MEETING MINUTES

Meeting Date/Time: May 11, 2016, 1:30pm – 3:00pm

Location: Consumer Financial Protection Board, 1275 First Street NE

Agenda:

1. ACUS Update

2. ABA Ombuds Committee

3. ADR Interagency Working Group Report to the President

4. Updates and Learning Points from the IOA Conference Sessions

5. Public Affairs

6. COFO Executive Committee Updates

Highlights:

1. ACUS Update

CHI Resolutions is grateful for the responses from the federal ombuds community. 

Twenty nine offices completed the survey interviews. CHI is currently analyzing the data, 

selecting case studies and highlights, and will be reaching out for additional input from 

COFO members in the coming months. 

2. ABA Ombuds Committee

The ABA Ombuds Committee is in the process of developing a presentation/template to 

be used in law schools to teach and train students in the ombuds discipline. While the 

presentation currently presents three types of ombuds (Classical, Organizational, and 

Advocate) they continue to work towards including the External ombuds role in a more 

robust manner. If you have ideas or would like to assist in this effort, please reach out to 

Wendy Kamenshine (wendy.kamenshine@cfpb.gov) to provide input no later than 

Friday, May 20, 2016. 

This committee is also developing a suggested resolution to support the ombuds 

profession. After internal drafting and review, this committee will then solicit 

sponsorship from other ABA Committees in support of the resolution to move it forward. 
3. ADR Interagency Working Group Report to the President

COFO was visited by Melissa Leibman, Department of Justice, to articulate the goals of 

the Report to the President and for discussion around whether COFO should provide a 

submission in reflection of COFO’s collective efforts. Ms. Leibman verified format 

including a shorter submission comprised of highlights of COFO’s role in ADR in the 

federal government in recent years placing an emphasis on success stories. The 

submission, and submissions from individual agencies, could include successful case 

studies as well. Reach out to Melissa Leibman (Melissa.Leibman2@usdoj.gov) to 

provide a submission from your agency.

Comments from COFO members included providing the opportunity for Ms. Leibman to 

contact CHI Resolutions for a list of federal ombuds contacts. One member noted one of 

the biggest success stories of COFO is the expansion role of ombuds programs in the 

federal government as an expansion of ADR. COFO has grown significantly with that 

change as well. Some other key points and successes of the ombuds role is cost savings, 

latitude of ADR tools available to an ombuds, and a greater awareness of the role. 

COFO is requesting a volunteer point of contact to work with Ms. Leibman on this effort. 

Please reach out to the COFO Executive Committee if you are interested in doing so.

4. Updates and Learning Points from the IOA Conference Sessions

Keynote speaker Wayne Blair’s reminder to honor the systemic work as ombuds and 

move from a transactional function to a transformational approach.

Ombuds are growing as a profession and have the express opportunity to be flexible and 

creative in their approach. The speaker provided a useful reminder to bring your various 

skills to the table and utilize them for mission impact. 

Chuck Howard’s Federal Legislative Update informed attendees of over seven recent 

legislatively mandated ombuds functions in various forms. Is there an opportunity here 

for COFO to have a greater role in working with Congress for education purposes? If so, 

where does COFO speech begin and end? 

The option of a legislative sub-committee was proposed with little traction. Outward 

advocacy for federal ombuds could also be problematic and members plan to reach out to

internal agency public affairs offices and general counsel to discuss the propriety of 

federal employees speaking on behalf of an interagency committee. Another comment 

offered that COFO is the only body in the government that fully explains what the 

profession is and how it functions. Educational materials put out by this body could be 
beneficial to countering misinformation and could be seen as a key COFO role. COFO 

needs to further distinguish how this could function. 

Other suggestions included information that could be gleaned from whistleblower 

ombuds efforts and USOA’s efforts. Additionally, an individual or entity outside of the 

government could present the concept to Congress and invite COFO as a guest. After 

ACUS received the Ombuds Report, the Conference could include a recommendation to 

Congress to include COFO as a contact when writing ombuds legislation. 

5. Public Affairs

COFO Executive Committee provided a public comment to NARA on May 11, 2016 in 

support of NSA’s proposed records retention schedule. (See attached)

6. COFO Executive Committee Updates

The Exec Committee is moving forward with preparing for the upcoming COFO Annual 

Conference in Fall 2016. This year we are adding an additional half day pre-conference 

geared towards education and information of the ombuds function. A date will be 

announced soon. Please reach out to Riley Barrar (barrarre@state.gov) if you are 

interested in volunteering to help with conference planning. Exec is also collaborating 

with USOA to hold a COFO session at their annual conference in October. 

Attendees in person:

William Maurer, Department of Energy

Paul Sotoudeh, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Wendy Kamenshine, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Heather Milner, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Sharon Asar, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Kakeisla Qaasim, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Riley Barrar, Department of State

Stephanie Luckam, Transportation Security Administration

Karen Dean, United States Patent and Trademark Office

Megan Drefchinski, Federal Reserve

Melissa Leibman, (Guest) Department of Justice
Attendees by phone:

Scott Deyo, Department of Defense

Patricia Currier, National Aerospace and Space Administration

Jennifer Kirkpatrick, Transportation Security Administration

Fred Whittington, Department of Labor

Virginia Behr, Department of Health and Human Services

Ayanna Epps, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Marcia Larkins, Department of Health and Human Services

Carrie McGuire, Office of Government Information Services

Sara Roberts, Department of Homeland Security

Guy Weber, Department of Defense

Felicia Bunns, Department of Energy

Tyler Smith, National Institutes of Health

Philip Lee, Federal Maritime Commission

Kathy Breeden, Federal Transit Administration

Andy Kirkpatrick,

John Vanyur, John Vanyur Consulting

Chauncenette Morey, Federal Bureau of Investigation

Kimberly Day-Lewis, Department of Homeland Security

Dawn Miller-Sanders, “Conflict Transformation Associates"

Celeste Merrix, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

James Sung, Department of Homeland Security

Pamela Pontillo, Department of Energy

Joy Lee, National Credit Union Administration

Chris, NSA

Dallas Brown, Department of Homeland Security

Tonya Sibley, Transportation Security Administration

Lexi Wolfe, Small Business Administration

Jasmine Holling, NCUA

Sara Kith, Transportation Security Administration

Eric Raines, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
C O A L I T I O N O F F E D E R A L O M B U D S M A N

May 11, 2016 

Margaret Hawkins 

NARA Records Management Services 

Subject: Pending Records Schedule for the NSA Ombudsman (DAA–0457–2016–0002) 

Dear Ms. Hawkins: 

I am writing to you on behalf of the Coalition of Federal Ombudsman (COFO) Executive Committee. 

By way of introductions, COFO is the principal interagency forum that provides collaboration, 

advice, and guidance on professional Ombuds standards, skills development, program 

development, and effectiveness. In this capacity, we reviewed the subject records schedule in 

comparison with professional standards, prominent literature and previous decisions on federal 

ombudsman records. NSA’s Ombudsman program asserts alignment with the International 

Ombudsman Association standards of independence, neutrality, informality (categorically not part 

of investigative or oversight functions), and confidentiality. An important underlying theme with 

this schedule includes balancing transparency and confidentiality of ombudsman communications, 

which understandably warrants discussion. 

This records schedule fully comports with the broad and mandatory confidentiality protections 

afforded by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, related Department of Justice 

guidance on confidentiality, and prominent federal and international ombudsman references (see 

attached). More importantly, the ombudsman community of practice, including all sectors of 

academia, government, international organizations, and industry, agree that confidentiality is a 

non-negotiable, core principle. Such confidentiality is not based on a subversive desire to mislead 

or hide matters from the public. Rather, confidentiality exists as a dutiful commitment to the 

people the ombudsman serves, and for all those who might consider contacting an ombuds, to not 

disclose private discussions without permission. We provide this commitment except in the very 

rare case where there appears to be an imminent risk of serious harm. 

Along with the other core standards, confidentiality gives people a safe place to talk about difficult 

issues and to explore resolution options. Confidentiality is a core reason that ombuds programs 

exist and often a prerequisite for starting dialogue. This is true for both people who feel harmed 

and for those who observe unacceptable behavior. In many cases, with permission from visitors, an 

ombudsman can address individual or systemic issues without revealing the identity of the person 

who came forward. For example, Ombuds frequently find ways for critical information to surface to 

the proper office in ways that completely protects the source of information. Therefore Ombuds 

help organizations work toward positive changes on issues that never would have surfaced without 

the promise of confidentiality and anonymity. Maintaining strict confidentiality, then, is a principal 

ombudsman value that must be protected to the maximum extent possible. 

The COFO Executive Committee concurs with the proposed NSA Ombudsman records schedule. 

Please let us know if you have any questions. 

Very Respectfully, 

Scott M. Deyo 

COFO Chair 
Prominent Ombudsman References

Administrative Conference of the United States. 1990. Recommendation 90-2, “The

Ombudsman in Federal Agencies.” 

Retrieved from https://www.acus.gov/research-projects/ombudsman-federal-agencies-0

U.S. Government Accountability Office. April 2001. GAO-01-466, "The Role of the Ombudsmen 

in Dispute Resolution." Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/240/231398.pdf

Coalition of Federal Ombudsman, Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group, 

and American Bar Association. May 9, 2006. “A Guide for Federal Employee Ombuds: A 

Supplement To and Annotation of the Standards for the Establishment and Operations of 

Ombuds Offices.” Retrieved from http://federalombuds.ed.gov/federalombuds/pdfs/Final_Ombuds_Standards.pdf

American Bar Association. 2010. The Organizational Ombudsman: Origins, Roles, and 

Operations – A Legal Guide / Howard, Charles L.

International Ombudsman Association Standards of Practice, Code of Ethics, and Best Practices.

Retrieved from https://www.ombudsassociation.org/About-Us/IOA-Standards-of-Practice-IOA-Best-Practices.aspx