The Defense Department’s main ethics office has advised that
offices review their procedures regarding outside activities,
in light of a House investigation into consulting agreements
between outside entities and agency employees in more than
a dozen agencies, most of them involving in regulation and
the science fields. The lawmakers are concerned that federal
employees who receive outside compensation or monetary awards
may have a conflict of interest with their official duties,
and that agencies are being lax in enforcing ethics rules
regarding outside activities.
“Two systemic problems are being addressed in the hearings:
First, that some agencies may have inadequate regulations and
procedures to prevent conflicts of interest stemming from
outside employment. Second, agency procedures are not being
followed,” the DoD ethics office said in a recent transmittal.
“In light of these findings, it may be prudent to review
agency procedures regarding outside activities.”
The notice cited rules that require DoD personnel who file a
financial disclosure report to obtain approval from their
supervisor before accepting employment from a “prohibited
source” (essentially someone doing or seeking to do business
with the DoD) and said that such outside activities include
receipt of honoraria and outside employment. Approval of any
such outside activity must be granted in advance. DoD rules
also require that the agency ethics official approve, by
written determination, any awards to personnel that exceed
$200 in market value, and all awards in cash or investment
interests, it said.
Similarly, all federal personnel are subject to 18 U.S.C. 208,
which prohibits employees from participating personally and
substantially in particular matters that have a direct and
predictable effect on the employee’s financial interest, and
the financial interest of any employer. Personnel should
disqualify themselves from participating in an activity that
would affect the outside employer, it said.
In addition, 5 C.F.R. 2635.502 states that if an employee
has a “covered relationship” with a business such as by way
of outside employment, such an arrangement might create the
appearance of a conflict of interest for the employee in the
workplace who is working on a matter that could be perceived
as affecting the outside employer. If so, the employee’s
supervisor may determine if the employee still may be
authorized to participate in that matter in an official
capacity.
“In light of the findings by the subcommittee, ethics
counselors should take steps to remind personnel of conflicts
of interest that may arise from outside employment. In
addition, ethics counselors should ask supervisors to be
attuned for indications of outside employment within their
work centers, and ensure such employment does not violate the
above restrictions,” it said.
