Department of Defense	April 19, 2000
Office of General Counsel	Number 00-04
Standards of Conduct Office

1.  OPM Publishes Interim Regulation on Repeal of Dual Compensation Reductions for Military Retirees.

      The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) published interim regulations in the Federal Register (Vol 65, No. 71, April 12, 2000, page 19643) repealing dual compensation reductions for military retirees who are employed in Federal civilian positions. The regulations reflect section 651 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2000 which repealed the dual compensation statute (5 U.S.C. 5532) effective October 1, 1999. It appears that the effect of this interim regulation is to conform the regulation to the statutory change that went into effect on October 1, 1999.

2.  OGE Throws in the Towel in the Van Ee Case.

      In a March 30, 2000, memo (DO-00-015), OGE announced that the Government has decided not to seek further review of the Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) decision on Van Ee v. EPA and OGE (No. 99-5147). (http://search.cadc.uscourts.gov/ISYSquery/IRL6037.tmp/1/doc) The decision construed 18 U.S.C. 205 which bars executive branch employees from acting as an agent or attorney for others before Federal agencies in connection with particular matters in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest.

      OGE suggests that the holding of the case is limited to the unique facts of this case:

      We hold that [section] 205 is inapplicable to Van Ee's uncompensated communications on behalf of public interest groups in response to requests by an agency at which he is not employed for public comment on proposed environmental impact statements related to land-use plans; these proceedings lack the particularity required by the statute, will not result in a direct material benefit to the public interest groups, and do not create a real conflict of interest or entail an abuse of position by Van Ee.

      The Court of Appeals decision offers considerable discussion regarding the purpose of the prohibition and the precursor statutes to section 205. The District Court decision, found at 55 F. Supp.2d 1 (D.C.C. 1999) is also a good read since it rejects the claimant's argument that section 205 is an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment. I recommend placing both decisions in your 18 U.S.C. 205 file.

3.  Digest of 1999 OGE Informal Opinions Available

      The first 13 OGE informal opinions for 1999 have been released by OGE and are available at the OGE website: (www.usoge.gov). A five-page digest of those opinions, prepared by DoD ethics counselors, has been posted on the DoD SOCO website. (http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics) (Look in Ethics Resource Library, under Digest of OGE Opinions.)

4.  Code of Ethics Poster Makes Comeback

      In a March 30, 2000, memorandum (DT-00-013), OGE announced it is reprinting the Code of Ethics poster in a 16 x 20 inch format. The previous edition was last printed in 1992. Contact the Government Printing Office by April 28, 2000 if you wish to ride OGE's initial printing order. For more details, see the memorandum on the OGE website: www.usoge.gov.

5.  Don't Forget to Subscribe to SOCO

      If you want an email notification every time we add something to the DoD SOCO website, just click on the "subscribe" button on the left of the SOCO front page. Tell us your email address, and you're set. Every time we update the website, you'll be notified. It couldn't be easier to ensure you are up to the minute in ethics regulations, policies, and practices.  (http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics)

6.  Misadventures in Ethics

      The failure to report $40,000 he had earned in consulting contracts cost the Mayor of Washington, D.C., $1000 in fines last year. The Mayor violated the city's campaign finance code by neglecting to report these earnings on his financial disclosure report. Under 5 C.F.R. 2634.701, willful failure to file a public financial disclosure report (SF 278) or willful falsification of any information required to be reported may result in administrative actions or $10,000 in civil penalties. In addition, criminal actions may be brought against Federal officials who provide false information on their financial disclosure reports.

7.  Proposed Revision of Procurement Integrity Regulations

      The proposed procurement integrity regulation was published on March 29^th, 65 Fed. Reg. 16758-63. The DoD Procurement Integrity Tiger Team (PITT) will be meeting on Monday, April 24^th to discuss submitting comments by May 30^th, the deadline. The text has been simplified, i.e., plain English, and reorganized. Warnings concerning other statutes and regulations (18 U.S.C. 208 and 5 C.F.R. 2635.401, et. seq.) are inserted at 3.104-2(b), 3.104-3(c)(2) and 3.104-5(a). Although there were more substantial changes in the drafts, they were not accepted by OMB, so the proposed rule is very similar to the current regulation.