for the Agencies of the Illinois Governor Neil P Olson General Counsel Illinois Pollution Control Board October 4 2018 Overview Revolving Door Prohibition Gift Ban De Minimis Meals and Refreshment ID: 778245
Download The PPT/PDF document "CURRENT ETHICS ISSUES Office of Executiv..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
CURRENT ETHICS ISSUES
Office of Executive Inspector General
for the Agencies of the Illinois Governor
Neil P. Olson, General Counsel
Illinois Pollution Control Board
October 4, 2018
Slide2Overview
Revolving Door Prohibition
Gift Ban /
De
Minimis
Meals and Refreshment
Ex
Parte
Communications
Ethics Act Amendments Affecting the OEIG
Slide3Revolving Door Prohibition
State employees who participate in contract decisions the year prior to termination of state employment (5 ILCS 430/5-45(a))
State employees who participate in regulatory or licensing decisions the year prior to termination of state employment (5 ILCS 430/5-45(b))
Barred from employment or accepting compensation from vendor/grantee or regulated entity for one year after termination of state employment
Slide4Revolving Door Prohibition
“C-List Employees” (5 ILCS 430/5-45(c))
Employees who, by the nature of their duties, may have the authority to participate personally and substantially in the award of State contracts or in regulatory or licensing decisions
Required to seek determination from OEIG prior to accepting non-State employment
Slide5Revolving Door Prohibition
“H-List Employees” (5 ILCS 430/5-45(h))
Certain enumerated high-level employees, members, and officers
Barred for one year from accepting employment/compensation from vendor/grantee or regulated entity regardless of personal and substantial involvement
OEIG does not review prospective employment
Slide6Revolving Door Determinations
C-List employees must notify the OEIG upon receiving an offer of non-state employment prior to accepting the offer; form RD-101
C-List employees must also notify their agency’s ethics officer
Ethics officer must submit an RD-102 form to the OEIG within 5 days of receiving the employee’s notification
The OEIG must make a determination as to whether the employee may accept the non-state employment within 10 calendar days of having received both the RD-101 form and the RD-102 form
Slide7OEIG Procedures for Making Revolving Door Determinations
Revolving Door Forms, RD-101; RD-102; and RD-103
OEIG inquiry
Revolving door forms
Interviews
Other research
Basis for determination
Personal and substantial participation in a contract award or in a regulatory or licensing decision
Effect of the prospective employment on a contract, regulatory or licensing decision based on totality of participation
Slide8OEIG Interpretation of Revolving Door Criteria
“Personal and substantial” participation requires, at minimum, an ability to influence the outcome of a contract, regulatory, or licensing decision (E.g., service on an evaluation panel [
In re: Burton,
15-EEC-005]; service as a site inspector [
In re: McBride
, 13-EEC-012])
“Substantial” participation does not require decision-making authority or actual decision-making, or that employee be the final decision-maker. (
In re: Doyle
, 15-EEC-007)
“Effect-test” – The OEIG is required (under 5 ILCS 430/5-45(f)) to assess the effect of the prospective employment on the contract, regulatory or licensing decision at issue
Slide9OEIG Interpretation (cont’d)
The effect-test does not require the OEIG to find that there was a
quid pro quo
or
that the
prospective employment
had an actual effect on
the relevant decision before the OEIG can determine that the employee is restricted from accepting the offer of employment. (
In re:
Esuerte
, 13-EEC-019)
However, under the effect-test (Section 5-45(f)), the OEIG may consider evidence that the prospective employment did
not
improperly affect the relevant decision,
e.g.,
evidence that the state employee made, or participated in, a decision that was adverse to the prospective employer
Slide10Recent RD Decision on
Regulatory Actions
In re: Schwartz
, 18-EEC-010: attorney representing agency in administrati
ve hearings, including two matters involving his prospective private employer.
OEIG determined that employee was
restricted from accepting employment and EEC affirmed the OEIG’s determination.
Note also ARDC referral regarding potential violation of Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 1.11(d)(2)).
Slide11Potentially Complex RD Issues
Meaning of “personal and substantial” participation
Meaning of “contracts”
Timing of a contract “award”
Meaning of “regulatory decision”
Ramifications of treating prospective “clients” as prospective “employers”
Meaning of a contract “involving” State agency
Slide12Gift Ban – General Rules
A state employee may not intentionally solicit or accept any gift from any “prohibited source.” Ban extends to spouse and immediate family living with the employee.
12 statutory exceptions, including food or refreshments not exceeding $75 a day (subsection 10-15(8)) and cumulative total value of gifts of less than $100 per year (subsection 10-15(12)).
Agencies may adopt or maintain policies that are more restrictive.
Slide13Gift Ban – Executive Order 15-09
Issued January 13, 2015
Section III – the 10-15(8) and the 10-15(12) exceptions do not apply.
Provided, however, state employees may accept “
de
minimis
meals or refreshments served at a business meeting or reception attended by the State Employee in the course of his or her official duties[.]”
Slide14Gift Ban – Executive Order 15-09
“de
minimis
” undefined in EO and no EEC/OEIG precedent; Black’s Law Dictionary: “Trifling; negligible”
Look to nature of the food and drink items. Are they of the type commonly offered as part of a work-related function? What is the value?
Look to the context. EO requires the items be “served at a business meeting or reception attended by the State Employee in the course of his or her official duties[.]” Is the food/drink incidental to the performance of work duties? Or something additional?
Slide15Ex Parte Communications
Section 5-50 of the Ethics Act applies to certain agencies, including the Pollution Control Board
Definition of “ex
parte
communication”: “any written or oral communication by any person that imparts or requests material information or makes a material argument regarding potential action concerning regulatory, quasi-adjudicatory, investment, or licensing matters pending before or under consideration by the agency.”
Does not include statements in a public forum, statements about policy and procedure, or intra-agency statements
Slide16Ex Parte Communications
What do if receive an ex
parte
communication? Depends on source: interested party or non-interested party.
Interested Party: promptly memorialize and made a part of the record
Non-Interested Party: reported to the ethics officer who shall require that it is promptly made part of the record and file the communication with the EEC, together with supporting documentation.
Slide17Recent Ethics Act Legislation
P.A. 100-0554, eff. 11/16/17: 1) requiring sexual harassment policies; 2) adding a prohibition on sexual harassment; 3) requiring sexual harassment training; and 4) establishing penalties for violating the sexual harassment prohibitions.
P.A. 100-0558, eff. 6/8/18: 1) new information on OEIG website for complainants and subjects; 2) timing of AG referrals; 3) new information in monthly public reports; and 4) discretion to disclose status of investigation to subjects and complainants.
Slide18Questions?