Senate Chief Counsel for Employment: Comments to the Notice of Proposed Amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the Office of Compliance – 20031020
Dear Mr. Thompson:
Pursuant to section 303(b) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (the “CAA”), the Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment submits the following comments to the Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Procedure published on September 4, 2003.
Section 1.03(d) – Filing and Computation of Time
As written, this section is ambiguous as to whether the phrase “in which proof of delivery to the addressee is provided” modifies “express mail.” Accordingly, the sentence should be rewritten as follows: “Whenever these rules permit or require service of filing of documents by certified mail, return receipt requested, such documents may also be served or filed by express mail or other forms of expedited delivery. In all instances, however, proof of delivery to the addressee must be provided.”
Section 1.05 – Designation of Representative
In the introductory statement to the Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Procedure, the Office of Compliance (“Office”) states that such rules arc proposed under section 303 of the Congressional Accountability Act. That section, entitled “Procedural Rules,” authorizes the Executive Director, subject to the approval of the Board, to “adopt rules governing the procedures of the Office, including procedures of the hearing officer. . . .”
The Office issued the extant rule 1.05, which permits non-attorney representatives, in excess of the Office’s authority. Nothing in the CAA gives the Executive Director the authority to have issued rule 1.05 in the first instance.
Furthermore, the issuance of the extant rule 1.05 has created a situation that is untenable and inconsistent with the CAA by permitting complainants, including those who have filed unrelated charges against the same office, to represent each other in their respective mediations. The attendance of one complainant at the mediation of another complainant violates the express language of section 416(b) of the CAA, which states that all mediations shall be strictly confidential. Because the CAA is a waiver of sovereign immunity, all conditions of that waiver, including the strict confidentiality requirement, must be strictly followed.
Learn more and continue to read by downloading the following document(s).
Home Rules & Regulations Procedural Rules
Senate Chief Counsel for Employment: Comments to the Notice of Proposed Amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the Office of Compliance – 20031020
Dear Mr. Thompson:
Pursuant to section 303(b) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (the “CAA”), the Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment submits the following comments to the Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Procedure published on September 4, 2003.
Section 1.03(d) – Filing and Computation of Time
As written, this section is ambiguous as to whether the phrase “in which proof of delivery to the addressee is provided” modifies “express mail.” Accordingly, the sentence should be rewritten as follows: “Whenever these rules permit or require service of filing of documents by certified mail, return receipt requested, such documents may also be served or filed by express mail or other forms of expedited delivery. In all instances, however, proof of delivery to the addressee must be provided.”
Section 1.05 – Designation of Representative
In the introductory statement to the Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Procedure, the Office of Compliance (“Office”) states that such rules arc proposed under section 303 of the Congressional Accountability Act. That section, entitled “Procedural Rules,” authorizes the Executive Director, subject to the approval of the Board, to “adopt rules governing the procedures of the Office, including procedures of the hearing officer. . . .”
The Office issued the extant rule 1.05, which permits non-attorney representatives, in excess of the Office’s authority. Nothing in the CAA gives the Executive Director the authority to have issued rule 1.05 in the first instance.
Furthermore, the issuance of the extant rule 1.05 has created a situation that is untenable and inconsistent with the CAA by permitting complainants, including those who have filed unrelated charges against the same office, to represent each other in their respective mediations. The attendance of one complainant at the mediation of another complainant violates the express language of section 416(b) of the CAA, which states that all mediations shall be strictly confidential. Because the CAA is a waiver of sovereign immunity, all conditions of that waiver, including the strict confidentiality requirement, must be strictly followed.
Learn more and continue to read by downloading the following document(s).
Senate Chief Counsel for Employment: Comments to the Notice of Proposed Amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the Office of Compliance - 20031020
Download ›
CATEGORIES: Comments Procedural Rules
TAGS: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
Recent News