On November 14, the U.S. Senate voted to confirm David Huitema as Director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (O.G.E.).

By a vote of 50-46, the Huitema appointment to O.G.E., which oversees the executive branch ethics program in more than 140 agencies, is for a five-year term.

A director serves at the will of the president and could be removed by President-elect Trump upon taking office.

Huitema will replace Acting Director Shelley K. Finlayson, who took the position when the term of the previous director, Emory Rounds, expired in July of last year.

On February 8, President Donald J. Trump announced his nomination of Emory A. Rounds III to be Director of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE). The position has been vacant since July 2017 when then Director Walter Shaub resigned after repeatedly questioning various possible conflicts of interests of President Trump and of members of the president’s White House staff.

Rounds is currently an associate counsel with the OGE and has been with the agency since 2009. Rounds was previously an ethics counsel on the White House Counsel’s staff for George W. Bush’s administration, served in the ethics office at the U.S. Department of Commerce, and served in the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps, according to the White House press release.

Rounds earned his J.D. at the University of Akron School of Law. The term of the appointment is five years.

Today, the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) issued a Legal Advisory memo explicitly stating the OGE’s view anonymous contributions to legal defense funds of federal employees are prohibited.

Legal Advisory LA-17-10 specifically refers to OGE Informal Advisory Opinion 93×21 (1993), which found employees who received anonymous donations would “be unable to favor the anonymous donors.” The new Legal Advisory memo acknowledges that shortly after the Informal Advisory Opinion was issued, the agency began “advising, and is continuing to advise, that the instruments establishing legal defense funds include a clause stating that ‘contributions shall not be accepted from anonymous sources.’”

The new memo reiterates the OGE’s position given in an interview by the head of the OGE with Politico earlier this month. The interview was made in reaction to an OGE note on the 1993 opinion that had been changed earlier this year to say the opinion’s original applicability had not changed.

Critics of the note change had said it opened the door up to lobbyists and other prohibited sources funding legal defenses for employees currently working in the White House.

On September 15, the head of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) said in an interview with Politico anonymous contributions to legal defense funds of federal employees are prohibited. David Apol, the acting director of the OGE, told Politico the policy had not changed, even though the note on a guidance document had been changed earlier this year.

In 1993, the OGE issued an opinion letter holding a fund established for the benefit of a government employee to pay the employee’s legal expenses, while administered by a person having no connection with the employee’s official duties, could accept anonymous contributions. The OGE guidance letter is not legally binding.

Walter Shaub, then director of the OGE, instructed his staff in May of this year to add a one-sentence note to the top of the document signaling the OGE’s long standing internal practice had diverged from the formal guidance, according to Politico. The note read in all caps and a red font, “NOTE: SOME STATEMENTS IN THIS OPINION ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT OGE INTERPRETATION AND PRACTICE.”

Subsequently, after Shaub left the OGE, the document’s note was changed to read, again in all caps and a red font, “NOTE: THE PRIMARY FINDING ABOUT THE LIMITED APPLICABILITY OF 18 U.S.C. §209 TO PAYMENTS MADE FOR AN EMPLOYEE’S LEGAL EXPENSES HAS NOT CHANGED. HOWEVER, BECAUSE EACH ANALYSIS IS VERY FACT-SPECIFIC, AGENCY ETHICS OFFICIALS SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OGE DESK OFFICER BEFORE ADVISING EMPLOYEES ON THIS TOPIC.”

Critics of the note change had said this opens the door up to lobbyists and other prohibited sources funding legal defenses for employees currently working in the White House.

A change of a note regarding an Office of Government Ethics (OGE) guidance document from 1993 may open the door to allowing anonymous contributions, including from prohibited sources such as lobbyists, to government employees’ legal defense funds. In 1993, the OGE issued an opinion letter holding a fund established for the benefit of a government employee to pay the employee’s legal expenses, while administered by a person having no connection with the employee’s official duties, could accept anonymous contributions. The OGE guidance letter is not legally binding.

Walter Shaub, then director of the OGE, instructed his staff in May of this year to add a one-sentence note to the top of the document signaling the OGE’s long standing internal practice had diverged from the formal guidance, according to Politico. The note read in all caps and a red font, “NOTE: SOME STATEMENTS IN THIS OPINION ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT OGE INTERPRETATION AND PRACTICE.”

Subsequently, after Shaub left the OGE, the document’s note was changed to read, again in all caps and a red font, “NOTE: THE PRIMARY FINDING ABOUT THE LIMITED APPLICABILITY OF 18 U.S.C. §209 TO PAYMENTS MADE FOR AN EMPLOYEE’S LEGAL EXPENSES HAS NOT CHANGED. HOWEVER, BECAUSE EACH ANALYSIS IS VERY FACT-SPECIFIC, AGENCY ETHICS OFFICIALS SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OGE DESK OFFICER BEFORE ADVISING EMPLOYEES ON THIS TOPIC.”

Critics of the note change say this opens the door up to lobbyists and other prohibited sources funding legal defenses for employees currently working in the White House. Richard Lucas, once counsel for a Clinton legal defense fund, told Politico, “Not knowing the source is a recipe for disaster.”

On July 27, a bill was introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives to prevent the firing of a director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) without cause.

House Resolution 3462, The Office of Government Ethics Independence Act, would amend federal law by clarifying that the director of the OGE may only be removed for the neglect of duty or instances of wrongdoing. It would also require the president to provide Congress with 30 days advanced notice of his or her intent to fire the director and to inform Congress as to the reasons for the action taken.

On July 19, Walter Shaub Jr. resigned as director from the OGE. Shaub, in his position as the director, had repeatedly questioned various possible conflicts of interests of President Trump and of members of the president’s White House staff. The current acting director of the OGE is David Apol, who was selected by President Trump to replace Shaub until a permanent director is announced and subsequently confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

On January 1, new changes to regulations concerning gifts for federal employees took effect.

Among the changes the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) made to the federal regulations include a non-binding recommendation employees “consider declining otherwise permissible gifts if they believe that a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would question the employee’s integrity or impartiality as a result of accepting the gift.”

Additionally, federal officials who are required to be granted permission to attend “widely attended events” must now seek the permission in writing.

The $20 threshold for accepting a gift remains the same.

On Jan. 1, new changes to regulations concerning gifts for federal employees take effect.

Among the changes the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) made to the federal regulations include a non-binding recommendation employees “consider declining otherwise permissible gifts if they believe that a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would question the employee’s integrity or impartiality as a result of accepting the gift.”

Additionally, federal officials who are required to be granted permission to attend “widely attended events” must now seek the permission in writing. The OGE declined to change the $20 threshold for accepting a gift.

Amendments to the rules made by the OGE were published on Nov. 18 in the Federal Register. The OGE press release is here.

On August 19, 2013, the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) issued a Legal Advisory to Designated Agency Ethics Officials stating it “now interprets the terms ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’ to include a same-sex marriage and a same-sex spouse where those terms appear in federal ethics provisions, regardless of the employee’s state of residency.”

The OGE will also interpret the term “relative” to include same-sex spouses.

The directive was created as a result of United States v. Windsor, a U.S. Supreme Court decision made earlier this summer striking down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional. The OGE consulted with the U.S. Department of Justice before making the Legal Advisory, which took effect on the date of the directive, August 19, 2013.

The Federal Office of Government Ethics (O.G.E.) is extending the comment period for its proposed regulations concerning gifts from lobbyists.

In September, the O.G.E. proposed rules which limit, for lobbyists, the exceptions of the ban on gifts for federal employees. The proposed rules arose because of a Presidential Executive Order which had called for the O.G.E. “to apply the lobbyist gift ban set forth [in the order] to all executive branch employees.”

The period for written comments ended yesterday, November 14. However, today the O.G.E. announced it is extending the comment period to December 14.

Today’s announcement may be found here. A copy of the of the original proposed rulemaking notice is available here.

This post follows an earlier LobbyComply post concerning this rule, O.G.E. Proposes New Rules on Lobbyist Gifts.

The Office of Government Ethics (O.G.E.) has issued proposed lobbyist gift ban rules, which would apply to all executive branch employees.

Most of the proposed rules deal with limiting, for lobbyists, the exceptions of the ban on gifts. For example, executive branch employees would not be permitted to accept invitations extended by lobbyists for free attendance at widely attended gatherings that would normally fall under the gift ban exception. Non-profit professional associations, scientific organizations, and learned societies, which are also sometimes registered lobbyists, would still be afforded the exception. The O.G.E. based much of its reasoning on the notion “the cultivation of familiarity and access that a lobbyist [gains]” may be used in the future by lobbyists to obtain more sympathetic hearings for clients.

Another change would preclude lobbyists from the gift ban exception of social invitations, such as invitations to cocktail parties and movie screenings, if the invitations were extended because of the employee’s official position, even if the lobbyist is not a prohibited source. The O.G.E. argues in its proposal that “the lobbyist could use social events as a way to build general good will with a class of employees in case access is needed for a future issue or client.”

The proposed rules arise because an earlier Presidential Executive Order regarding gifts to non-career political appointees, which had called for the O.G.E. “to apply the lobbyist gift ban set forth [in the order] to all executive branch employees.” Written comments about the rule must be received by the O.G.E. before November 14, 2011