MEETING MINUTES

Meeting Date/Time: November 9, 2016 1:30pm – 3:00pm

Location: In-person and Dial-in

Agenda:

1. Review of ACUS (Administrative Conference of the United States) Study Update

2. Review of the Annual Conference

3. Discussion of the use of Official Time to work with Ombudsman

Highlights:

1) ACUS Report:

Paul gave an update on the ACUS report; current version sent to the community.

Page 4 –

a. ACUS seeking to adopt three core standards and common characteristics. ACUS 

enumerated the common characteristics

b. Discussion about Ombuds neutral position in an agency/organization. COFO’s positions 

were well represented at the last ACUS meeting. 

c. Inability to remove or retaliate against an Ombuds under certain circumstances

Page 5 –

d. Confidentiality is now noted a requirement and not a discretionary choice.

Page 8 –

e. Existing offices that don’t meet the prescribed standards, ACUS recommends 

programmatic review.

Page 12 –

f. Ombuds access to independent legal counsel, modified to Ombuds access to legal 

counsel. 

* Request was made by a member to submit feedback to ACUS on behalf of COFO’s position on such 

contentious topics. 
2) COFO Conference:

 Executive committee is planning on an October 2017 conference; looking at the middle part 

of October and coordinating with PTO.

3) Discussion Topics:

 Question raised about official time; does your agency have any 

guidelines/thoughts/experiences on allowing employee’s official time to talk with the OMB. 

 COMMENT - Should be managed by the individual but discussions with OMB is considered 

part of their official time. Again, notwithstanding abuse parameters, if that’s suspected. 

Examples given include interviews, EEO proceedings/meetings, EAP.

 Some folks shared best practices in ways to loop in or engage the supervisor who has the 

concern.

 VLTP question, can/do OMB donate leave to folks outside of their immediate staff? Followup question about COFO creating a process for Ombuds to donate leave within the 

community.

o COMMENT - If donations have been made, their agency protects the identity of the 

donor.

o COMMENT – Have made a personal decision to not donate out of respect for the 

neutrality clause of the OMB role.

o COMMENT – In the internal OMB role, it has blurred the lines. An ethical question 

worth exploring. 

o Executive Committee – offered to put together a program for the committee that 

would match requests with donors and the mechanics would be handled between 

the parties.

Executive Committee Chair:

 Responsibilities will be shared between Paul and Bill. Paul will assume the role of Chair until 

June at which time Bill will assume the role of Chair for the duration of their tenure. 
Attendees: 

In-Person

Drefchinski, Megan – Federal Reserve Board

Hart, Erich – Department of State

Janson, Michael – Federal Communication Commission

Little, Tim – Department of State

Maurer, William – Department of Energy

Sotoudeh, Paul - Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Call-In

Barrar, Riley – Department of State

Campbell, Sally – Supreme Court of VA

Dean, Karen – Department of Commerce

Gartlan, Jennifer – Federal Maritime Commission

Gordon, Laurel – Department of Justice

Haase, Robert – Department of Justice

Kamenshine, Wendy - Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Larkins, Marcia – Department of Health and Human Services

Michael, David - Department of Health and Human Services

Mills, Laurel –Department of Justice

Roberts, Sara - Department of Homeland Security

Rowe, Mary – Chi Associates

Teixeira, Rachel – Department of State

Thomas, Raya – Department of Justice

Weber, Guy – Department of Defense