UNCLASSIFIED 

1 

UNCLASSIFIED

MEETING MINUTES 

Meeting Date and Time: May 12, 2021, 1:30-3:00 pm (ET) 

Location: WebEx 

Agenda: 

1. Follow up on ACUS Project on ADR in Agency Adjudication 

2. 2021 Annual Conference Update 

3. Social Media Committee Update 

4. Suggested COFO Initiative: Solo Practitioner Adjunct Group for Collaboration 

5. Ombuds Day Update/Reminder – 10/14/2021 

6. Announcements 

7. Next Ombuds Supporting Ombuds (OSO) Meeting 5/26/2021 

8. Discussion Topics 

Highlights: 

1. Follow-up on ACUS Project 

a. ACUS POC for ADR Project, Danielle (Dani) Schulkin – dschulkin@acus.gov

b. Link to project summary: 

https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ADR_RFP_61920_0.pdf

c. At the March 2021 COFO meeting, we had the ACUS ADR Project Team, and this 

meeting we have the ACUS POC to answer some questions best addressed by ACUS 

d. ACUS appreciated the feedback on the language “mission specific” and has changed 

that language in the project 

e. The primary purpose of this ACUS ADR project is to determine how ADR is used by 

agencies during enforcement actions against external parties and not to exclusively 

determine how ombuds are used by agencies in the federal government 

f. The ACUS ADR Project will review how agencies use all the methods listed in the 

ADR act to resolve a specific class of enforcement actions accurately and efficiently 

against external parties 

g. Under statute ACUS as an agency is charged with studying specific design questions 

from different agencies to improve administrative procedures to include the 

equitable resolution of government adjunctions and hearings, and publishing reports 

that affect public and private interests 
UNCLASSIFIED 

2 

UNCLASSIFIED

h. ADR is often championed in resolving administrative disputes with government and 

external parties 

i. This ACUS ADR project will address the use of ADR specifically externally, and this 

project is a descriptive report. 

j. The ACUS ADR report issued will not be prescriptive recommendations; meaning it is 

an academic study not to be published with instructions for government agencies 

k. ACUS appreciates the help by COFO to refine the language of the report as this 

project is different from those of past recommendation type reports 

l. This specific project will include the use of ombuds in ADR but not exclusively how or 

if ombuds are used, and most government ombuds programs will not fit the model 

that will be studied in this project 

m. ACUS would appreciate if COFO ombuds would reach out to ACUS directly if their 

agency’s program fits the external-facing enforcement dispute model that would be 

studied in this project 

n. The questions COFO had were: 

i. How does ACUS plan to address concerns about the language in the project 

description? 

ii. Can you further describe the intent behind the report? You mentioned that 

the report is not intended to be “prescriptive” – what does that mean? 

iii. Are there accuracy checks in the process to ensure the ombuds role is 

described properly? Will there be a working group or something similar 

comprised of knowledgeable practitioners working in an advisory capacity to 

assist the contract team in accurately defining, characterizing, and framing 

the ombuds role (and other ADR roles) in the final report? 

iv. The current project description mentions “the use of ombuds”, in a fashion 

that mirrors the language in ADRA, as part of a list of ADR roles which will be 

covered. However, if ombuds is included in the study but mentioned only in 

passing in the final report, that would send an implied message about the 

ombuds role, suggesting to readers that it has minimal utility in the 

resolution of agency mission-focused disputes. If the research shows a need 

to include ombuds, how will the team ensure that the role is a fully 

represented player in the report? And if the focus is specifically on other 

types of ADR such as mediation and arbitration, will consideration be given 

to explicitly circumscribing the scope of the report to those specific fields and 

removing “ombuds” entirely? 

o. Most questions were addressed in opening comments and much of the information 

is to be determined based on the available options for agencies and if any ombuds 

program within agencies fits the model being studied 

p. Ombuds use is mentioned as an option in the ADR project and not as a defined role 

meaning the project poses the question of how ombuds are used, could ombuds be 

used, along with or in addition to other options 
UNCLASSIFIED 

3 

UNCLASSIFIED

q. If any questions are not addressed during the meeting Dani asked for others to 

contact her directly 

r. Question. What was mean by “ombuds enforcement procedure” and could more be 

discussed about experience of project managers with ombuds profession and 

practice? 

s. The study is looking an enforcement actions against external actors meaning the use 

of ADR used by an agency prior to going to court or a direct action 

t. Ombuds is an informal process and the used prior to action being taken by an 

agency on an external party 

u. Procedure was not the best word, the ACUS project would look at alleged activity 

prior to the formal action being pursued by the agency 

v. Question. Will the project look at how ombuds conducts reviews for systemic 

problems with agency procedures and how that affects dispute resolution, or would 

it only deal with specific case-by-case actions with an individual stakeholder? 

w. Dani asked if this question could be an offline discussion to be further considered by 

the project managers and to contact her directly with these concerns 

2. 2021 Annual Conference Update 

a. Save the Date: October 15, 2021 tentative date for COFO Annual Conference

b. This date is the Friday after Ombuds Day and has traditionally generated the 

greatest participation in conference 

c. Watch your email for an announcement requesting volunteers: conference 

committee chairs and members

3. Social Media Committee Update 

a. Thanks to everyone for the survey feedback: ~30 respondents

b. Survey results will be shared in summary in proposal to COFO Executive Committee 

and then shared with the COFO membership

c. Important note: Social Media initiative is for professional networking and not to 

discuss ombuds practice issues

d. COFO currently has LinkedIn account, but it is not being used and could potentially 

benefit the community by providing a source of information and additional way to 

promote the ombuds profession

e. Any social media account like LinkedIn would have membership criteria and be 

limited in scope relating to comments that could be made or seen by the public

f. Proposal for social media would consider all comments made in the survey and 

provide mitigation strategies to address concerns 

4. Suggested COFO Initiative: Solo Practitioner Adjunct Group 

a. The initiative for a Solo Practitioner group is proposed as a network of solo 

practitioners connected based on their models (so externals with other externals, 
UNCLASSIFIED 

4 

UNCLASSIFIED

internals with other internals) who agree to meet on a regular basis to essentially do 

case review with each other 

b. This would be the same a case review that is done in programs where there are 

multiple ombuds who discuss cases 

c. One concern is confidentially, and there would need to some rules to ensure that 

concern is addressed 

d. One question was how is this different from the mentoring program as this program 

provides the opportunity to discuss casework with a seasoned ombuds without 

naming names 

e. This would be a supplement to the mentoring program and would allow time for 

more in-depth discussion of case review on a more frequent basis such as bi-weekly 

f. Parameters and monitoring are needed to ensure standards are followed and to 

ensure misinformation is not given 

5. Ombuds Day Update/Reminder 

a. Ombuds Day is October 14, 2021, and it is the 4th annual year for this event 

b. Ken Skodacek is leading this effort for ABA, and other volunteers from COFO are 

Mark Lewis, Sandi Moore, Jennifer Swann, and Jennifer Malony, who is the COFO 

liaison on the subcommittee for the Ombuds Day 

c. Theme for this year’s Ombuds Day is “Ombuds: Exploring Options to Resolve Conflict 

Together” 

d. Speakers this year for Ombuds Day will be focused on people who support ombuds 

but do not work directly as ombuds, such as the CEO of Twitter who recently hired 

an ombuds or Elizabeth Warren who created a well-known ombuds program 

6. Announcements 

a. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) is seeking to fill a GS 15 Ombuds position as 

an ICA joint duty assignment for 2 years. Contact Sandi Moore 

b. FDIC Office of the Ombuds issued an annual report for 2019 and 2020 

https://www.fdic.gov/about/ombudsman/reportonactivities2019and2020.pdf

7. Next OSO Meeting 05/26/2021 

a. Ombuds Supporting Ombuds (OSO) at 2 pm ET on 05/26/2021 

b. Meetings have been held for over a year and are a space for ombuds to share and 

support each other 

c. Any topics you want to talk about send to Heather Milner, Heather.Milner@cfpb.gov

8. Discussion Topics 

a. Employee Social Media Comments and their Intersection with Ombuds Practice– a 

COFO member reached out to us to indicate that they are a member of a private 

Facebook group for employees at their agency that routinely raises several topics, 

questions and concerns about the workplace 

b. The ombuds does not participate in the discussion or comment but wants to know if 

the community has thoughts on if/how to ethically use the topics, questions, and 
UNCLASSIFIED 

5 

UNCLASSIFIED

concerns raised on social media by employees or stakeholders to identify possible 

systemic issues within the ombuds purview 

c. One ombuds does not participate on online forums but visitors often raise issues 

found in those forums, and information was offered by the ombuds to post on that 

online forum that would direct others to resources to address the issues 

d. One ombuds stated they would not be comfortable be on the online forum as a 

“sock puppet” (pseudonymous user) and would never do it 

e. Question about if the groups were associated with the union or union member led 

group, and it was determined for this situation it was not a union supported or 

sponsored forum 

f. Topics that impact internal and external ombuds work can be found on social media 

and how we interact with it is somewhat of an open question 

g. These topics may need to be handled on a case-by-case basis 

h. Union topics or union specific groups on social media sites should not be addressed 

by an ombuds 

i. What is the difference between hearing something during your normal social media 

interactions and eavesdropping on a group to find issues to raise? 

j. Another question would be that if negative are issues are being raised in a social 

media group when would your silence as an ombuds look like consent? 

k. The issue with this topic was to discuss when participating in a private social media 

group relating to your agency or work topics within your agency how do you 

navigate the type of feedback you see... is the feedback you see public, private, 

borderline, or case-by-case? 

l. Other topics tabled due to time constraints 

Attendance 05/12/2021 

Last First Agency Call-In 

Adams Joanne USDA 1 

Anderson Jeff DOE 1 

Arbid Michelle FEMA 1 

Balick Howard FDA 1 

Bedlivy Dawn NSA 1 

Berg Mollie DOD / National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 

(NGA) 

1 

Brown Amy FDIC 1 

Brown Andrea United States Patent and Trademark Office 

(USPTO) 

1 

Cameron Bob CFPB 1 
UNCLASSIFIED 

6 

UNCLASSIFIED

Last First Agency Call-In 

Carmouche Colette TSA 1 

Coffman Cherina NGA 1 

Coleman Jean SBA 1 

Dean Karen FMCS 1 

DeBerry Marcella NSA 1 

Footman Aaron USPTO 1 

Gadlin Howard retired (former NIH) 1 

Garmon Felisa CFPB 1 

Gnatt Sheldon NSA 1 

Gordon Laurel DOJ / U. S. Marshals Service (USMS) 1 

Hopkins Emilee NGA 1 

Hurley Nathan FDA / Center for Tobacco Products 1 

Kamenshine Wendy CFPB 1 

Katherine Erica FDA 1 

Kinnavy Noreen Broadcasting Board of Governors 1 

Lawrence Steve DHS Office of Intelligence & Analysis 1 

Levine Lisa DOJ / Executive Office of Immigration Review 

(EOIR) 

1 

Lewis Mark D. FDA 1 

Lloyd Brenda FLETC 1 

Manderson Katie VA 1 

Marcotte Dan FDIC 1 

Maurer Bill Census 1 

McNeil Tracey SEC 1 

McGuire Carrie NARA / OGIS 1 

Megee Christine DOD Education Activity 1 

Miller Carla DOJ / ATF 1 

Milner Heather CFPB 1 

Moore Sandi NRO 1 

Morey Chauncenette FBI 1 

Patel Bina USPTO 1 

Porch Susanne Commerce / National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) 

1 

Posner Allison DHS 1 

Pritzker David 1 
UNCLASSIFIED 

7 

UNCLASSIFIED

Last First Agency Call-In 

Robinson Belinda FBI 1 

Rojas Nick DOD / DIA 1 

Rowe Mary Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 1 

Schulkin Dani ACUS 1 

Semo Alina NARA 1 

Simpson Melissa HHS 1 

Skodacek Ken FDA 1 

Smith Julie Census 1 

Sotoudeh Paul USPTO 1 

Voloshin Victor NIH 1 

Vermillion Chris TSA 1 

Villafane Jacqueline American Red Cross 1 

Weber Guy DOD / NGA 1 

Whittington Fred (Whitt) DOL OIG 1 

Wolfe Lexi DOE 1 

Yuille 

Banford 

Deanna DOD / Defense Human Resources Activity 1 

 Total 58