The following data is taken from the Freedom Of Information Act 
As published Oct. 26, 1999 
Department of Justice Files "
"

• Fourteen Principles of Ethical Conduct for Federal Employees (1) Public service is a public trust, requiring employees to place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws and ethical principles above private gain. (2) Employees shall not hold financial interests that conflict with the conscientious performance of duty. (3) Employees shall not engage in financial transactions using nonpublic Government information or allow the improper use of such information to further any private interest. (4) An employee shall not, except as permitted by the Standards of Ethical Conduct, solicit or accept any gift or other item of monetary value from any person or entity seeking official action from, doing business with, or conducting activities regulated by the employee's agency, or whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee's duties. (5) Employees shall put forth honest effort in the performance of their duties. (6) Employees shall not knowingly make unauthorized commitments or promises of any kind purporting to bind the Government. (7) Employees shall not use public office for private gain. (8) Employees shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual. (9) Employees shall protect and conserve Federal property and shall not use it for other than authorized activities. (10) Employees shall not engage in outside employment or activities, including seeking or negotiating for employment, that conflict with official Government duties and responsibilities. (11) Employees shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities. (12) Employees shall satisfy in good faith their obligations as citizens, including all financial obligations, especially those -- such as Federal, State, or local taxes -- that are imposed by law. (13) Employees shall adhere to all laws and regulations that provide equal opportunity for all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicap. (14) Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in the Standards of Ethical Conduct. Whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or these standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts.

To keep this page relatively short, I have deleted some examples below that do not fit this circumstance.

*Pete's work at the Food and Drug Administration requires him to participate in the process for review and approval of certain new drugs. His mother has just taken a senior position with a biomedical research company producing a new drug that would typically be subject to Pete's review. Pete is concerned that it might "look bad" if he participates in the review and approval process for the drug, but after doing some research he determines that his mother's employment with the research company is not a "disqualifying financial interest" under 18 U.S.C. § 208(a). Should Pete disregard his concerns and proceed to review the drug? No. Pete is right to be concerned. In addition to the financial conflict of interest situations discussed above, there are a number of situations that raise "appearance" concerns and, consequently, require employees to take certain steps to avoid an appearance of the loss of impartiality. Situations presenting some of the most significant "appearance" concerns arise when an employee is called upon to participate in a particular matter involving specific parties and the employee knows that-- The matter is likely to affect the financial interests of a member of the employee's household; or One or more of the parties to the matter is or is represented by-- A person or organization with whom the employee has or seeks a business relationship that involves something more than a routine consumer purchase; A person who is a member of the employee's household, or who is a relative with whom the employee has a close personal relationship; A person or organization for whom the employee's spouse, parent or dependent child is, to the employee's knowledge, serving or seeking to serve as an officer, director, trustee, general partner, agent, attorney, consultant, contractor or employee; Any person or organization for whom the employee has, within the last year, served as officer, director, trustee, general partner, agent, attorney, consultant, contractor or employee; or An organization, other than certain political organizations, in which the employee is an active participant. 

•   Jenny is employed as a researcher by the Veteran's Administration. Her cousin and close friend, Zach, works for a pharmaceutical company that does business with the VA. Jenny's 40th birthday is approaching and Zach and his wife have invited Jenny and her husband out to dinner to celebrate the occasion. May Jenny accept? Yes. Gifts are permitted where the circumstances make it clear that the gift is motivated by a family relationship or personal friendship rather than the position of the employee. It would be improper, however, for Jenny to accept the dinner if Zach charged the meal to his employer because then it would no longer be a gift from Zach. Exceptions to the rule against acceptance of gifts allow employees to accept-- Unsolicited gifts with a value of $20 or less; Gifts clearly given because of a family relationship or personal friendship; Free attendance at an event on the day an employee is speaking or presenting information on behalf of the agency; Free attendance at certain widely-attended gatherings; Certain discounts and similar opportunities and benefits; Certain awards and honorary degrees; and Certain gifts based on outside business or employment relationships. You should be aware that there are limitations on the applicability of some of these exceptions. For example, use of the widely-attended gathering exception would require an advance determination by your agency that your attendance is in the interest of the agency. Also, there are more exceptions than those listed above. When you are faced with a gift issue, it's a good idea either to get advice from your agency
  official or to look up the relevant provisions in the regulations. Limits on use of the exceptions Once you've determined that a gift falls within one of the exceptions to the gift rules, are you free to accept it? Not necessarily. None of the exceptions may be used to-- Accept a gift in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act; Solicit or coerce the offering of a gift; Accept gifts so frequently as to create an appearance that you are using public office for private gain; Accept a gift in violation of any statute. Among the statutes you should know about are those prohibiting-- Solicitation or receipt of bribes (18 U.S.C. § 201(b)); and Receipt of salary or any contribution to or supplementation of salary as compensation for Government service from a source other than the United States (18 U.S.C. § 209). Remember also that just because you may accept a gift under one of the exceptions to the gift rule doesn't mean that you must accept the gift. It is never wrong, and is often wise, to decline a gift offered by a person or organization whose interests could be affected by actions of the agency where you work, or a gift offered because of your official positio n. Exercising your discretion to decline a gift may be particularly smart when a gift is offered by a person or organization whose interests could be affected by your official actions.   Impartiality in Performing Public Duties What are situations raising appearance concerns? 
   
• The following cases are examples of situations raising appearance concerns: Maria, who works for the General Services Administration, wants to begin an outside retail business. In her private capacity, she has made an offer to buy a store owned by a local developer. The developer has pending with GSA a proposal to provide Federal office space and Maria expects that she will be called upon to evaluate the bid. Frank inspects manufacturing establishments for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. His brother-in-law and friend, James, has just purchased a plant that Frank is assigned to inspect. Rebecca recently resigned her position as vice president of an electronics company in order to join the Federal Aviation Administration. Her new boss has asked her to participate in the administration of a contract for which her old company is a first-tier subcontractor. Jeremy is an attorney at the Agriculture Department as well as a member of and publicity chairperson for the private organization Stop the Gypsy Moths. Stop the Gypsy Moths files a law suit against USDA and Jeremy's boss asks Jeremy for his legal analysis of the case. Resolving appearance concerns If you are faced with a situation that falls within one of the above categories, your first step is to decide whether a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would question your impartiality if you participated in the matter. In making this determination you may seek assistance from your supervisor, your agency
  official, or the person specifically designated by your agency to address appearance problems (the "agency designee"). Remember that your honesty and integrity are not relevant considerations in this determination. If you decide that a reasonable person would not question your impartiality, then you may participate in the matter, unless the agency designee reaches a different conclusion. If you or the agency designee decide that your impartiality would be questioned, then you may not participate unless the designee, considering all the circumstances, determines that the interest of the Government in your participation outweighs the concern that a reasonable person may question the integrity of the agency's programs and operations. You should be aware that not all appearance problems fall into the above categories. The steps outlined here also should be followed if you are concerned that other circumstances may raise a question about your impartiality. Extraordinary severance payments Appearance considerations may also require disqualification of an employee who, on departure from his prior job, received from his former employer an extraordinary payment or other item worth more than $10,000. Under certain circumstances, such a payment may bar the employee from participating, for two years, in matters in which the former employer is a party or represents a party. Seeking Other Employment Karen serves on a panel at the National Science Foundation that reviews grant applications to fund research relating to deterioration of the ozone layer. A representative from X university, which has an application pending before Karen's panel, calls Karen to ask whether she might be interested in applying for a faculty position with the university. They discuss generally the duties of the position and Karen's qualifications to fill it. Karen indicates she may be interested. May Karen participate in the review of X university's grant application? Not unless she first obtains a written waiver under 18 U.S.C. § 208(b). An employee who is seeking employment may not participate in particular matters that would affect the financial interest of the prospective employer. Where, as in Karen's case, the parties are actually engaged in discussions regarding employment, this prohibition is imposed by a criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 208, and may be avoided only by obtaining a written waiver under section 208(b). As the example indicates, the prohibition may be triggered even before negotiation of specific terms and conditions of employment begins. . . . Karen hears about a job at Y university, which also has a grant application pending before the panel on which she serves at NSF. She mails her resume to Y university and is waiting to receive a reply. Would Karen's participation in review of Y university's grant application present a problem? Yes. Karen has not engaged in the kind of two-sided negotiation for employment that would bring her job search within the reach of section 208. Even mailing out an unsolicited resume, however, if it were sent to an organization that would be specifically and individually affected by Karen's performance of her official duties, could cause a reasonable person to question Karen's impartiality. For this reason, Karen may not participate in the review of Y university's application unless her participation is authorized in advance by the person designated by her agency to address such matters. Make it your business to understand the legal consequences of job-hunting and job discussions. Consult with your agency
  official before you begin your job search and immediately upon receiving unsolicited offers or inquiries, if a prospective employer has a financial interest in matters that cross your desk. Restrictions on Former Employees Permanent ban on certain activities Five years ago Sam left the Federal Maritime Commission to set up his own law firm specializing in maritime law. Recently he was asked to represent a carrier in an appeal to which the Commission is a party. Years ago, Sam realizes, he handled the same case on behalf of the Commission. May Sam represent the carrier in the appeal? No. A former employee is forever barred from representing another person or organization before a Federal department, agency, or court on certain matters in which the former employee participated personally and substantially while working for the Government. The bar is imposed by the criminal "post-employment" statute, 18 U.S.C. § 207, which is intended to prevent employees from "switching sides." Two-year ban on certain activities Shortly before Mary retired from her job at the Defense Department last year, an accountant Mary supervised began an audit focusing on cost overruns under a DOD contract with an electrical pads supplier. Since Mary retired before the audit was complete, she never signed or even read the audit report. Now the supplier wants Mary to represent him in his dealings with DOD on the contract. May Mary represent the supplier before DOD? No. The post-employment statute provides that, for two years after terminating Government employment, a former employee may not represent another person or organization before a Federal department, agency, or court on certain matters which were pending under the employee's supervision during the last year of his Government service. In the example, it does not matter that Mary never read the audit report. If she knows or should know that the audit was under her official responsibility, her representation of the supplier could subject her to criminal penalties. Additional restrictions imposed by statute The post-employment statute prohibits all former employees, for a period of one year after leaving Government service, from engaging in activities related to certain trade and treaty negotiations.    

Back to top of page