaden
public
engagement
May
outweigh
the
benefits.
G
Okay,
all
right
jack,
you
said
number
two:
there
you
go
yes,
I
this.
The
word
generally
was
inserted
here
and
then
also
in
Council
Amendment,
two
in
order
to
make
the
point
that
Reese,
oh,
that
that
about
available
resources
and
in
both
cases,
I,
would
use
language
about
available
resources
rather
than
the
word
generally
in
this
use
of
the
word
generally.
It's
also
confusion
because
there
are
sort
of
they're
late.
G
There
are
agencies
that
use
rulemaking
generally
and
agencies
that
use
adjudication
generally,
and
so
this
is
a
this,
creates
some
confusion
about
what
the
aim
of
this
whole
recommendation
is.
So
I
would
change
this
to
agencies.
It's
hard
for
me
to
read
this
with
all
these
with
these
amendments,
but
agencies
that
engage
in
rulemaking
should
subject
to
available
resources,
utilize
internet-based
video
conferencing
and
take
out
the
word
generally.
G
I
Ron
Cass,
council
member,
my
only
hesitation
is
that
it's
really
a
question
of
balancing
the
costs
and
benefits,
rather
than
looking
just
at
costs
alone.
So
I
think
if
we
say
subject
to
available
resources
that
captures
one
side
of
it,
but
I'm
not
sure
it
fully
captures.
It.
I
appreciate
Jack's
point
that
we.
That
generally,
is
a
bit
unclear
as
to
how.
C
AM
I
want
Eloise
public
member
I,
wonder
if
one
way
to
resolve
Jack's
concern
and
accommodate
this
is
just
to
flip.
Where
generally
appears
right,
if
Jack's
concern
is
rulemaking
generally
or
adjudication
generally
and
that's
ambiguous,
what
if
it
just
says
rulemaking
should
generally
and
then
that
allows
it
distinguishes
agencies.
It
clarifies
this
whole
question
about.
Are
you
generally
using
rulemaking
or
generally
using
it
and
allows
what
Ron
says?
Okay,
maybe
he
doesn't
like
it,
but
that
was
one
proposal
to
resolve
this
issue.
B
B
I
A
I
A
Okay,
one
more
Helen.
AE
M
M
Maybe
then,
by
offering
video
conferencing
you've
actually
taken
away
an
ability
for
them
to
effectively
engage
with
the
agency,
as
opposed
to
if
we
had
gone
there
in
person
and
had
a
had
a
a
meeting
with
them,
so
I
think
having
that
generally
keeps
all
those
options
of
things
that
we're
looking
at,
not
just
what
it
was.
The
cost
of
us
doing.
The
video
conferencing
so
I
support
keeping
generally
in
there.
A
Yeah
all
right
jack.
Do
you
have
any
thoughts
on
what
you've
heard.
G
G
So
what
about
agencies
that
Inc
that
engage
in
rulemaking
should,
when
feasible
and
appropriate
utilize
internet-based
video
conferencing
that
that
captures
the
resource
ability
issue
and
also
the
appropriateness
issue
about
the
appropriate
use
of
resources
and
the
audience
that
you
need
to
that?
You
want
to
engage.
A
Hey
everyone:
what
do
you
think
of
that?
Ron's?
Okay,
with
that
Eloise,
good,
Ellen,
good,
okay,
anybody
else
have
any
thoughts
on
that,
if
not,
let's
go
to
unanimous
consent.
Good
job,
Jack
I
appreciate
your
your
sensitivity
to
the
other
thoughts,
so
any
objection
to
damage
consent.
A
Seeing
none
will
adopt
this
amendment
as
amend
amended
by
Jack
when
feasible
and
appropriate.
Thank
you
all.
A
The
third
Council
amendment
is
in
paragraph
6
F
and
adds
services
such
as
to
clarify
that
the
list
of
services
provided
is
not
exclusive
ritual.
What's
the
committee's
view
on
this.
A
A
Anybody
else
thought
I
saw
another
hand
nope.
Okay,
then
the
amendment
is
is
adopted
by
unanimous
consent.
Thank
you
very
much.
Council
number.
Four.
Amendment
number
four
adds
the
word
generally.
There's
that
word
in
paragraph
seven
to
recognize
that
the
costs
of
creating
a
dedicated
webpage
for
each
public
rulemaking
engagement,
May
in
some
circumstances,
outweigh
the
benefits
of
doing
so
but
trial.
You
wanted
to
weigh
in
on
this,
for
the
committee.
L
We're
we're
we
support
the
language.
I
I
think
that,
to
the
extent
that
Jack's
amendment
in
a
sense
moves
down
as
well
here
to
include
appropriate
and
feasible
I,
think
that
the
committee
would
be
supportive
of
that
change
as
well.
A
Okay,
so
the
amendment
is
generally
is,
is
not
adopted,
but
instead
appropriate
and
feasible.
Any
reaction
on
on
that
Amendment
to
the
amendment.
I
A
Yes,
yes,
I'm.
Sorry
I
was
just
looking
down
at
my
notes.
Okay,
anybody
else
discussion
on
this.
Yes,.
AJ
A
A
Okay,
okay,
Ronin
and
Jack:
let's
start
with
you
Ron.
What
do
you
think
of
that.
I
C
A
I
AB
Dave
rosker
liaison
I'm
actually
going
to
speak
in
opposition
to
the
amendment
in
general.
If
an
agency
is
going
to
be
engaging
in
any
kind
of
regular
Outreach
to
the
public
by
these
kinds
of
means,
they're
going
to
be
in
a
situation
where
they
should
have
a
regular
process
for
posting
information
online
and
I.
Don't
think
we
want
to
create
a
situation
where
the
agency,
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
decides
whether
or
not
to
create
this
kind
of
public
notice
of
its
rule-making
engagements.
AB
A
Okay,
all
right,
Michael
Hertz,
you
see
recognition.
C
Michael
Hertz
public
member,
no
I
was
going
to
make
exactly
the
same
point
that
Ron
did
and
Ron
Levin
did
and
I
agree
that,
given
that
point
generally
works
better
than
in
the
absence
of
resource
constraints,
blah
blah
blah
but
but
I
also
stand
with
with
rosker
and
saying
just
get
rid
of
generally
as
well.
For
exactly
the
reasons
he
gave.
H
I
I
would
simply
say
here
that
the
question
isn't
whether
there
should
be
information
made
available.
Question
is
whether
you
should
have
a
dedicated
web
page
for
each
of
these
particular
things,
and
that
it
is
the
the
specific
way
of
providing
the
information
rather
than
the
notion
of
providing
the
information
that
is
being
addressed.
I
J
Kristen
Hickman
public
member.
Having
listened
to
all
of
this
conversation,
I
can
live
with
generally,
but
I,
don't
like
any
of
the
other
changes
so
I
suppose
it
depends
on
what
the
content
of
the
amendment
ends
up
being,
whether
I
will
vote
for
it
or
against
it.
I'll
either
go
with
no
change
at
all
or
I'll
live
with
generally.
A
G
Thank
you,
yeah
I
think
the
problem
is
the
whole
word
generally
was
meant
to
to
raise
the
question
of
whether
resources
would
be
available
to
have
a
separate
web
page
I
assume
that
any
of
this
virtual
engagement
would
have
to
be
available
somewhere
on
the
agency's
website.
Otherwise
they
wouldn't
be
really
doing
virtual
engagement.
G
I
mean
it's,
so
it
seems
to
me
that
we're
really
talking
about
whether
they
have
a
dedicated
web
page
or
make
it
available
otherwise
on
their
website,
and
so
it
see
something
like
to
encourage
participation
in
public
rulemaking
engagement
in
public
roommate
engagement.
The
agency
should
create
a
dedicated
weight,
should
make
available
this
information
I
I'm,
having
trouble
drafting
on
the
fly,
but
should
create
a
dedicated
web
page
or
make
available
on
its
website
for
each
such
engagement.
G
The
the
information
described
in
paragraph
six,
something
a
dedicated
web
page
for
each
side
for
each
such
engagement
should
come
after
the
word
web
page
and
then
or
otherwise,
make
available
on
its
website
the
information
described
in
paragraph
six.
That
would
be.
That
would
be
that's
my
suggestion.
A
Okay,
I'm
gonna
go
to
betrayal
Jack.
Why
don't
you
try
to
narrow
that
down
because
you're
going
to
be
the
first
amendment
in
the
in
the
queue
for.
L
L
But
what
I
learned
from
kaja's
Consulting
report
is
that
you
know
often
the
information
about
when
these
virtual
engagements
were
occurring
and
all
of
the
details
about
them
were
hard
to
find
and
so
to
the
extent
that
there
is
a
dedicated
web
page,
you
make
the
whole
process
more
accessible
and
so
I'd
be
reluctant
to
provide
an
either
or
option
without
at
least
encouraging
one.
The
dedicated
webpage
over
the
alternative.
AH
Thanks
so,
and
thank
you
bertroll
as
well,
I
just
want
to
offer
that
it
as
somebody
that
is,
you
know
very
in
tune
with
what
agencies
are
doing.
It
was
very
hard
to
find
information
on
their
websites
about
public
rulemaking
engagements,
and
it
was
also
located
in
various
different
places.
Sometimes
it
would
be
in
their
events
calendar.
Sometimes
it
would
be
in
their
rulemaking
or
regulations.
Sometimes
it
would
be
somewhere
else
completely.
AH
O
I
would
be
in
favor
of
not
having
any
of
these
edits
just
going
back
to
the
original
language.
Our
agency
has
a
dedicated
web
page
for
every
one
of
our
rulemakings
and
it
is
not
expensive.
It
is
not
difficult.
It's
super
easy
and
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
A
Okay,
this
is
what
I
want
to
do.
We're
going
to
vote
on
the
council.
Amendment
number
four
to
insert
generally.
If,
if
that
carries
then
that'll
be
it.
If
it
fails,
then
we'll
try,
the
other
iterations.
Does
that
make
sense?
A
Okay,
so
I
don't
think
we're
going
to
get
unanimous
consent.
So
let's
call
for
a
Voice
vote
on
Council
amendment
number.
Four,
all
those
in
favor
say
yay,
all
those
opposed,
nay,
nay,
okay,
I
think
that's
pretty
close,
but
can
we
do
it?
Do
it
again,
please
all
those
in
favor
say
yay
opposed.
U
A
All
right,
the
news,
the
news
habit
that
that
was
pretty
clear,
the
second
time
all
right,
Jack,
let's
start
with
you,
what's
what's
your
substitute
language,
no.
A
How
about
you
Ron
Levin
same
thing,
all
right
and
Dave?
Okay,
all
right
by
Voice
vote.
The
amendment
is
not
adopted.
A
Council
amendment
number
five
Fifth
and
count
the
fifth
and
final
Council
amendment
is
in
paragraph
12.
It
proposes
adding
quote
as
agency
resources
allow
to
the
beginning
of
the
sentence
to
acknowledge
that
agencies
will
need
to
consider
their
available
resources
in
providing
support
for
these
engagements.
A
Seeing
none
anybody
in
the
anybody
in
the
virtual
nope,
okay,
Ron's
Iran
Cass-
is
good
on
behalf
of
the
council.
Can
we
go
to
unanimous
consent
vote
on
this?
Anybody
object
to
adoption
by
unanimous
consent,
seeing
no
objection
council.
Member
number
five
is
adopted
by
unanimous
consent.
Okay,
thank
you.
We
we
had
no
pre-submitted
amendments
for
this
or
or
comments,
so
we
can
move
to
amendments
from
the
floor.
A
AN
Pritzker
special
counsel,
so
I
I
can't
introduce
an
amendment,
but
I
have
a
suggestion.
If
anyone
else
agrees
with
me
concerning
paragraph
five
saying
to
it,
the
agency
to
ensure
the
engagement
reaches
the
targeted
audience
and
I
stumbled
over
that
phrase,
the
targeted
audience,
because
that
suggests
that
they
have
particular
people
in
mind
and
that
I
think
what
the
recommendation
overall
is
about
is
broader
than
looking
for
particular
people.
AN
I,
don't
have
any
problem
with
the
preambular
language
that
talks
about
the
same
thing,
but
I
I
would
suggest
a
line
73
and
74
rewording
it
as
follows.
For
the
agency
to
ensure
the
engagement
reaches
the
potentially
interested
audience
and
facilitates
effective
participation
from
those
persons,
including
groups
that
are
affected
by
the
rulemaking
and
may
otherwise
have
been
underrepresented
in
the
agency's
administrative
process.
The
Preamble
has
has
the
same
phrase:
I
have
at
the
end
may
have
been
underrepresented
and
it
seems
to
me
it's
not
a
particular
Target.
A
AN
A
AK
B
L
L
I
just
want
to
express
in
my
position
that
I
I
do
support
this.
This
particular
change
I
think
it's
clear
and
it
also
reflects
the
view
of
the
committee
about
making
public
rulemaking
engagements
broadly
accessible,
not
accessible
to
just
particular
individuals.
A
Okay,
Jack
Baron:
you
want
to
be
recognized.
A
Hold
that
we'll
hold
that
off
all
right.
Anybody
else
on
the
David
pritzker,
three
Ron
Cass
Amendment.
H
AB
AN
David
pritzker
special
counsel,
I
agree
with
with
with
objection
to
audience
and
suggestions,
then
reaches
the
potentially
interested
public.
A
That's
fine,
okay,
Ron
you're
the
proponent
here.
What
do
you
think
last
word.
I
I'm
fine
with
that,
but
it
may
be
potentially
to
say,
reach
is
potentially
interested
members
of
the
public
because
the
the
public
is
sort
of
a
a
broad
amorphous
term.
A
A
See
no
objection.
We
will
adopt
the
amendment
as
amended
by
unanimous
consent:
okay,
again
Jack
Biermann,
let's
go
to
you
for
on
pre-submitted.
G
Amendments
from
the
floor,
yeah
and
I
I'm,
sorry
for
not
pre-submitting
I
just
was
traveling
and
I
didn't
have
time
to
do
it
on
time.
But
can
we
go
to
line
10,
104,
107
and
109
I
think
they
could
all
show
up
at
the
same
time,
I
just
think
that
in
C
d
and
e
we
should
also
add
the
words
a
link
to
at
the
beginning,
I
think
it's
self-explanatory.
A
Okay,
Patrol
Roxanne.
A
C
G
Oh
I'm,
sorry,
it's
now
line
120.
the
words
at
any
time.
While
it
is
occurring,
I
didn't
understand
that
to
observe
a
live
stream,
it
live
stream
means
it's
while
it's
occurring
so
and
I
don't
I.
Just
it
was
confusing
to
me.
L
Yeah
I
think
that
the
committee
was
just
trying
to
get
out.
They
should
be
able
to
enter
the
live
stream
at
any
point
during
rather
than
having
to
observe
it
from
the
very
beginning,
but
perhaps
the
language
is
unnecessary
to
reflect
that
point.
A
H
G
I
mean
the
language
it
I
I,
think
that
if
you
want
to
communicate
that
they
should
be
able
to
jump
in
in
the
middle,
then
put
I
would
suggest
using
language
saying
that
they
don't
have
to
that.
You
know,
including
jumping
in
in
the
middle,
otherwise
I.
Don't
think
that
the
language
just
doesn't
make
it's
not.
It
doesn't
make
sense
to
me
to
be
perfectly
Frank.
A
L
G
I
I
I
think
it
makes
it
easier
and
clearer
just
to
say
to
allow
interest
to
persons
to
observe
a
live
stream
and
and
and
not
have
the
additional
language
it.
It
seems
to
be.
Unless
this
is
a
common
occurrence,
where
you
say,
observing
a
live
stream,
you
have
to
be
there.
You
know
from
the
the
beginning,
I.
I
Adds
an
unnecessary
complication
to
saying
well
what
the
point
is
here
so.
B
A
AC
A
To
unanimous
consent,
first,
which
we
could
probably
reach
I,
seek
unanimous
consent
to
adopt
the
Biermann
Amendment.
Does
anyone
object
seeing
and
hearing
no
objection?
Jack's
amendment
is
adopted
by
Voice
vote
Jack.
You
have
anything
else.
I'm
done.
Thank
you.
Okay,
sure,
Fernando.
AK
A
L
I
I
guess
I'm
fine,
I,
just
I,
just
even
think
about
or
consider
the
possibility
of
that
cost
I
mean.
Are
we
talking
about
just
about
tangible
costs
or
if
we're
talking
about
more
intangible
costs,
we
might
want
to
make
clear
as
to
what
those
intangible
costs
might
be.
But
if
we're
talking
about
tangible
costs,
I
didn't
really
think
about
material
costs.
I
didn't
really
think
about
the
possibility
of
that
being
assessed
on
the
public.
L
But
if
that's,
you
know
necessary
to
be
included
to
make
that
clear
to
the
agencies
I'm,
for
it.
AH
AK
AH
I,
don't
know
I'm
not
aware
of
any
costs.
Just
in
my
research.
A
Well,
we'll
let
the
if
adopted,
we'll
let
the
committee
on
style
work
with
you
on
on
that
anyone
else
have
thoughts
on
the
laguada
amendment
Roxanne,
when
you
were
first.
O
Roxanne
Rothschild
the
government
member
I,
just
have
a
question
about
the
amendment.
Did
you
did
I
hear
you
say
that
it
should
be
saying
or
recovered
from
participating
members
of
the
public
I
thought
you'd
said
yes,.
AK
AB
The
the
question,
then
the
follow-up
question
then
becomes
whether
or
not
there
should
be
language
to
encourage
agencies
to
minimize
the
costs
of
participation
of
virtual
public
engagement.
But
that
might
be
out
of
scope
from
the
what
the
report
considered.
AK
Take
this
adjusted
language
and
I:
don't
think
that
we
should
add
or
I
I
don't
want
to
further
Complicated
by
adding
seek
to
minimize
or
anything
else.
I.
Think
that's
fine,
but
thank
you
for
the
suggestion.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you
both
anyone
else.
Yes,
we
have
Eloise
best
coffee
services.
AM
Always
pass
a
cup
public
member
I
think
I'm
a
little
concerned
with
the
addition
of
this
on
the
floor.
Although
I
agree
with
the
principle
of
it,
Kaja
didn't
come
up
with
any
instances
of
it
actually
happening
and
I
also
was
under
the
impression
that
agencies
needed
specific
authority
to
charge
costs.
You
know
to
have
fees
for
things
in
general,
so
I'm
a
little
worried
as
a
matter
of
law
that
this
is
taking
us
down
a
line
that
we
don't
have
adequate
research
to
support.
AO
Oh
yeah,
just
chenu
government
member,
just
echoing
that
sentiment
and
I'm,
not
necessarily
the
expert
on
this
but
I,
do
think.
Agencies
would
need
authority
to
charge
such
costs,
and
that
may
be
why
cush
didn't
find
any
examples
of
this
in
the
research
and
additionally,
I
know
under
the
miscellaneous
receipts
act.
Even
if
you
attempted
to
recover
those
costs,
you
know
the
the
whatever
you
collect
would
have
to
go
to
the
treasury
unless
you
had
authority
to
retain
those
funds.
So
I
just
worry
that
maybe
the
language
is
not
necessary
at
this
time.
AP
AP
AK
Thanks
for
that
and
again
I
apologize
for
not
proposing
this
through
the
council
process,
but,
as
I
said
when
we
started
the
conversation
about
the
proposal,
it
struck
me
as
too
important
to
set
aside
for
that
oversight.
I
would
change
assess
to
impose
to
remove
the
the
confusion
about
what
the
verb
means
here?
I
Roncast
council
member
I
I
do
have
a
question
for
Fernando
I
I.
Think
that
assess
is
a
better
term
than
imposed
because
impose
suggests
that
anything
connected
with
this.
That
is
costly
in
any
way,
maybe
forbidden
by
this,
whereas
assess
means
sort
of
a
direct
way
of
imposing
the
costs
rather
than
just
anything
you
do
that
has
them.
V
AK
I
always
will
defer
on
the
grammar
Tehran.
Thank.
A
You,
okay
back
to
assess
and
and
David
I'm
sure
is
fine
with
that.
All
right!
Let's,
oh
here
we
go
I'm.
Sorry.
AQ
Chris
Walker
senior
fellow,
is
I,
don't
know
if
there's
the
votes
for
this,
but
if
it
does
pass
I'd
love
for
it
to
read,
should
not
assess
fees
on
the
public
for
a
virtual
public
participation,
not
costs,
because
I
would
also
worry.
That
would
mean
that
people
agency
buys
all
the
cameras
for
everyone
that
wants
to
participate,
and,
and
so
it
was
like.
A
fee
is
more
like
assessing
a
fee
on
someone,
whereas
the
cost
of
participation
it
isn't
free
to
participate
virtually
and
so
I.
AQ
Don't
just
remove
costs
and
I
would
also
add
in
on
the
public,
and
not
just
to
make
it
clear
that
we're
talking
about
fees
being
assessed
on
the
public.
A
Fernando
Ron:
what
do
you
guys
think
of
that?
Ron's,
okay,
Fernando's?
Okay,
all
right
good,
all
right!
Let's
vote
on
Fernando's
Amendment,
as
is
up
on
your
screen.
Do
we
have
unanimous
consent?
Can
we
go
with
that?
Any
objections?
A
A
Oh,
that
was
pretty
close.
Let's,
let's
try
it
again.
All
those
in
favor
say:
yay,
yay
opposed
no
name.
B
A
Okay,
I
think
we
need
a
show
of
hands
all
right
if
you
are
in
favor
of
of
the
amendment.
Please
raise
your
blue
cards
and
on
online
your
hand
function
all
right
in
favor.
AH
A
Susan
Braden
was
the
she
had
her
guard
up.
A
Yes,
Carrie;
okay,
the
yays
the
yays
have
it.
The
amendment
is
adopted.
Congratulations,
Fernando,
okay,
back
to
floor
amendments
council,
member
and
Joseph
O'connell.
Y
For
the
committee
on
style,
Kathy
Sharkey
has
pointed
out
to
remove
the
word
costs
from
the
title
of
the
new
heading.
A
Okay,
seeing
none
the
vote
is
on
final
adoption
of
the
recommendation
as
amended.
Let's
try
UC
all
those
in
or
is
there
any
objection?
I'm.
Sorry,
any
objection
for
adoption
of
the
amendment
as
amended
online,
no
okay
by
unanimous
consent,
the
amendment
or
the
recommendation
as
amended
is,
is
adopted
and
approved.
A
Well
elected
official
here
and
we're
adjourned
for
a
little
bit
on
recess
to
to
have
lunch,
I
think
it's
down
the
hall
this
time.
AR
A
It's
1
30..
All
right
can
we
can
we
be
back
at
two
40
minutes,
let's
be
back
at
two
okay.
Q
W
AS
B
B
B
I
B
A
U
AM
U
K
K
AM
A
Okay,
it's
past
215,
so
we'll
get
started
again
and
the
stragglers
will
make
it
make
it
in
who
are
we
waiting
for
Kathy,
okay,.
A
A
Okay,
now
that
everyone
is
is
here
on
the
on
the
desk.
We'll
get
started,
sorry
about
the
change
in
plans
for
Lauren,
but
the
combination
of
us
going
late
and
her
needing
to
to
leave
it
to
kind
of
kind
of
forked
our
hand
there
and
we
had
to
be.
We
had
to
be
flexible
and
and
Nimble,
but
I
I
hope
you
enjoyed
and
got
something
out
of
her
presentation.
A
So
now
again,
as
chair,
officially
called
the
79th
funary
session
of
the
United
States
administrative
conference
back
into
order.
A
Okay,
our
third
recommendation
is
presently
titled
artificial
intelligence
in
retrospective
review
of
agency
rules.
It
comes
to
us
from
the
committee
on
regulation.
It's
shared
by
Eloise
pascot
I
want
to
thank
them.
Eloise
the
chair
of
the
committee
on
regulation
and
also
a
professor
at
the
best
law
school
in
the
country,
which
was
my
alma
mater
Georgetown.
A
AP
Great
thanks
so
much
wonderful
to
be
here
reminded
at
lunch.
Actually,
I
have
to
share
this
shared
as
a
personal
anecdote
that
the
last
time
I
was
in
the
aqueous
Hot
Seat.
It
was
the
first
committee
report
for
the
newly
put
together
acus
with
Paul
for
Kyle,
and
it
was
competing
with
the
soon
birth
of
my
daughter,
who's
about
to
be
13,
so
I
realized
I
can
I
can
judge
exactly
that.
I've
been
at
a
wonderful
association
with
akas
for
more
than
a
decade.
AP
This
particular
project
was
really
delightful,
actually
to
work
on.
So
just
about
a
second
just
personal
anecdote
from
Wednesday
came
I
worked
with
a
great
set
of
colleagues
Dan
ho
David
engstrom
and
Tino
Cuellar
on
a
principles
project
our
project
for
the
Chief
at
aqueous
called
government
by
algorithm
and
I.
Commend
that
to
you
it's
up
on
ACES
website
and
what
we
did.
AP
There
was
a
huge
labor-intensive,
evolving
many
law
and
PhD
computer
science,
students
from
Stanford
and
NYU
a
huge
canvas
of
uses
of
artificial
intelligence
across
the
federal
government
and
some
deep
Dives
in
terms
of
case
studies,
and
it
was
really
out
of
that
project
when
we
realized
that
we
had
surfaced
some
very
good
use
cases
of
enforcement
and
adjudication
and
slightly
fewer
or
less
in
what
we
might
call
the
rulemaking
domain.
AP
That
I
became
very
interested
in
in
commencing
this
project
and
the
reason
was
as
soon
after
finishing
that
other
project
I
came
to
learn
that
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services
HHS
had
a
use
case
that
had
escaped
our
10
and
we
can
be
forgiven.
It
actually
turns
out
there's
an
executive
order.
That's
asked
federal
agencies
to
Canvas
inventory,
use
cases
of
AI,
and
that
is
not
very
comprehensive.
Let's
put
that
way,
so
I
think
our
our
canvassing
from
the
government
by
algorithm
still
has
probably
the
best
comprehensive
canvas.
It's
really
really
difficult.
AP
Actually,
one
of
the
points
I
think
why
acus
can
serve
a
really
good
role
here,
as
is
as
a
kind
of
information
sharing
mechanism
to
surface
interesting
use
cases
in
this
area.
So
lo
and
behold,
one
came
to
my
attention,
which
was
HHS,
was
using
an
AI,
enabled
tool
to
assist
in
regular
in
retrospective
review
and
specifically
to
assist
in
it
turned
into
in
the
report
details
this
so
with
a
starting
point
of
this
project.
AP
A
kind
of
regulatory
cleanup
rule
that
they
that
they
promulgated,
which
went
through
and
looked
for
or
regulations
that
were
outdated,
outmoded
redundant,
broken
cross-references
within
the
CFR
et
cetera
Etc,
and
it
was
interesting
when
I
heard
about
that
use
case
and
reflected
and
I
wrote
a
law
review.
A
short
law
review
article
about
it
in
some
ways.
Retrospective
review
is
kind
of
tailor-made
for
the
use
of
some
technologically
enhanced
tools,
and
this
report
that
I've
done,
which
involves
the
delightful
part
and
also
the
onerous
part,
was
a
lot
of
field
work.
AP
We
conducted
48,
Zoom
interviews
of
an
hour
or
more.
Each
I
had
two
phenomenal
research
assistants
that
I
thank
in
the
report.
Kevin
parte
photoro
and
Giancarlo
carraza
NYU
students
and
then
Cade
Mallett,
another
NYU
Law
student
jumped
on
to
help
during
the
committee
process.
So
what
we've
done
in
the
report
is
four
use
cases
beginning
with
the
HHS
regulate,
which
used
this
tool
called
regulatory
Explorer
in
the
regulatory
cleanup
initiative
to
do
that
kind
of
house
cleaning
type
functions
with
regard
to
redundant
regulations
in
the
CFR
and
then
I
think.
AP
We've
uncovered
really
fascinating.
Example.
Within
Department
of
Defense.
The
program
is
called
Game
Changer
and
it's
as
of
yet
not
being
used
for
retrospective
review,
but
the
officials
we
interviewed
there
were
very
sanguine
about
its
use
in
retrospective
review.
So
the
idea
just
to
back
up
for
a
minute
retrospective
review
has
been
something
that
the
that
acus
has
touted
for
a
long
time
about
how
it
should
be
conducted.
It's
most
agencies,
long-standing
practice.
What's
new
here.
AP
What's
novel
is
the
use
of
some
technology
now,
there's
I
think
the
first
order
of
business
will
be
talking
about
the
title
of
this
project,
the
it's
it's
moved
from
artificial
intelligence
to
algorithmic
Tools
in
retrospective
review,
and
just
a
quick
word
about
that.
It
turns
out
so
the
HHS
was
using
an
AI
enabled
tool
called
regulatory
Explorer
dod's
game
changer
is
using
artificial
intelligence.
The
GSA
CMS
pilot,
that's
one
of
the
case.
Studies
is
using
artificial
intelligence.
AP
Department
of
Transportation
is
using
something
called
reg
data
dashboard
where
they
have
actually
borrowed
from
a
tool
that
used
artificial
intelligence,
but
they
didn't
find
it
necessary
to
use
the
AI
enabled
part.
So
it's
part
of
this
report
and
it's
using
algorithmic
tools
that
are
not
using
actually
artificial
intelligence.
So
the
title
was
changed
to
increase
sort
of
the
breadth
of
what's
being
discussed
in
the
report.
AP
Okay,
after
the
kind
of
Deep
dive
into
these
four
use
cases,
we
interviewed
not
only
former
and
present
agency
officials
within
those
agencies,
So
within
HHS,
which
then
also
LED
also
to
separate
interviews
with
Folks
at
FDA
and
CMS,
also
dot
DOD
and
then
GSA
and
CMS.
Just
a
quick
word
about
the
GSA
pilot
General
Services
Administration
is
an
interesting
part
of
this
project.
They're
the
general
I.T
service
providers
for
the
federal
government,
and
we
got
brought
in
to
sort
of
be
observers
of
the
pilot.
AP
A
regulatory
analytics
pilot
that
they
did
with
CMS,
where
they
were
using
AI,
enabled
Technologies
in
a
kind
of
small
scale,
but
interesting
pilot
where
they
were
using
a
set
of
regulations
in
CMS
that
were
directed
towards
durable
medical
equipment
and
doing
similar
kinds
of
things
that
I
mentioned
before
that
the
HHS
experiment
was
doing.
Looking
for
overlapping
regulations
inconsistencies
redundancies
for
that
particular
pilot
CMS
actually
knew
the
answer.
AP
They
were
kind
of
doing
a
test,
so
to
speak
of
the
technology
with
this
company
called
be
informed,
and
so
that
was
very
interesting
to
be
a
part
of
after
that.
What
we
did
is
we
interviewed
agencies
that
were
not
part
of
this
either
any
of
these
use
case
studies,
so
there
are
eight
different
sampling,
there's
a
sampling
of
both
independent
and
executive
branch
agencies,
they're
all
listed
in
the
report
by
the
way
appendix
two
lists
all
of
the
interviews.
AP
They
were
anonymized,
but
you
can
see
the
numbers
of
officials
that
we
interviewed
in
each
of
the
agencies
and
lists
of
the
independent
agencies
and
executive
branch
agencies
in
addition
to
the
ones
that
were
in
our
use
cases.
AP
Let's
see
one
other
thing
just
to
mention
about
the
interviews,
in
addition
to
interviewing
all
of
these
former
and
present
agency
officials,
we
interviewed
the
firms
that
were
providing
some
of
the
technical
support
and,
in
the
case
of
the
HHS
example,
the
actual
tool.
So
we
interviewed
all
of
those
firms
and
then
we
interviewed
we
reached
out
to
a
sampling
of
other
firms
that
are
listed
like
IBM
and
Regulatory
group
that
weren't
providing
tools
or
support
in
the
use
cases.
AP
You
can
see
in
the
report
I
think
it's
good
practice
to
do
this,
that
we
have
included
the
entire
interview
question
templates,
so
we
had
a
template
with
anyone.
We
talked
to
from
a
federal
agency,
including
we
reached
a
wide
sample
of
federal
agencies
that
were
actually
using
these
tools,
as
well
as
some
that
were
contemplating
it,
but
hadn't
quite
decided
whether
or
not
to
use
them
or
not,
and
ones
that
were
more
skeptical
or
because
of
resource
issues.
Etc
were
not
using
the
tools
you
can
see
in
the
reprinted
questionnaires.
AP
We
had
sort
of
a
decision
tree.
So
if
they
were
using
the
tools
we
went
in
One
Direction
and
not
another,
and
then
we
have
a
stakeholder
questionnaire
template.
So
it
was.
It
was
I
think
a
fairly
comprehensive
view
of
some
early
uses
of
algorithmic
tools.
Many
AI
enabled
in
the
retrospective
review
process
and
from
there
Eloise
took
over
with
a
fabulous
committee
to
Fashion
on
some
recommendations.
AM
Great
thanks,
so
we
had
two
spirited
discussions.
One
of
them
was
very
wide-ranging,
covering
all
sorts
of
topics
and
one
was
narrower
and
more
technocratic
that
produced
the
material
that
you
have
in
front
of
you
today
to
vote
on.
In
light
of
that,
first
large
and
free-ranging
conversation
I'd
like
to
emphasize
what
this
project
is
not
about.
So
this
project
is
not
about
all
AI
in
the
government,
much
less
in
all
rulemaking.
AM
It's
not
even
really
only
about
AI.
It's
about
this
broader
set
of
algorithmic
tools,
and
it's
also
not
about
using
these
tools
in
all
retrospective
reviews.
So
I
want
to
call
your
attention
to
lines
36
to
42
of
the
Preamble,
which
say
that
we're
really
talking
about
using
these
tools
on
more
technical
things
like
outmoded
or
redundant
that
can
be
picked
up
with
structured
language,
processing,
typos,
inaccurate
cross-references
or
sort
of
narrower
things
like
that.
AM
It's
not
not
about
broader
things,
about
better
meetings,
statutory
goals,
so
clarifying
that
last
thing.
I'll
say
is
that,
when
talking
about
these
new
tools
that
everybody's
talking
about
these
days,
transparency
and
explainability
are
sort
of
buzzwords,
and
so
I
will
say
that
we
tried
hard
to
think
about
that
concept
as
it
applies
to
our
work.
AM
AM
We
had
that
we
tried
to
think
about
the
audience
of
these
recommendations
as
being
not
people
with
phds
in
Tech
and
sort
of
deep
layers
of
knowledge
of
what
the
tools
should
look
like,
and
we
try
to
really
make
them
understandable
for
the
folks
in
this
room
and
the
audience
of
people
who
would
be
implementing
them.
So
that's
all
I'll
say
before
we
begin.
A
A
Okay,
hearing
none,
they
are
adopted,
and
now
is
our
time
for
General
discussion
before
we
get
to
the
Amendments.
Is
there
any
general
discussion
for
debate.
A
To
those
coming
in
now,
we're
just
calling
for
General
discussion
or
debate
on
the
artificial
intelligence
recommendation.
A
Okay,
well,
then,
we
can
move
on
to
amendments.
The
the
First
Amendment
comes
from
the
committee
itself
and
it's
regarding
the
title.
The
committee
on
regulation
voted
to
replace
the
original
title
of
this
recommendation
from
artificial
intelligence
in
a
retrospective
review
of
agency
rules
to
algorithmic
Tools
in
retrospective
review
of
agency
rules
and
Eloise
can
I
ask
you
to
explain
the
difference.
Please.
AM
I'm
actually
going
to
turn
it
over
to
Kathy
to
go
one
level
deeper,
but
I'll
just
say,
as
she
said
in
her
opening
remarks,
the
general
concept
is
that
not
all
the
use
cases
involved
what
we
would
really
think
of
as
specifically
artificial
intelligence
and
instead
were
were
some
of
them
in
an
even
I.
Think
the
last
one
she
described
more
General
sort
of
not
as
intelligent
tools.
So
Kathy
do
you
want.
AP
That
I
think
that
pretty
much
covered
it
there's
a
lot
of
debate
in
the
literature
about
what
is
artificial
intelligence.
I
wrote
down
because
it's
the
in
the
National
AI
initiative
act
and
also
taken
up
on
omb's.
Most
recent
notice
about
a
summer
guidance
they're
going
to
be
Pat
they're
going
to
be
soliciting
comment
on
for
AI.
They
call
it
a
quote.
Machine-Based
system
that
can
for
a
given
set
of
human
defined
objectives,
make
predictions
recommendations
or
decisions
influencing
real
or
virtual
environments.
AP
That's
a
pretty
protein
definition
and
most
things
would
most
algorithmic
tools
that
we're
talking
about
here
might
come
under
that,
but
it's
really
the
machine-based
system.
Many
of
the
AI
enabled
tools
that
that
we
talk
about
in
the
report,
use
things
like
neural
networks
and
the
like.
That
is
truly
both
machine
learning
and
artificial
intelligence.
The
dot
example
that's
using
reg
dashboard,
because
dot
already
had
very
structured
rules.
They
didn't
use
the
AI,
enabled
tools
like
clustering
and
neural
networks
to
organize
the
topics
of
their
regulations.
AP
It's
not,
it
might
not
technically
fall
under
artificial
intelligence,
so
we're
calling
that
algorithmic
tools
on
a
personal
note,
I'll,
say
I
think
maybe
for
aqueous
purposes
and
in
government
keeping
the
temperature
down.
Algorithmic
tools
is
good
for
the
law
review.
You
know
audience.
Artificial
intelligence
will
be
in
the
in
the
title.
A
Thank
you
Eloise
and
thank
you
Kathy.
Does
anyone
have
any
discussion
or
debate
on
this
committee?
Amendment?
Yes,
Roxanne
Mike,
please.
O
Hi
Roxanne
Rothschild
government
member
I
just
have
a
question:
did
you
consider
changing
the
title
to
artificial
intelligence
and
algorithmic
tools
in
retrospective
review,
just
to
keep
that
temperature
up
a
little
bit
in
terms
of
catching
people's
attention,
because
personally,
I
would
read
out
algorithmic
tools
and
I
would
say
what's
that,
but
I
would
never
for
a
second
think
that
three
of
your
four
examples
would
be
using
AI.
O
AM
We
didn't
my
recollection
of
the
way
this
developed
in
the
committee
is
that
it
followed
Kathy's
evolution
of
the
language
in
the
report.
So
when
the
report
came
to
us,
it
was
already
heavily
using
algorithmic
tools
and
then
so
we
saw
a
mismatch
and
because,
in
fact
it
was
broader
and
algorithmic
tools.
I
take
to
be
the
general
category
of
which
artificial
intelligence
is
a
subset.
That's
how
we
ended
up.
Procedurally
I,
don't
know
if
anybody
has
a
different
procedural
memory
or
if
Kathy
wants
to
comment
more
substance.
W
I
sure
yeah
yeah,
absolutely
I
mean
that
that's
sort
of
not
up
to
me,
but
in
terms
of
what
the
procedure
would
happen
here
is.
The
original
draft
was
entitled
artificial
intelligence
and
retrospective
review.
That
was
what
the
project
was
initiated.
As
after
Kathy's
research
and
reading
the
report,
we
had
a
discussion
about
whether
everything
here
is
AI
or
even
whether
agencies
would
even
need
to
use
AI
to
accomplish
many
of
the
tasks
described
in
this
recommendation.
W
A
O
I,
don't
have
a
problem
with
the
with
the
recommended
change.
I
just
wanted
to
ask
that
question
because
I
know
so
little
about
Ai
and
algorithmic
tools.
I
thought
you
know.
Is
it
worth,
including
that
in
the
title,
so
you'll
catch
the
attention
of
people
who
are
trying
to
learn
more
about?
How
can
an
agency
use
Ai
and
if
you've
got
examples
of
agencies
who
have
used
it?
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Roxanne.
Anyone
have
any
thoughts
on
Roxanne's
pointer
on
the
amendment
in
general
to
change
the
name
of
the
of
the
recommendation.
Yes,
Ron.
I
I
Ron
Cass,
council
member.
Is
it
wrong
to
assume
that
if
one
of
the
terms
is
correct
that
the
report
will
just
correct
itself.
A
That's
funny,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Ron.
Do
you
have
any
language
for
that?
Can
you
put
that
in
the
form
of
an
amendment
please
yeah
yeah,
ask
ask
the
report
to
do
that.
Yeah.
Okay.
Anybody
else
want
to
want
to
talk
about
the
amendment.
If
not
we'll
we'll
see
unanimous
consent.
Does
anyone
have
any
objection
to
adopting
the
committee
amendment
to
to
change
the
first
few
words.
A
Anyone
online,
if
you're,
if
there's
anyone
still
there
38
people,
wow,
okay,
okay,
I'm,
hearing,
no
objection,
the
amendment
is
adopted
by
unanimous
consent,
and
so,
while
we're
on
the
topic
of
the
title,
a
special
counsel
or
or
a
special
senior
senior
fellow
Alan
Morrison
has
an
amendment
as
well
for
the
or
a
suggestion
that
may
turn
into
an
amendment
to
add
to
the
front
of
the
new
title,
the
words
use
of
or
using
a
head
of
algorithmic
tools.
A
So
let
me
turn
first
to
Alan
for
any
explanation.
He
has.
P
Alan
Morrison
senior
phone,
when
I
read
the
recommendation,
I
I
thought
it
was
kind
of
a
supposed
to
be
a
a
taxonomy,
a
list
of
all
the
uses
for
it
and
then
I
realized
that
it
actually
was
talking
about
how
it
was
going
to
be
used.
Since
both
Kathy
and
everybody
else
has
talked
about.
The
use
of
the
use
of
the
use
of
seemed
to
be
to
be
more
accurate
to
put
use
of
or
using
in
the
in
the
title.
A
Okay,
Kathy
and
Eloise
any
reaction.
AM
A
AP
Yeah
I'm
gonna
I,
don't
have
a
strong
view
about
the
title
for
the
Aiken's
recommendation,
but
Jeremy
do
you
want
I
mean
Jeremy
I'd
love
to
hear
your
views.
If
you
have
rude
thoughts.
B
A
Ron
Ron
Castle
a
move
gentleman
that
he
is
okay.
Do
we
have
anyone
who
would
object
to
unanimous
consent
on
this
title
change,
seeing
no
one,
the
title
now
becomes:
oh,
do
we
like
use
or
using
use
of
or
using.
F
A
Council
amendment
number
two
at
the
very
end
of
the
Preamble
is
intended
to
clarify
that,
in
addition
to
identifying
best
practices
for
agencies,
this
recommendation
also
makes
recommendations
directed
specifically
to
GSA
and
OMB.
The
proposed
language
mirrors.
What
appears,
in
paragraph
seven
and
eight
of
the
committee
proposed
recommendation
so
who,
who
had
this
in
Council
Ron.
B
A
Thank
you.
Could
you
explain
it.
A
He
said:
okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you
and
Council.
Amendment
number
one
was
proposed
by
I.
Don't
know
doesn't
say
who
proposed
Council
amendment
number
one
you
did
Ron
did
okay,
so
it
sounds
like
this
is.
I
Yours
too,
this
is
simply
a
council
member
number.
One
is
simply
to
to
add
the
development
use
of
agency
specifics,
algorithmic
tools
to
be
more
descriptive
of
what
the
report
and
recommendations
are
actually
dealing
with
and
I.
I
think
this
should
be
relatively
uncontroversial,
because
I
think
everything
should
that
we
recommend
should
be
uncontroversial.
A
Okay,
my
apologies
I
turned
two
pages
to
council
Amendment
two
and
skipped
over
Council
Amendment,
one
of
the
five
Council
amendments
offered
by
Iran.
As
he
suggests,
the
First
Council
proposed
amendment
adds
to
line
28
in
the
red
line
version
the
phrase,
the
development
and
use
of
agency
specific,
so
that
the
sentence
will
now
begin.
There
are
also
practical
challenges
associated
with
the
development
and
use
of
agency,
specific
algorithmic
tools
intended
only
to
clarify
the
meaning.
Any
discussion
on
this.
A
Okay,
any
objection
to
unanimous
consent.
Does
anyone
object?
A
Okay,
seeing
no
objection!
The
amendment
is
adopted
by
unanimous
consent
and
thank
you,
Ron.
Okay,
now
to
councilman
amendment
number
two
proposing
that,
at
the
very
end
of
the
Preamble
language,
be
added
to
clarify
that,
in
addition
to
identifying
best
practices
for
agencies,
this
recommendation
also
makes
recommendations
directed
specifically
to
GSA
and
OMB,
and
the
language
mirrors.
What
appears
in
paragraph
seven
and
eight.
AM
No
objection
just
Kathy
points
out
that
the
committee
on
style
should
make
the
spelling
out
just
the
acronym,
because
it's
defined
above,
but
the
only
reason
why
it's
there
is
to
previously
without
those
sentences
the
report.
Sorry
the
recommendation.
The
Preamble
made
it
sound
that
the
recommendation
was
only
directed
at
all
agencies
when
instead,
the
last
two
recommendations
do
deal
with
OMB
and
GSA.
So
we
wanted
the
preamble
to
note
that
as
well.
A
Okay,
we'll
take
we'll
be
happy
to
take
that
up
on
the
committee
on
style.
Steph
tafam
has
a
a
comment,
though.
Statue
recognized.
X
A
Okay,
anyone
else
want
to
be
heard
on
this.
So
is
there
any
objection
to
committee
on
style
drafting
this
change?
A
No
objection,
then:
that's
how
we'll
proceed.
Council
amendment
number
three,
the
third
Council
proposed
amendment-
replaces
some
language
at
the
end
of
paragraph
three
intended
for
clarity
for
further
consideration,
which
is
there
now
is
replaced
by
before
relying
on
it
Eloise.
Is
that
consistent
with
the
committee's
intent.
A
Okay,
great,
so,
let's
go
to
unanimous
consent
on
that.
Anyone
have
any
objection
in
light
of
that
that
agreement,
seeing
seeing
none
that
Amendment
will
be
adopted
by
unanimous
consent.
The
fourth
Council
proposed
amendment
is
in
paragraph
four.
It
would
replace
the
phrase
quote
ensure
that
the
source
code
of
the
tool
is
publicly
available
and
interoperable
with
other
government
systems,
with
the
less
categorical
categorical
phrase
quote:
consider
open
source
options
and
those
that
would
maximize
interoperative,
interrupter
interoperability
with
other
government
systems.
A
The
council
felt
this
better
reflects
the
reality
of
government
I.T
procurement
and
implementation.
This
was
offered
by
our
vice
chairman,
Nathan
Shaw,
who,
as
you
all
know,
his
main
responsibility
is
to
check
daily
on
my
health,
so
I
I
can
report
that
so
far
I'm
hanging
in
there,
but
he's
not
able
to
be
with
us.
AP
So
it's
saying
consider
instead
of
Ensure,
you
know
anyone
who
has
either
read
the
reporter
wants
to
read
it
later
will
see
that
for
both
DOD
and
GSA
and
their
pilot
and
many
of
the
agency
officials
and
many
of
the
stakeholders
we
talked
to
it
was,
you
know,
a
an
aim
to
use
open
source
for
both
transparency,
accountability,
but
also
interoperability.
AP
That
said
so,
and
it's
you
know,
my
report
ends
with
probably
more
strong
form
version.
Yeah
I
was
about
to
say,
I
use.
The
word
insist
so
I
know
a
guess.
We
go
from
insist
to
ensure
to
consider
where
feasible,
as
appropriate,
I'm
not
going
to
object,
and,
moreover,
I
mean
the
committee
we
already.
If
you
you
know,
the
sentence
that
comes
after
was
recognizing
that
if
agencies
didn't
choose
one
that
was
open
source,
they
should
blah
blah
blah
so
point
you
know
taken
and
no
objection.
Okay,.
A
That's
fine
I
should
take
some
blame
for
this
because
I've
I've
I'm
a
should
guy,
not
I,
should
consider
guy
I
think
once
we
do
the
research
and
writing
report
and
developing
recommendations,
and
then
you
vote
on
it.
You
know
we're
advising
the
the
agency
that
we,
you
know
you
should
do
this
I'm
sure
they
should
consider.
They
could
consider
anything
and
we're
not
doing
much.
A
If
we
just
say
consider
this
so
I've
I've
asked
all
the
staff
to
make
the
default
language
a
more
directive
and
positive
should
over
should
consider
but
I'm
fine.
With
this,
it's
a
council,
Amendment
and
I
support
it.
Anyone
want
to
speak
to
it.
A
A
And
now
Council
amendment
number
five.
The
fifth
and
final
amendment
is
in
paragraph
seven
of
the
red
line
version
and
is
intended
merely
to
clarify
with
whom
agencies
should
con
should
share
their
experiences
by
adding
with
each
other.
So
Eloise.
Let
me
ask
you
if
that
is
consistent
with
the
committee's
intent.
Yes,
okay,
any
objection
to
the
change.
A
Okay,
hearing,
no
objection,
I
I,
find
that
the
amendment
is
adopted
by
unanimous
consent.
Thank
you.
Now
we
can
move
on
to
pre-submitted
conference
member
amendments
and
comments.
We
have
a
single
Amendment
from
government
member
Steph,
tatham
Stephanie
has
has
been
with
us
before
from
The
Office
of
Management
and
budget.
As
currently
written
paragraph
9
recommends
that
OMB
provide
guidance
on
the
use
of
algorithmic
algorithmic
tools
to
support
retrospective
review.
A
Steph
proposes
that
should
provide
should
become,
should
consider
providing
so
there
we
are
there's
the
there's
the
issue
again
Steph.
You
want
to
speak
to
this.
X
Yeah,
so
my
apologies
Mr
chairman
I,
didn't
realize
that
you
had
such
strong
priors
on
this,
but
in
this
particular
case
OMB
would
recommend.
Should
that's.
X
Thank
you
and-
and
let
me
explain
my
reasoning,
which
is
first
actually
let
me
start
by
thinking,
Professor
Sharkey
and
the
committee
for
such
a
clear,
well-researched
and
well-explained
report.
We
found
it
very
informative
and
helpful.
I
really
learned
a
lot
while
reading
it
and
I
appreciate
all
of
the
hard
work
that
went
into
it.
X
Omb
definitely
will
consider
providing
guidance.
I
will
say
that
this
has
not
been
an
active
work
stream
for
us
and
this
Administration
and
that
more
immediately,
we've
been
focused
on
implementing
the
president's
modernization
directives,
including
executive
order,
14094
I,
think
perhaps
our
law
professors
can
empathize
with
the
situation
our
agencies
may
be
facing
with
respect
to
computer-generated
public
comments
and
particularly
generated
by
chat,
gbt
and
and
other.
X
You
know,
AI
tools
that
are
so
widely
publicly
available
at
this
time
and
I
think
that,
in
the
immediate
future,
OMB
is
going
to
be
devoting
considerable
resources
to
thinking
about
guidance
for
agencies
in
that
area
and
will
have
less
ability
to
provide
guidance
to
agencies
in
this
area.
At
this
time,
I'm
also
not
sure
how
much
we
would
be
able
to
say
beyond
the
excellent
advice
and
Professor
Sharkey's
report
and
already
provided
by
ikis
here
in
this
recommendation.
X
F
I'm
glad
your
help
as
well,
no,
but
actually
you're
right
on
the
merits
we
ought
to
be
saying,
should
instead
of
should
consider
what
were
possible.
I,
don't
know,
maybe
it's
a
nitpicky
thing,
but
I'm
glad
you
brought
it
up
and
I
think
it's
a
good
point.
F
We
could
strike
that
part
of
the
recommendation
altogether
or
we
could
recommend
what
we're
recommending,
but
should
consider,
is
extremely
weak,
sauce,
I'm,
not
sure
exactly
what
purpose
it
serves.
Now
that
you
bring
it
up.
A
And
let
me
be
clear:
if
the
council
or
the
this
body
you
know,
you
know,
wants
to
work
its
will
differently,
that
that's
fine
but
personally
I
think
Adam's
right.
So
any
other
discussion,
oh
Jack,
Biermann
on
online.
G
No,
this
I'm
I'm
I
have
a
subsequent
one
you're.
A
Ahead:
okay,
any.
A
On
the
the
pending
Amendment,
if
not,
let's
take
a
vote
on
this
I
I
think
this
is
worth
a
Voice
vote.
How
many
people
are
in
favor
of
of
Steph's
amendment
to
change
the
language
that
should
consider
providing,
please
say:
yay:
okay,
yeah,
all
those
opposed,
nay,.
A
I
think
the
news
have
it,
but
let's
try
again
to
be
fair
to
Steph.
All
those
supportive
of
of
the
amendment
say:
yay
yay.
A
Opposed,
nay,
yeah,
all
right,
I
think
the
news
have
it:
the
language
will
stay
as
it
is.
Okay,
those
are
all
the
pre-submitted
and
Council
amendments.
So
now
we'll
turn
to
floor
amendments
that
have
not
been
submitted
yet
Jack
you're.
First,
in
the
queue.
G
G
Let
me
see:
wait
a
minute:
it's
a
different
line.
Number
now,
I'm,
sorry,
there's
a
place
where
the
words
regulatory
decision
makers
appear
and,
oh
sorry,
65.
G
that
who
use
out
it
just
seems
to
me
that
age
I
would
I
I
would
suggest
changing
regulatory
decision
makers
to
agency
per
Personnel
because
we're
not
exactly
sure
who's
going
to
be
conducting
retrospective
review.
They
might
you
might
have
non-decision
makers,
formulating
proposals
and
such
and
you
know,
whereas
the
decision
makers
may
not
actually
understand
anything
about
the
algorithmic
tools
or
the
artificial
intelligence
sort
of
like
the,
where
I
am
and
not
understanding
how
it
all
works.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
Jack
Eloise
Kathy,
any
response.
AM
Well,
I
like
it,
my
only
slight
hesitation
is
that
subsection
B
really
is
directed
to
the
decision
maker,
in
other
words,
that
the
decision
maker
should
sort
of
think
about
understand
what
the
tool
has
done
and
think
about
it
carefully
before
actually
making
the
decision.
I
wonder
if
it
wouldn't
be
more
accurate
to
use
Jack's
phrase
as
an
addition,
regulatory
decision
makers
and
other
agency
personnel.
Z
Emily
Bremer
public
member
I
think
I
would
leave
it
as
it
is,
I
mean
I
I,
don't
think
it
like.
Presumably
only
the
decision
makers
are
the
ones
who
are
in
a
position
to
carefully
assess
the
output
before
relying
on
it
and
if
they're
making
a
decision
to
rely
on
it,
I
think
they
should
have
adequate
training
and
understanding
the
capabilities
and
risks.
Z
So
if,
if
there
are
decision
makers
who
are
you
know
in
a
position
to
decide
whether
an
agency
is
going
to
use
these
kinds
of
tools,
I
think
it's
important
that
those
people
have
the
training
necessary
to
understand
it,
and
so,
as
written
I,
think
the
the
recommendation
serves
that
purpose.
Okay,.
A
O
This
Roxanne
Rothschild
government
member
I'd
kind
of
Go
a
different
direction
than
Emily
was
suggesting
in
that,
at
least
in
my
experience,
when
we
get
new
complex
tools
that
maybe
aren't
AI,
but
they
are
more
complex
than
what
we've
used
in
the
past.
It's
rare
that
the
decision
makers
actually
have
training
and
how
to
use
it.
It's
other
people
who
use
it
so
I
appreciate
what
Jack
is
saying,
but
maybe
we
split
this
out
and
not
do
an
A
and
B.
O
What
we
do
instead
is
say:
agencies
shouldn't
should
ensure
that
regulatory
wait
go
back
kind
of
what
Jack
was
saying
and
say.
Agencies
should
ensure
that
agency
Personnel,
who
use
algorithmic
tools
to
support
retrospective
review,
have
adequate
training
on
the
capabilities
and
risks
of
those
tools.
Comma
and
decision
makers
carefully
assess
the
output
before
relying
on
it,
because
then
you
you
break
it
out
by
who
needs
what
knowledge.
A
Yeah
absolutely
Eloise:
what
do
you
think
of
that.
A
Jack,
what
do
you
think
of
the
combination
of
of
Eloise
and
Roxanne
suggestions,
much
better
than
what
I
came
up
with
very
good
okay?
Anyone
else
want
to
be
heard
on
this.
AC
B
AC
Was
algorithmic
or
anything
else,
it
was
retrospective
review.
That
was
the
end
point
and
those
other
tools.
The
technical
tools
that
we
used
were
a
means
to
that
end,
and
so
the
question
I
have,
apart
from
what
the
particular
tool
we're
going
to
use,
is
that
the
whole.
C
AC
AC
Neither
said
it
was
all
right
or
you
corrected
it,
and
when
I
glanced
and
yeah
and
I'm
asking
you,
because
maybe
you
can
do
it
before
we
look
at
that
title
or
whatever
the
title
is
I
didn't
gather
on
a
sort
of
fast
reading
of
it
that
anything
happened
as
a
result
of
those
recommendations.
I
couldn't
do
a
track
from
the
content.
AC
The
contents
of
one
of
them
particular
to
the
end,
where
I
saw
anything
change
so
I'm,
not
you
know,
I
do
some
of
this
technical,
stuff,
okay,
but
before
we
get
into
that,
we
ought
to
look
at.
Did
any
of
this
change
and-
and
so
we're
debating
these
these
technical
tools.
But
it
wasn't
clear
to
me
that
any
of
the
technical
tools,
I
didn't
all
read
and
401
details,
okay,
a
couple
that
it
changed
any
regulation.
So
the
question
I'm
having
I,
have
you
all
looked
at
this
a
lot
D
to
it?
AP
Hhs,
the
published
regulatory
cleanup
initiative
rule,
so
it's
a
published
rule
where
they
went
through
and
they
corrected
as
a
result
of
the
output
from
these
tools.
They
corrected
a
significant
number
of
regulations,
Etc
and
as
a
report.
As
the
report
details,
what
they
did
is
the
tool
went
out.
They
used
this
regulatory
Explorer,
which
was
a
Deloitte
tool.
They
then
it
flagged
a
whole
host
of
regulations
which
they
then
farmed
out
like
to
FDA
to
CMS.
So
we
talked
to
the
individuals
to
whom
they
were
farmed
out.
AP
AC
AC
So
the
question
is
on
the
one
that
you
made
the
changes,
I
agreed
when
I
read
it
real
fast.
There
were.
There
were
a
lot
of
changes
and
some
of
those
programs
I
know
on
most
of
them.
I,
don't
know
the
question
is:
were
those
cosmetic
changes
or
were
they
really
changes?
They
change
the
regulatory
domain
and
I
I
couldn't
I'm
not
saying
there
wasn't,
but
I
think
that's
the
test
that
we
look
at
all
this
before
we
say.
AP
Else
right
so
I
think
this
gets
back
to
what
Eloise
mentioned
was
the
kind
of
limited
domain
of
spec
of
of
the
recommendations
flowing
from
the
report.
AP
So
as
she
qualified
it,
the
more
limited
domain
is
not
to
look
at
all
of
retrospective
review,
but
to
look
at
things
like
outdated,
outmoded
redundancy,
broken
cross-references,
Etc
and
what
it's
hyphening
off
and
I
think
you're
getting
at
are
more,
shall
we
say,
controversial
influence
like
overly
burdensome,
but
as
the
report
details,
HHA,
HHS
itself
and
numerous
of
the
other
agency
officials
that
we
spoke
to
as
a
part
of
this
we're
thinking
about
metrics
and
use
of
these
tools
in
that
area.
None
of
the
recommendations
are
focused
there,
yeah
no.
AC
AC
I
I
I
would
appreciate
if
all
lawyers
would
like
economy
econometrics
and
all
this,
and
we
get
you
all
out
of
this
room
and
on
on
our
territory
and
we
can
debate,
but
so,
but
before
we
get
enamored
with
all
those
fancy
names
and
when
what
you
said
there,
it
was
my
reading
of
it,
it
did
make
changes
and
they
were
more
than
cosmetic.
AC
A
Jim,
thank
you
for
the
benefit
of
your
experience
and
and
and
thoughts.
So
let
me
direct
people
to
the
pending
Amendment
on
the
screen.
As
a
couple
edits
to
paragraph
three
Jack
supports
What,
Eloise
and
Roxanne
have
have
proposed.
So
we'll
call
this
the
the
Biermann
Amendment
as
as
amended,
does
anyone
have
any
objection
to
unanimous
consent?
Adoption
of
it.
A
Okay,
seeing
no
one
the
Amendment
as
amended,
is,
is
adopted
any
other
floor
amendments
yeah
back.
AG
There
hi
John
Duffy,
a
public
member
I,
want
to
propose
an
amendment
to
paragraph
four
which
deals
with
which
we've
already
talked
about
with
respect
to
downgrading
the
suggestion
for
open
source
options
which
I
strongly
support,
because
I
think
people
often
think
open
source
means
something
different
than
what
it
actually
means.
It
means
a
very
limited
thing
and
it's
often
not
the
best
option.
That's
why
I
think
probably
every
PC
in
this
room
is
running
a
non-linux
based
operating
system,
including
the
most
proprietary
operating
system,
is
Apple,
but
it's
very
easy.
AG
Oftentimes,
though
the
trade-off
with
open
source.
Is
you
it's
very?
It's
it's
free
and
it's
kind
of
transparent.
If
you
have
the
time
to
read
through
the
code,
but
it's
not
so
user
friendly
and
that's
how
IBM
makes
an
enormous
amount
of
money
out
of
supporting
Linux
Linux
is
free,
but
IBM
supports
it.
So
I
would
like
to
make
a
a
suggestion,
a
very
targeted
suggestion
in
sentence.
I.
Think
it's
two.
It's
a
it's
the
last
sentence
in
paragraph
four.
It
begins.
AG
If
agencies
do
not
use
an
algorithmic
tool
that
is
open
source,
they
should
Etc
the
the
the
suggestions.
They
should
make
key
information
available.
A
lot
of
that
information
may
not
be
available
for
open
source,
so
I
think
the
amendment
would
just
say
for
all
algorithmic
tools.
Comma
agencies
should
ensure
and
then
continue
with
the
rest
of
the
sentence
striking
the.
If
agencies
do
not
use
an
algorithmic
tool
that
is
open
source,
the
reason
to
strike.
AG
That
is
because
that
sort
of
puts
the
thumb
on
the
scale
of
Open
Source,
which
I
don't
think,
is
a
good
idea
generally.
But
certainly
if
you
look
at
the
recommendation
and
say
like
they
need
to
make
all
this
information
available,
some
of
that
information
is
not
necessarily
available
with
an
open
source.
So,
for
example,
the
operation
and
use
might
be
very
hard
to
find
out
with
an
open
source
tool.
Yeah,
you
can
look
at
the
code,
but
actually
how
to
use
it.
AG
Well,
you
know,
you
know
how
to
use
it
might
be
well,
you
know,
engage
consulting
services
with
IBM
or
somebody
else,
and
that's
a
sort
of
long
tail
expense
to
agencies
and
that's
often
a
trade-off
with
open
source.
It's
free
to
get,
but
then
there's
a
longer
tail
where
you
may,
where
it's
going
to
be
less
user
friendly
and
you
might
need
a
lot
of
Consulting
Services
over
the
life
of
the
software
package.
So
I
I
think
this
would
be
I
hope.
AG
This
would
be
a
simple
non-controversial
way
to
just
sort
of
make
it
clear
that
the
goals
of
this
recommendation
should
be
satisfied
for
all
tools
and
that
also,
from
my
own
perspective,
takes
away
the
the
seeming
thumb
on
the
scale
for
open
source
tools
which
I
think
when
you
look
under
the
hood
about
what
open
source
means
and
what
are
the
trade-offs.
It's
a
much
more
complex
picture
than
what
you
would
you
know.
It
sounds
like
you
know,
apple
pie
and
americanism
and
everything
else
free
open.
AG
A
Thank
you,
John
Kathy
yeah,
your
reaction.
AP
To
Johnson
I
have
to
defend
that
the
at
least
in
the
report,
whereas
I
said
I
use
stronger
language,
insist
it's
not
about
apple
pie
or
America.
AP
If
you
look
DOD
in
doing
Game,
Changer
insisted
that
it
open
source
and
I
worked
with
an
outside
vendor
along
the
way
Etc,
and
they
had
clear
reasons
for
why,
in
terms
of
their
interoperability
objectives,
Etc
GSA,
with
their
pilot
with
CMS,
likewise
made
it
a
prerequisite
that
they
build
AI
solutions
that
are
quote
open,
source
and
interoperable,
and
we
spent
lots
of
time
in
the
interviews
both
with
the
agency
officials
and
the
vendor.
So
I
just
have
to
it's
not
I
know.
AP
This
is
about
the
recommendation,
not
my
report,
but
I
had
to
I
had
to
jump
to
notwithstanding
Flag
Day
being
yesterday
Etc
to
say
there
was
something
more
empirical
that
was
behind
the
recommendation
in
the
report.
AG
Can
I
just
have
one
response,
which
is
that's
a
in
some
ways?
That's
a
separate
issue,
because
this
sentence
is
about
making
certain
key
information
available
and-
and
you
know
we
can
agree
to
disagree
I'm
trying
to
make
my
my
a
proposed
amendment
not
get
into
whether
there
should
be
open
source
or
not
open
source
I'm,
just
trying
to
say
that
the
extent
you
want
key
information
available
that
can
apply
both
to
open
source
and
to
proprietary
systems,
because
some
open
source
systems,
for
example,
of
the
tools
development
that
may
not
be.
AG
You
know
you,
the
source
might
be
open
but
who
made
it
might
not
be
so
transparent
like
I,
don't
think
many
people
know
just
how
deeply
involved
IBM
is
with
keeping
Linux
running.
You
know,
maybe
that's.
Maybe
most
people
know
that
who
are
in
the
open
source,
Community
I,
don't
know
if
that's,
if
that's
widely
publicly
available
or
also
how
to
use
the
tool.
That
too,
is
information
that
may
or
may
not
be
available.
You
could
just
say
well,
there's
there's
the
code,
you
know
go
read
it.
AG
You
can
figure
out
how
to
use
it.
Well,
you
know
I
I,
just
think
we
can
get
a.
We
can
step
aside
out
of
this
open
source
versus
proprietary
thing,
and
you
know
you
and
I
can
have
a
I
suspect
a
really
interesting
discussion
about
that.
But
this
would
this
amendment
would
not
have
to
step
into
that.
It
would
just
say:
look
this
key
to
extending
key
information
is
a
good
idea
and
in
these
things,
which
I
agree
with
it
should
apply
to
all
tools.
Okay,.
I
I
Secondly,
I
I
think
that
I
agree
with
John
on
this
that
the
way
we
should
write
the
sentence
there
is
that
agencies
should
insure
and
just
skip
the
the
intervening.
Language
and
I
think
that
that
doesn't
take
a
position
on
the
decree
to
which
agencies
should
or
should
not
prefer
open
source
tools.
But
it's
just
saying
that,
generally
whatever
they
do,
they
should
make
this
make
sure
that
people
have
access
to
the
information
and.
I
Yes,
I
would
just
say
agencies
and
and
then
skip
the
if
skip
the
do,
not
use
an
algorithmic
tools
open
source.
They
just
say
agencies
shouldn't
sure.
AG
And
Kathy
the
word
algorithm.
B
AS
I'm
sorry,
reporters
unable
to
hear
the
speaker.
AJ
AG
A
Thank
you
Kathy,
anything
more
from
you.
Okay,
let's
try.
First
for
unanimous
consent,
we
may
have
it
any
objection
to
unanimous
consent
on
on
on
this
John
Duffy
Amendment.
A
A
Okay,
so
back
unanimous
consent,
any
objections
seeing
none.
The
Duffy
amendment
is
adopted
by
a
unanimous
consent,
any
other
floor
amendments.
A
Seeing
none
we're
ready
for
final
vote.
Is
there
a
motion
to
adopt
the
recommendations
I'm
coming
from
John
Cass
Ron
Cass
any
any
second
I
see
seconds:
okay,
Voice
vote
everyone
in
favor
adopting
the
recommendation
to
say:
yes,
no.
A
Okay,
the
the
yes
have
it.
The
recommendation
is
adopted.
A
The
fourth
and
final
recommendation
is
called
online
processes
and
agency
adjudication.
We
need
a
change
of
the
Guard
here.
A
This
recommendation
comes
from
the
committee
on
adjudication,
of
which
Nadine
Mancini
is
chair.
We
thank
her
and
attorney
advisor
Matt
Booth,
who
also
served
as
the
in-house
researcher
and
staff
Council,
so
consultant
and
attorney
advisor
at
the
same
time.
Will
here,
as
usual,
from
Matt
first
on
his
report
and
then
Nadine
on
the
committee's
proceedings.
Matt.
AR
Thank
you
Andy.
This
project
built
off
of
two
prior
acus
studies,
particularly
a
recommendation
2018,
3
and
2021-10,
both
of
which
studied
how
agency
Personnel
could
use
electronic
case
management
systems
to
increase
efficiency
and
case
processing
and
increase
quality
by
capturing
and
utilizing
structured
data.
AR
Some
agencies
began
developing
these
tools
many
years
ago,
but
the
coveted
pandemic,
spurred
many
more
to
doing
so
in
recent
years.
As
such,
the
report
served
as
a
sort
of
first
draft
of
recent
history,
a
taxonomy
of
systems
that
agencies
have
deployed
often
very
quickly
and
often
under
very
difficult
operational
circumstances.
In
the
past
three
years
in
researching
the
report,
I
spoke
to
nearly
two
dozen
agency
staffers
from
a
dozen
agencies
from
adjudicators
to
Prosecuting
attorneys
to
Legal
assistants
and
I
was
heartened
to
hear
from
all
of
them.
AR
How
enthusiastic
they
were
about
the
systems
that
their
agencies
had
built
and
how
they
had
improved,
how
those
systems
had
improved
efficiency
and
quality
for
the
agency,
but
I
was
even
more
impressed
when
I
spoke
with
about
a
dozen
Representatives
who
practiced
before
some
of
our
most
high
volume,
eight
adjudicative
systems
who
again
to
a
person
who
are
extremely
enthusiastic
about
the
systems
that
agencies
had
built
over
the
past
years
and
how
they
had
improved
their
experience
in
practicing
before
those
agencies.
AR
That
said,
everyone
agreed
that
there
was
still
work
to
be
done
and
identified
many
improvements
that
could
be
made.
The
report
lays
those
out
and
I
believe
the
committee
did
a
fine
job
in
converting
those
findings
into
a
road
map
that
agencies
can
follow,
no
matter
how
advanced
their
systems
to
improve
in
the
coming
years
and
I'll.
Let
Nadine
speak
to
the
committee's
work
on
that
process.
AR
I'd
like
to
thank
everybody
that
I
spoke
to
from
all
the
agencies
who
took
their
time
to
share
their
experiences
and
knowledge
with
me,
I'm
also
the
representatives
in
further
into
the
report,
I'd
also
like
to
thank
vieca
staff,
who
helped
shape
the
report,
particularly
Jeremy
and
Andy,
and
also
our
intern,
plays
Springfield
Who
provided
invaluable
legal
assistance,
Mohan
floor
back
to
Andy
now,
but
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
might
have
throughout
the
process
today.
Thank.
AS
Thank
you.
This
is
going
to
be
a
bunch
of
thank
yous,
but
I'll
keep
my
remarks
brief.
Since
we
are
the
closer
today,
I
want
to
thank
Matt
for
an
excellent
report
and
great
guidance
throughout
the
committee
process
and
obviously
the
support
of
the
Aika
staff,
including
Andy
and
Jeremy,
for
their
leadership.
I
can't
say
enough
about
the
members
of
the
adjudication
committee.
They
brought
Clear
Eyes
and
a
consensus
driven
enthusiasm
to
this
project.
AS
So
thank
you
to
each
of
you
for
participating.
The
committee
completed
its
work
on
this
recommendation
in
less
than
two
meetings.
Yeah,
that's
a
record
I
think
the
recommendation
is
essentially
a
nuts
and
bolts
roadmap
for
agencies
to
follow
and
adapting
their
adjudication
processes
to
this
online
world.
We
live
in,
and
you
know
some
agencies
have
been
brave
Pioneers
in
this
area,
While
others
have
had
no
choices,
as
Matt
said,
to
consider
new
ways
of
meeting
their
mission
during
the
pandemic.
AS
So
our
deliberations
in
the
Preamble,
we
included
the
importance
of
making
online
systems
and
resources
compliant
with
accessibility
requirements,
including
making
them
available
in
multiple
languages,
and
then
in
the
recommendation
itself,
we
included
that
agency,
authentication
or
security
measures
should
be
implemented
in
a
way
that
does
not
impact
the
public
availability
of
case
related
documents.
AS
We
were
also
cognizant
of
the
need
for
stakeholder
feedback
from
design
to
implementation
of
this
process,
as
well
as
the
need
for
training
and
Outreach
for
all
users,
including
agency
personnel,
and,
in
the
end
I
think
we
found
a
lot
to
agree
about
and
and
our
path
to
this
point
was
was
smooth,
so
I
look
forward
to
hearing
from
each
of
you
and
and
I'll
turn
things
back
to
Andy.
Thank.
A
You
Nadine
the
first
order
of
business
is
the
manager's
Amendment
against
stylistic
and
Technical
updates
changes
any
objection
to
the
manager's
report
or
we
otherwise
adopted
by
unanimous
consent.
Seeing
no
seeing
no
objections.
The
Management's
amendment
is
adopted
by
unanimous
consent.
Any
general
discussion
debate
on
this
recommendation.
AD
AL
David
Lewis
public
member
thanks
for
this
trivia
report,
I
just
actually
have
a
a
point
of
clarification
in
the
report.
Given
all
the
interviews
and
and
work
that's
gone
into
it.
AL
The
work
on
administrative
burden
suggests
that
sometimes
the
sort
of
ease
of
access
to
benefit
systems,
whether
they're
original
or
in
the
appeals
process
fall.
They
tend
to
be
designed
differently
depending
on
the
demand,
the
capacity
of
the
agency
and
the
stigma
associated
with
the
people
applying
for
benefits.
AL
Did
you
see
that
same
kind
of
pattern?
Here
that
is?
Do
agencies
differ
in
the
ease
of
of
sort
of
experience
for
people
appealing
their
benefits,
denial
or
something
like
that
is
it?
Is
it
correlated
with
the
kinds
of
people
that
are
being
served
by
the
programs
that
you're
looking
at.
AR
Matt,
that's
an
excellent
question.
I
would
say
that,
yes,
the
agencies
that
have
a
more
paternalistic
relationship
with
their
clients
tend
to
create
much
more
robust
user
engagement
systems
such
as
they're,
more
likely
to
create
user-friendly
application
processes
and
more
likely
to
involve
ways
to
quickly
see
where
you
are
in
this
in
the
in
the
process.
AR
How
much
time
might
you
expect
before
your
before
your
claim
is
decided
or
something
like
that
so
I
I
think
there's
some
overlap
with
the
fact
that
those
are
the
largest
volume,
adjudicative
systems
and
so
they're
simply
more
money,
more
resources,
more
staff
available
to
to
vote
to
this
I
I?
Didn't
really.
You
know,
ask
after
that
question
as
to
whether
or
not
it's
a
it
has
to
do
with
administrative
burden
or
whether
it
has
to
do
with
resource
capacity
on
the
agency
side.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
David,
any
any
other
General
discussion.
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
any
hands
on
this
recommendation.
We
have
no
council
proposed
amendments
and
no
pre-submitted
amendments,
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
turn
turn
the
floor
over
to
any
amendments
that
anyone
has
to
offer.
Yes,
always.
AM
Eloise
pasaka
public
member
I
have
a
proposed
amendment
to
25
I,
don't
know
if
you
want
to
wait
to
see
if
there's
any
other
proposed
amendments
for
earlier.
No,
that's
fine!
Let's
do
yours,
okay,
so
I
the
I'm
about
to
offer
some
language
that
would
just
encourage
more
use
of
public
Outreach
at
more
time.
So
my
proposed
amendment
would
online
well
actually
yeah
so
line
163.
AM
AM
AM
AM
I
I
I,
particularly
like
the
change
from
adopt
to
use
I,
think
that's
that
makes
that
much
clearer.
I
was
trying
to
remember
whether
the
committee
had
a
separate
section
on
changing
and
improving
processes.
As
we
went
in
the
future.
AM
AM
AM
Right
so
the
the
last
sentence
in
20
suggests
acquiring
feedback
from
users
and
other
interested
parties
prior
to
in
continually
developing
these
systems.
AM
AM
Yeah
we're
working
this
out,
yeah
I'll
just
add
I,
think
all
of
this
sounds
consistent
with
how
we
considered
the
recommendation.
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
where
best
to
put
your
point,
I
do
think
that
we
felt
it
was
important
that
agencies
speak
to
their
stakeholders
before
they
make
these
processes.
Mandatory
Jeremy
has
a
thought,
the
point
of
clarification:
do
you
want
it
perhaps
online
144
after
the
first
comma,
so
we're
designing
and
implementing
online
processes,
especially
before
making
the
mandatory
agency
should
hurt,
and
then
we
would
strike
that
language
from
25.
AM
Okay,
does
everybody
see
the
amendment
seems
to
be
agreement
between
Eloise
and
Nadine
and
Matt
any
anything?
Last
last
from
you
guys,
Matt
Maybe.
AM
Are
you
good
with
this
yeah
I'm,
seeing
nodding
heads
they
are
oh
Jack
fierman.
Thank
you
very
much
great.
You
know.
I
appreciate
this
I
I,
but
I
think
that
the
point
of
25
was
different
from
the
point
of
20
and
I.
Think
we
shouldn't
mix,
mix
them
up
the
point
of
25
I
if
I
recall
correctly
was
just
that.
AM
We
should
encourage
people
to
do
things
online,
because
it's
just
so
much
more
efficient
for
everyone
and
it
had
nothing
to
do
with
assessment
for
how
they
worked
in
the
future.
20
was
about
assessment
for
how
they
work
in
the
future,
so
I
would
leave
25
as
it
was
originally,
maybe
with
changing
in
particular
to
the
word,
even
so
that
it's
just
we're
saying
when
they
should
be
encouraged
to
use
their
online
process
even
be
even
prior
to
making
online
even
before
they're
mandatory.
AM
AM
I
I
think
Jack
has
a
has
a
has
a
good
point.
There
25
was
supposed
to
capture
the
circumstance
where
certain
agencies
make
online
processes,
something
that
you
might
opt
into
or
that
you
might
have
to
opt
out
of,
and
then
others
have
them
fully
mandatory,
and
so
the
question
the
idea
under
25
was
that
agencies
that
introduced
new
processes
should
communicate
them
to
the
public
as
clearly
as
possible
and
then
especially
if
they're
going
to
require
users
to
use
them
and
yeah
he's
also
correct.
AM
That
20
was
primarily
about
continually
engaging
with
all
potential
users
as
you
develop
and
improve
these
processes.
Moving
forward,
yeah
I'll
just
add,
I,
think
Jack
has
an
excellent
point
as
well
and
I
guess
we're
talking
about
different
time
frames.
So
25
assumes
you
already
have
a
process
in
place
and
20
is
the
first
steps
in
developing
that
process.
AM
Okay,
does
anyone
else
wish
to
be
heard
on
this
yeah
I'll,
always
again
so
I
actually
like
this
now
too,
and
the
fact
that
I
now
understand
better
what
seemed
to
me.
The
disconnection
25
suggested
me
even
more
that
it's
helpful
to
have
the
prior
Outreach
that
we
just
added
or
that
we're
talking
about
adding
up
in
20
there.
What
I
did
it?
What
I
felt
uncomfortable
about
25
was
was
it
sounded
like
we
were
telling
agencies
to
conduct
public
Outreach
to
get
people
to
use
an
online
portal
without
knowing
whether
the?
AM
Why
weren't
the
people
wanting
to
use
the
online
portal-
and
maybe
it
was
because
they
wasn't
good
and
the
agencies
were
just
you
know-
telling
them
use
the
online
portal
without
asking
so
I
like
the
way
this
has
developed
and
I'm
happy
now.
If
we
keep
the
the
language
in
25,
although
I
actually
also
like
what
Jack
has
has
added
or
okay.
Well,
then,
let's
in
25
take
use
and
Jack's
language,
and
do
we
stay
with,
especially
before
making
them
mandatory
in
20.
AM
AM
AM
Oh
yeah,
Fernando,
Fernando,
laguardo,
council
member
question
for
the
committee
on
paragraph
17,
when
you
did
survey
or
or
Outreach
about
filing
fees
and
and
other
payments,
did
you
just
determined
that
there
were
also
mechanisms
for
applying
for
waivers
of
those
fees
or
payments
online
as
well?
Or
did
you
not
include
that
I
would
suggest
an
amendment
there,
providing
mechanisms
for
waiving
or
appealing
the
fees
if
you're
going
to
encourage
that
they
accept
them
electronically
as
well?
I
think
that
that
would
be
useful
and
helpful
to
add.
AM
That's
an
excellent
question
from
the
report
from
researching
and
writing
the
report.
I
looked
at
it
more
from
a
technical
standpoint
than
from
a
legal
standpoint
or
a
access
to
Justice
standpoint.
Those
were
sort
of
outside
the
range
of
what
I
was
tasked
to
study
by
Aegis
to
find
out
what
kinds
of
technological
tools
and
online
tools
agencies
were
developing.
AM
Whether
or
not
I
think
the
idea
of
an
online
request
for
waiver
would
fit
into
a
recommendation
on
this
front,
but
I
think
I
would
suggest,
but
I'll
leave
it
to
the
committee
or
in
the
conference
as
a
whole.
Whether
whether
waivers
or
requests
for
waivers
should
be
introduced
into
a
process
that
doesn't
already
have.
That
is
probably
outside
the
scope
of
this
recommendation.
As
long
as
there's
a
legal
request
for
waiver
available,
then
I
would
say
an
online
tool
for
requesting
that
waiver
would
be
appropriate
for
here.
AM
So
I
I
would
then
propose
the
an
amendment
at
the
end
of
the
sentence
on
a
paragraph
or
sentence
in
17
and
provide
electronic
mechanisms
for
waiving
and
appealing
those
payments
where
law,
where
lawful
we're
authorized
or
something
like
that.
AM
I'm
just
wondering
if
the
idea
is
that
the
online
process
includes
those
options
or
the
that
I'm
not
sure
a
deferred
amount
on
the
language
of
electronic
mechanisms.
If
that's
consistent
with
how
we've
phrase
or
or
is
it
more,
the
online
process
includes
we
tended
to
use
online
tool,
but
I
noticed
we
have
electronic
in
this
yeah
I
just
tried
to
use
the
same
word
there.
I
I,
don't
know
what
it
would
be
to
accept
electronic
payments
and
provide
an
online
tool
for
waving
and
appealing.
AM
AM
There
may
be
requirements
that
it
be
done
in
a
certain
way
and
with
certain
documentation
that
may
not
be
available
to
be,
they
may
not
be
able
to
be
submitted
electronically
and
such
so
I
would
just
leave
this
whole
subject
out
and
and
perhaps
at
some
point
we
acus
could
study
fees.
AM
You
know
required
to
engage
in
agency
in
adjudication
with
agencies
and
whether
waivers
ought
to
be
allowed
I
I
just
would
leave
it
out,
even
though
I
totally
agree
that
if
they
have
electronic
systems,
they
ought
to
accept
those
applications
that
way.
I.
Just
don't
feel
like
that.
I
have
the
knowledge
to
to
vote
on
this.
AM
Sure
a
Roxanne,
Rothschild
government,
member
I,
don't
know
if
this
helps,
but
my
first
thing
I
was
going
to
say,
is
I
think
it
needs
to
be
an
ore
between
waving
and
appealing,
so
it'd
be
waving
or
appealing
those
payments.
AM
But
what?
If
I
don't
know
if
this
would
help
with
Jack's
concern?
But
what,
if
it
said
and
comma,
where
authorized
comma,
provide
an
online
process
for
waiving
or
appealing
those
payments,
because
I
don't
know
that
they'll
always
be
the
option
to
do
that.
But
if
an
agency
does
allow
it,
you
wouldn't
want
someone
to
just
be
clicking
through
and
thinking.
Oh
I
have
to
pay.
This
I
have
to
pay
this
and
not
get
an
option
to
say
well,
I
want
to
appeal
or
I
want
to
seek
a
waiver
or
whatever
and
Fernando.
AM
AM
So
again,
as
I
said
this
morning,
I'm
deeply
in
line
with
this
policy
commitment.
I'm
also
concerned
about
adding
things
in
on
the
floor
that
we
haven't
researched,
that
don't
that
aren't
reflected
in
the
agencies
that
we've
surveyed
and
so
forth,
I'm
I'm
I
mean
we
passed
it
this
morning.
I
like
this
language,
much
better,
but
I
just
want
to
note
that
I
feel
uncomfortable
about
this
kind
of
addition,
without
underlying
legal
support
for
it
right
got
it.
Okay,
Ron
broadcast
council
member
I,
I
agree
with
both
Eloise
and
Jack
I
I.
AM
Think
Fernando's
point
is
is
a
good
one
that,
if
you
have
mechanisms,
would
be
good
to
have
them
online,
but
I
thought
that
what
we
were
dealing
with
in
17
was
really
the
mechanism
having
an
online
mechanism
for
this
process
for
the
payment
process.
AM
The
same
way
we
were
talking
about
online
mechanisms
for
certain
adjudication
processes
and
now
I
think
we're
adding
a
sort
of
a
different
notion
which
is
to
have
a
different
process
available
for
making
decisions
on
using
waivers
from
fees
and
things
and
and
I
think
that
we
should
sort
of
bracket
for
the
future.
AM
Studying
how
we
might
do
that,
rather
than
adding
it
into
this
recommendation,
because
I
think
we
may
get
ahead
of
ourselves
in
terms
of
what
we
actually
know
and
what
we're
actually
addressing
here
so
I
sympathize
with
the
notion
behind
it,
but
I
would
resist
adding
it
here.
Okay,
thank
you.
Ron
Alan
Morrison,
you,
you
still
have
a
point:
Alan,
Morrison
senior,
Phil,
I.
AM
Think
those
these
kind
of
requests
are
substantive
requests
in
the
proceeding
themselves
that
be
subject
to
the
usual
rules
about
who
you
serve
and
how
you
serve
it
and
how
you
go
make
it,
and
so,
therefore
it
is,
as
other
people
have
said,
outside
the
the
scope
of
17
and
I
think
outside
the
scope
of
everything
else
here
and
besides
that,
we
haven't
studied
it
so
I
would,
if
I
had
a
vote,
I
would
vote
against
it.
Okay,
Fernando
did
you
want
to
respond
to
these
two.
AM
If
I
can
ask
for
consideration
of
this
as
a
topic
for
further
study,
I
will
withdraw
the
amendment
based
on
the
points
that
were
made.
I
do
think
it's
an
important
one
and
I
do
think
that
that
lens
should
be
applied.
Whenever
we're
talking
about
processes
that
involve
payment
of
fees.
AM
Let
me
just
suggest
I
I
agree
with
Fernando.
AM
This
is
something
worth
studying
and
and
I
would
say
more
generally,
it's
worth
studying
the
processes
that
we
use
in
assessing
fees
and
in
in
adjudicating
what
sort
of
fees
are
paid
paid
agencies,
what
sort
of
waivers
might
be
appropriate
and
what
sort
of
processes
should
go
without
I
think
this
is
is
a
subject
for
a
bigger
sort
of
study
for
the
future
and
and
in
fact
we
have
an
ongoing
project
right
now
on
the
general
point
of
users
fees,
so
I
I
think
this
would
fold
in
quite
naturally
Mike.
Please.
AM
So,
just
to
clarify
the
topic
includes
waivers
and
appeals.
Okay,
yeah
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
not
just
fees
but
also
process
for
waiving
and
appealing
fees.
Absolutely
okay.
Thank
you.
Yeah
I
withdraw
the
amendment.
Okay,
Fernando!
Thank
you!
Bernie
Bell
and
Jack
Biermann.
You
you
saw
recognition.
Is
that
moot
now?
AM
Yes,
I
just
moved
with
the
withdrawal
of
a
proposal.
Okay,
thank
you
Jack!
No,
no!
You
know,
no
only
because
of
what
Bernie
said,
which
makes
me
realize
that
number
17
is
redundant
because
we
already
have
in
paragraph
two
f
says
that
we
should
there
should
be
a
a
electronic
way
to
make
payments
included
in
the
in
the
in
the
whole
system.
So
I'm
not
sure
we
need
17
at
all,
maybe
I'm
forgetting
something
from
our
meetings.
If
I
am
Nadine,
I
apologize,
but
maybe
we
don't
need
17
at
all.
AM
Jack
you're
you're
not
we
did
not
really
spend
a
great
deal
of
time
discussing
17,
in
fact,
maybe
not
at
all.
We
did
spend
time
on
two
in
terms
of
the
list
there
so
to
the
extent
that
there's
overlap,
that
would
be
something
to
consider
Matt.
You
were
the
original
drafter.
AM
AM
Let
the
conference
decide
but
I
would
probably
recommend
removing
a
17,
.
I.
Think
that
would
be
consistent
with
the
committee's
thoughts
as
well.
Okay.
Well
then,
anybody
else
have
a
thought
on
this.
If
not,
since
we
have
agreement
seeking
unanimous
consent,
any
objection,
then
the
Biermann
Amendment
will
be
adopted
by
unanimous
consent.
Thank
you,
Jack.
AM
AM
Okay,
thank
you
for
your
contributions.
All
right,
then
I'm
ready
to
make
this
one
a
wrap.
Otherwise
anyone
else
want
to
be
heard
before
we
before
we
go
to
final
adoption.
Do
I
have
a
motion
from
Ron
Cass.
Thank
you.
A
second
yep
I
see
several
seconds.
Thank
you.
So
Voice
vote
all
those
in
favor
of
adopting
the
the
recommendation.
AM
As
final,
please
say:
yay
yay,
all
those
opposed,
nay,
don't
hear
any
Nays,
so
the
yays
have
it
and
we've
adopted
our
fourth
and
final
recommendation,
give
yourselves
a
hand.
AM
Okay,
just
to
close
things
out,
our
business
has
concluded.
Thank
you
all
for
giving
acos
your
your
time,
your
expertise,
your
thoughtfulness
at
our
session
today
thank
the
staff
for
their
excellent
work.
The
next
plenary
has
been
tentatively
scheduled
for
December
14th,
which
is
also
a
Thursday
at
almost
six
months
to
the
day.
AM
I
wish
you
all
a
very
Happy
and
relaxing
summer
and
I
officially
adjourn
the
79th
plenary
session
of
the
administrative
conference.
The
United
States.