 Every day, all over the world, nearly three million people come to work for the U.S. government. But they're not all full-time employees. Some work for only a few weeks a year. Others for only a few days. Some provide their services without compensation. Art Professor Neil Everett is in Washington, D.C., to work with the National Endowment for the Humanities to serve on a panel reviewing grant applications. During his federal appointment, he'll become what's known as a special government employee. And in the process, he'll encounter some rules of conduct, some ethical questions he never had to deal with at Hanford University. By accepting a temporary position on an advisory committee for the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Janet Franklin has also become a special government employee. In her regular job as a research physician at a large medical center, Janet never had to consider the conflict of interest laws and regulations that will directly affect her during her appointment. Because he's a consultant, Al Dover is used to giving advice and information. But now, as a special government employee advising the Navy on a new fighter plane, Al must be careful about what he says and does because of some very specific ethics laws and rules. The government ethics issues facing people like Neil Everett, Janet Franklin and Al Dover actually arise before they physically show up to perform their government service. The questions arise first on paper. Your directions were perfect. I even found a spot in front of the building. But I brought all the paperwork was finished. Almost. I just had a couple of questions about some of these items in your financial disclosure form. Oh, the stock I own in DSI, yes. Aren't they building the airframe for the plane you'll be consulting on? DSI? Yes. You know, there's a criminal law that prohibits you from taking any action on behalf of the government that could affect your personal financial interest. I thought I'd sell the stock before I started working on the project. Okay. But that might not be necessary. Why not? Well, it all depends upon how much stock you have. If your holdings aren't substantial, you might be able to get a waiver. You mean if I get a waiver, I can keep the stock? No. I was going to sell the stock anyway. Well, that solves that. But there's still the matter of your wife's stock in Millparts Corporation. Millparts? What's the problem with them? Well, they're the sub on the DSI contract. They're supplying the quick release fasteners for the new plane. I didn't know. Naturally, any advice you give us could affect the subcontractors. Of course. I just don't know if my wife will want to sell her stock right now. The same thing applies. If her holdings aren't substantial, you might be able to get a waiver, just for the Millparts stock. I don't really know how much she has. Can I check and give you a call? Sure. No problem. Great. Suppose we run into a problem. Section 208 of the Criminal Code prohibits employees from acting on behalf of the government in certain matters in which they or their spouses have a personal financial interest. That's why Al's stock in the prime contractor building the plane and his wife's stock in one of the subcontractors presented problems. In conflict of interest cases like this, one solution is for employees simply not to work for the government on matters in which they have a financial interest. But sometimes, as the Navy ethics official explained, if the financial interest is not substantial, the restriction can be waived. Of course, selling the asset that created the conflict is also an option. Employees are also prohibited from acting officially in matters in which their minor children or private employers have an interest. How can a private employer's interest create a conflict? Ask Janet Franklin. Really? Congratulations. That's exciting. Yeah, the Food and Drug Administration. I'm flattered. There's something I don't understand, though. What's that? Well, it seems to me that any drug testing standards your committee recommends for the industry are going to affect the grant you're working on here. You're right. They probably will. So, isn't that a conflict of interest? I suppose so. But the whole reason the FDA wanted me on their committee was because of my research experience here. Yeah, but if it's seen as a conflict, how can you... Apparently, it's a fairly typical problem. That's why I was granted a special waiver. A waiver provision in Section 208 can be used to exempt special government employees like Janet if the official appointing them certifies that the need for their services outweighs the potential for a conflict of interest. Janet was a good candidate for this kind of waiver because she's a highly regarded expert in her field and because her employer, the Medical Center, wasn't going to be affected by the committee's work any more than other medical research facilities. Don't get the idea, though, that waivers under Section 208 are routine. Take Neil Everett, our art history professor, reviewing grant applications for a national endowment for the Humanities Peer Review Panel. He was told he'd have to disqualify himself from considering any applications that were submitted by his employer, Hanford University. Neil was also warned that reviewing certain other applications might call into question his impartiality. All of those people want grants? These are just the ones my panel has. Look at these. Retrospectives, international shows... Uh-oh. What? This one's from Marlon University, the art museum. I didn't know anything about it. That's France Division. That may not matter. How's it going to look if I recommend a grant for the art museum where my wife works? Neil would probably face reasonable concerns about his impartiality if he participated in a matter affecting his wife's employer. Because of these concerns, Neil should disqualify himself from reviewing that particular application unless the agency he's working for specifically authorizes him to participate. When grant applications being reviewed are part of a competitive application process, reviewers like Neil sometimes have to disqualify themselves from reviewing an entire pool of applications, even if there's a conflict involving only one of the applications in the pool. A spouse's employment is not the only way impartiality issues can arise. Dover. I didn't know you were a runner. Well, I try. Great day for it, though. Boy, you're right about that. I'm hearing good things from the program officer about your work on our new bird. Thank you, sir. Things are going pretty well. Listen, Dover, I might have something else for you guys. We've got some problems with those rotor blades. We're trying to retrofit on the CH32 choppers. Sounds like it's right up your alley. I'd love to help you out, Admiral, but isn't engineering dynamics making those blades? Yep. That could be a problem. A problem? Well, let's say the appearance of a problem. You see, I finished a job for them last month. No defense stuff, but, you know, it might not look right. I didn't know you did work for engineering dynamics. Yeah. I'll tell you what. I'll have someone run it by our ethics officials. I'll get back to you later in a week. Great. Thank you, sir. Because Al worked as a consultant to engineering dynamics within the last year, his working for the Navy on a matter involving this company might present an appearance problem. The rule is, if a reasonable person would question Al's impartiality, then he shouldn't work on the project unless he's specifically authorized to by the Navy. Conflicting financial interests, impartiality, or appearance concerns. Are there any other ethics issues that affect special government employees? Janet, I understand you're working with the FDA now. Yes, I'm on a committee. It's really fascinating. I've never done anything like this before. Drug testing, isn't it? Quite a responsibility. It's going to make a big difference in the industry. Yeah, I suppose it will. You're talking to a lot of companies, too, aren't you? I hear Metatron has some fancy new laser analyzer. You know anything about that? Forget it, Sam. I can't talk to you about any confidential information. Excuse me. Oh, well, by your lunch. There's no law against that, is there? Hey, where's the birthday boy? As a matter of fact, there are rules limiting acceptance of gifts by federal employees. And that includes some meals. In general, you cannot take gifts from people or organizations that seek some kind of action by the agency you're working for. Do business or seek to do business with the agency you're working for. Conduct activities that are regulated by the agency you're working for or have interests that may be substantially affected by how you perform your official duties. Also, you can't accept gifts given to you because of your official position. Ah, no thanks. For Janet, the rules mean no gifts from pharmaceutical companies that are regulated by or are trying to get drugs approved by the FDA. For Neil, that means no gifts from universities or museums applying for NEH grants. And Al can't accept gifts from companies that have Navy contracts or companies that are bidding on Navy contracts. There are sensible exceptions that allow you to accept gifts from family members or personal friends. And it's okay to accept gifts based on outside business or employment relationships. For example, suppose Janet's firm invites her to a golf outing. She can accept as long as the invitation is given to her because of her employment relationship, not because of her position on the FDA advisory committee. By the way, you're permitted to accept occasional gifts that are valued at under $20 per occasion, provided the gifts don't total more than $50 from one source in one year. So an infrequent gift of lunch at the local sandwich shop shouldn't be a problem. Just as you can continue to accept most of the gifts you're used to accepting, your employment with the government should not significantly affect other business or personal activities. There are, however, some special ethics rules on teaching, speaking, and writing. Like many special government employees who've been hired because of their particular expertise, Al does quite a bit of writing and speaking in his field. Al can continue doing most of these activities, but there are some important rules about what he can and cannot do. And about the compensation he's allowed to accept. Now, if there are any more questions, yes. I was wondering, Dr. Dover, now I know you're working on the wing stress problem with the F-29 jet for the Navy. Can you comment on what you've found so far? Well, first of all, I'm working on the F-29 for the government. So I can't talk about that in any depth. I can say, however, that generally the problem relates to corrosion. And that's typical for any aircraft that operates in a marine environment. And second, our work is still preliminary. So until it becomes public, I can't discuss it. Any more questions? Dr. Dover, you mentioned something about... Al is free to make a presentation on airframe stress. That's his area of expertise, based on his experience and his educational background. And he can accept a fee for that. There's also nothing wrong with a brief mention of his work with the Navy. But Al can't disclose non-public information under any circumstances. And as a general matter, he can't accept compensation if his talk or any writing or teaching he does deals in any significant part with his government work. There are a few other limitations on outside teaching, speaking, or writing. You cannot accept compensation if the activity itself, giving a lecture, for example, is something you're doing as part of your government duties. You cannot accept compensation if you were offered the opportunity primarily because of your position with the government, rather than because of your expertise. And you cannot accept compensation if the invitation or the compensation comes from an organization or a person that may be affected substantially by how you perform your government duties. There are also restrictions imposed by criminal statute on the extent to which special government employees can represent others to the government, whether or not compensation is involved. Paula. Al, great talk. Thank you. I haven't seen you in a while. What are you up to these days? Well, we're still working on that reconnaissance plan. The truth is we've run into some snags. Snags? Yeah, we're in the process of putting together some experts to go and talk to the engineers at NAVARE. What's your schedule like, Al? Oh, no, I would love to, but under other circumstances... Al is a special government employee who's been serving the Navy over 60 days in the last one-year period. Because of this, he can't represent anyone else to the government on specific party matters that are pending before the Navy. Matters like the reconnaissance plane contract between the Navy and the company Paula works for. I'm sorry, Paula, but that's why I can't do it. It'd be a conflict for me. I understand. You should know, however, that nothing prevents you from representing yourself as an individual to the government. There's also an exception that may apply if you want to represent a family member. Suppose you begin looking for a new job. Are there any ethics restrictions on what you can do while you continue working as a special government employee? And what about after you complete your government service? Are there restrictions on what you can do then? Neil! I am. I am. How are you? This is wild. I was just thinking about you. What are you doing in Washington? Funding. That's why I was thinking about you. The museum's submitting a grant application for a Van Gogh exhibit. We needed someone, and your name came up. Listen, do you have some time for lunch? My treat. Not really. I was just going to grab a hot dog. Want to tag along? Sure. We could sure use you on this. You'd be perfect. Especially now with all you know about NEH grants. Uh-huh. So, what do you think? Van Gogh. Oh, boy. It's just, well, you put in that grant request for the Cassatt show, didn't you? Sure did. Anything to tell me? No. No. In fact, Diane, I'd love to work on this Van Gogh thing, but I'm on the panel that's supposed to review your Cassatt application. You can't do it, right? Well, not exactly. I mean, not as long as I'm connected to your Cassatt grant. But maybe the agency could find someone else to do that review. Could they do that? I think so. Then I'd be free to talk about working on the Van Gogh retrospective. Let me see if there's a way to work this out. Great. How about that hot dog? Okay. Since Neil has now begun seeking employment with Diane's museum, the rule is that he can no longer act officially on matters that would affect the financial interest of the museum. Unless, of course, his agency specifically authorizes him to. Excuse me. Excuse me. Huh? Look, my government appointment is just about up, and I love this Van Gogh job. Am I going to have a problem here? Not if you disqualify yourself immediately, you won't. Are you sure? There are criminal laws against representing someone back to the government after you leave government. What do they call them? Post-employment restrictions. Well, you're right. But in this case, working on the Van Gogh retrospective would be fine. Relax. Go get some lunch. For most government employees, like Neil, the post-employment restrictions only bar former employees from representing others back to the government in the same particular matters involving specific parties that they worked on as a government employee. The Van Gogh retrospective is a new matter, so it doesn't raise a post-employment problem for Neil. Suppose, though, that the art exhibit Neil is asked to represent on is not new and different. Suppose it's a matter he worked on for the NEH. Would that change Neil's post-employment options? Well, let's take a look. Hi, Anne. How are you? Well, I was just thinking about you. What are you doing in Washington? Funding. That's why I was thinking about you. You just finished a stint at the National Endowment, didn't you? Yeah, it was great. Listen, do you have some time for lunch? My treat? Not really. I was just going to grab a hot dog. Want to tag along? Sure. You know the grant we got for the Monet exhibit? Sure. I was on the committee that recommended it. Well, our project administrator just left, and we're looking for a replacement. Someone who knows how to deal with the NEH. Naturally, your name came up. Now that you've got all this experience... No. Diane, it sounds great. But I was on the committee reviewing that. I can't switch sides now and represent your museum back to the government. Not on that same issue. But your appointment's over, isn't it? Doesn't matter. As long as that business continues, you, the Monet exhibit and the NEH, I'm out of the picture. But if anything new comes up... Well, we're thinking about a Van Gogh exhibit. I swear, I can almost taste one in my mouth. If your work for the government involves, say, drafting general regulations or standards that affect an entire industry, this post-employment restriction won't apply. But in a case like this Monet show, where Neil's been involved in a matter between specific parties, Diane's museum on the one hand and the National Endowment for the Humanities on the other, Neil can't represent any person or organization back to the government on that same matter. And that's forever, as long as the matter continues. That's perhaps the most far-reaching post-employment restriction affecting special government employees. But there are some others you should be aware of. Talk to one of the ethics officials at your agency before you leave your government position. Their job is to help. Even if questions arise long after you've finished your government service. Serving as a special government employee can be a truly rewarding opportunity. A chance to play an important part in the workings of our government. As long as you understand the rules and regulations regarding conflicting financial interests, appearance concerns, the use of inside information, limitations on outside activities, restrictions on seeking employment, and post-employment activities. If you understand what you can and can't do under the laws and regulations that govern your employment, you'll always be able to make the ethical choice.