Rules & Regulations

Dear Ms. Sapin:

I provide the following comments on behalf of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) in response to the Proposed Rulemaking published in the Congressional Record on September 9,2014.

$ 1.03(a) – Filing and Computation of Time. Allowing the Board, Hearing Officer, Executive Director and General Counsel to determine the method by which documents may be filed in a particular proceeding “in their discretion” is overly broad and overreaches. Please clarify whether there will be different methods used for filing in the same case. With respect to time allowance for delivery, please explain whether five (5) additional days will be added no matter the type of service and whether the OOC will inform the opposing party of the prescribed dates for a response.

§ 1.07(a) – Designation of a Representative. The requirement that only one person may be designated as a representative is problematic since there have been situations when- more than one attorney has represented both the employing offices and employees. For example, what if an employee were represented by out of state counsel who could not fly in for depositions or hearings? Would local counsel be permitted? What if the case were so large that it required more than one firm? Perhaps the limitation should be that a party may have only one representative for point of contact purposes with the OOC.

§ 1.07(c) – Revocation of a Designation of Representative. A time limit should be imposed for a party to designate a new representative.

$ 1.08-Confidentiality. Communications between attorneys and clients should never amount to a confidentiality breach absent a protective order. With the deletion of the “Breach of Confidentiality Provisions” section, there is no timeframe listed for when a party can claim a confidentiality breach. The OOC should institute the previous requirement.

$ 2.03 – Counseling. The employing office should receive the request for counseling once an employee files a complaint with the OOC.