OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

U.S.DEPARTMENT OFTHE INTERIOR 

Investigation Into Alleged Ethics 

Misconduct by the Assistant 

Secretary for Insular and 

International Affairs 

INVESTIGATION 

This is a revised version of the report prepared for public release. 

Report Number: 19-0497 Date Posted on Web: May 29, 2020 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

We investigated allegations that Assistant Secretary for Insular and International Affairs Douglas 

Domenech advocated for a close family member’s (family member 1’s) employment at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Domenech allegedly used his U.S. Department of the 

Interior (DOI) email account and title when he contacted a now-former EPA senior official 

regarding family member 1’s EPA application and another close family member’s (family 

member 2’s) business. 

Following our investigation, we determined that the evidence established that Domenech 

communicated with the EPA senior official on several occasions from his DOI email account 

regarding family member 1’s EPA application, which constituted a misuse of office in violation 

of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 and 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702(a), “Use of Public Office for Private Gain.” In 

addition, we found that Domenech provided family member 2’s business name and website to 

the EPA senior official in an email sent from his DOI email account, which contravened 

5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(14), the Federal regulation requiring employees to avoid any actions 

creating the appearance of violating the law or Federal ethical standards. 

We provided this report to the DOI Chief of Staff for any action deemed appropriate. 

II. DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION 

We received and investigated allegations that Assistant Secretary for Insular and International 

Affairs Douglas Domenech repeatedly advocated for family member 1’s employment at the 

EPA. Domenech allegedly used his official DOI email address and title when he contacted the 

EPA senior official to inquire about the status of family member 1’s EPA application and to 

promote family member 2’s business. 

A. Facts 

1. Domenech Received Ethics Training 

Domenech told us he had worked at the DOI as a political appointee for 71⁄2 years, from July 

2001 to January 2009, as the Deputy Chief of Staff under Secretaries Norton and Kempthorne, 

and as the White House Liaison. Domenech said he had been the senior advisor to the Secretary 

since January 2017 and was presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed (PAS) as the 

Assistant Secretary for Insular and International Affairs in September 2017. Domenech received 

“Initial Ethics Training” from the Departmental Ethics Office (DEO) in January 2017. He also 

received “Political Appointee Initial Ethics Training” from the DEO in February 2017. Both 

training sessions included content about protecting Government integrity and presentation slides 

that specifically stated, “Officials should not misuse their public office for private gain.” The 

ethics trainings also addressed endorsement, stating, “You may not use, or allow the use of, your 

title, position or the authority associated with your position to endorse friends, relatives, or 

persons with whom you are affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity.” In addition, both ethics 

trainings included a presentation slide that stated, “Government resources, including official 

time, personnel, equipment, nonpublic information, and telecommunication equipment may only 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

be used for official and authorized purposes.” 

2. Domenech’s Contact With the EPA Senior Official in Fall 2017 at Wolf Trap National Park 

In fall 2017, Domenech attended a concert at Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts 

with family members 1 and 2 and another family member and sat in the Secretary of the 

Interior’s box.1 A few weeks before the concert, family member 1 had applied for a position with 

the EPA.2 The EPA senior official had also requested and received tickets from the now-former 

DOI Chief of Staff in spring 2017. The EPA senior official then attended the fall 2017 concert 

with their fiancée and sat in the Secretary’s box. 

Domenech said his group went to the Founder’s Circle hospitality tent for refreshments before 

the performance began. In the tent, Domenech said, he saw the EPA senior official and realized 

that the official would probably also be sitting in the Secretary’s box. Domenech said he had met 

the EPA senior official only once previously, so he introduced himself. According to Domenech, 

the EPA senior official joined their group, and Domenech introduced the official and the 

official’s fiancée to his family. Domenech said he “made no connection at that point that [family 

member 1] had been applying for a job” at the EPA. When asked if he knew in advance that the 

EPA senior official would be in the Secretary’s box, Domenech said, “I don’t think so. I don’t 

have any memory.” Domenech told us in a prior interview that when he first saw the EPA senior 

official in the hospitality tent, he thought it might look “like a setup” to talk about family 

member 1’s application with the EPA because that family member was with Domenech. 

When asked how the subject of family member 1’s application had been brought up at the event, 

Domenech initially said the group casually discussed their careers. When we asked Domenech in 

a subsequent interview if he had brought up family member 1’s EPA application to the EPA 

senior official, Domenech said he had not because he “was trying to think quickly what should I 

do here? And, uh, maybe we can get away with not ever talking about it.” Domenech later told 

us, however, that he decided to bring up family member 1’s application because he wanted “full 

disclosure.” He said he told the EPA senior official, “Please be aware [family member 1 is] 

actually applying for a job at EPA.” Domenech described it as an awkward moment for him and 

said that at one point he “pulled [the EPA senior official] aside and said, ‘Hey, I really apologize. 

I did not set this up.’” Domenech said the EPA senior official invited Domenech to follow up on 

what was happening with family member 1’s application. 

Domenech also told us that family member 2 and the EPA senior official had discussed family 

member 2’s business during the concert. Domenech said family member 2 told the EPA senior 

official, “I have a . . . business. . . . I do [work] for weddings” and that the EPA senior official 

and their fiancée discussed with family member 2 their preferences for their wedding. According 

1 The Secretary of the Interior received eight tickets at no cost to a private box for each event at Wolf Trap, which according to 

emails from the Office of the Secretary’s staff was called “the Secretary’s box.” The Secretary’s staff maintained a list of 

requests for tickets and distributed the free tickets as available. The Secretary’s office has since changed the ticket-distribution 

process after we audited the National Park Service’s agreement with Wolf Trap in 2018 (Financial, Ethical, and Exclusive Use 

Concerns About the NPS’ Agreement with the Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts). 2 The EPA issued an announcement for two positions in summer 2017. The announcement had a due date approximately 2 weeks 

later. 

2 
to Domenech, the EPA senior official and their fiancee wanted to know more about family 

member 2 's business and to see the related work. 

3. Domenech Contacted the EPA Senior Official via Government Email 

Shortly after the conce1i ended, at 10:38 p.m . that night, Domenech sent the NPS employee who 

coordinated Wolf Trap tickets an email from his DOI account titled, "Can you send me [the EPA 

senior official's] email?" The body of the email stated, " I need to send [them] something." The 

next day, the NPS employee responded to Domenech and provided him the EPA senior official's 

Government email address. 

The morning after the conce1i, Domenech sent the EPA senior official an email from his DOI 

email account that mentioned family member 1, provided family member l 's general experience, 

and indicated family member 1 had applied for an EPA position. In the same email, Domenech 

provided family member 2 's business name and a link to its website. Domenech then closed the 

email with, "Let me know if we can ever be of service." The email included Domenech 's 

signature block and his title at the time: Senior Advisor, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Figure 1: Fall 2017 Email Domenech Sent to EPA Senior Official 

On- 17 , at 8:50 AM, Domenech, Douglas < 

¥as selected for consideration. 

iame 1s 

My understanding is that ·esponded to an EPA announcement and 

~ usiness is 

Let me know ifwe can ever be of service. 

Doug 

Doug Domenech 

Senior Advisor 

US Department of the Interior 

NOTE: Every email I send or receive is subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act. 

Domenech told us his intent in sending the email was a "courtesy .... can the process move 

along?" When asked if moving the process along was a way to influence the EPA hiring process, 

Domenech said, "Well, when I think of influencing ... I guess you 're right. I was tiy ing to 

influence the process to move along. That's different than influencing the process to hire [family 

member 1]." In response to whether he had a business reason to send the email to the EPA senior 

official, Domenech stated, "There was not a business reason ... An Interior business reason." 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When we asked Domenech why he included family member 2’s business name and link to its 

website in the email to the EPA senior official, Domenech said the official or their fiancée must 

have asked him for it. Domenech later explained, “It could’ve been, hey, I’m getting married and 

I, I’d love to talk to you about doing my marriage. . . . I mean, doing [work] for my marriage, uh, 

wedding.” Domenech told us, however, that he was not attempting to get business from the EPA 

senior official for family member 2’s company. Domenech told us family member 2 had not 

provided services for the EPA senior official. 

Regarding Domenech’s closing message, which stated, “Let me know if we can ever be of 

service,” Domenech said he “meant ‘we’ [as in] Interior . . . not my family.” He added that he 

used that type of closing “all the time in my emails. . . . When I say ‘we,’ I mean the Department 

of the Interior. Signed, ‘Senior Advisor U.S. Department of the Interior.’ You know, if there’s 

anything we can do. Like, go to Wolf Trap, or . . . solve an EPA matter or whatever.” 

Domenech told us he had not sought ethics advice before sending the email. 

4. Family Member 1’s EPA Application Status 

One day after receiving the email from Domenech, the EPA senior official replied to 

Domenech’s email and said, “Great time. Thanks for this. I checked [on family member 1] 

yesterday. We could use the help frankly so I’m going to get [on] this.” 

One month later, the EPA senior official sent an untitled email from their EPA account to 

Domenech’s DOI account saying, “So [family member 1] should be in now or in process, right?” 

Throughout the morning of that same day, Domenech and the EPA senior official exchanged 

several emails: 

• 9:28 a.m.: Domenech replied, “I will check.” 

• 9:34 a.m.: Domenech replied again, “[Family member 1] has been called and understand 

is ‘in process’ but . . . has not heard anything more over the last week.” 

• 9:34 a.m.: The EPA senior official replied to Domenech, “I’m on it. We do need [family 

member 1].” 

• 9:54 a.m.: Domenech replied to the EPA senior official, “Thanks. Between you and me, 

[family member 1] is currently assisting a [prominent United States Senator] . . . But that 

is flexible.” 

Domenech confirmed to us that this email exchange referred to family member 1. When we 

asked Domenech if he expected the EPA senior official to forward this email on, Domenech said, 

“I assumed that’s what would happen.” Domenech explained he assumed that the EPA senior 

official would have sent the email to a “hiring person” to inform them of family member 1’s 

interest. Domenech also indicated that he respected the hierarchy of positions, and because of the 

EPA senior official’s position, it would have been inappropriate for family member 1 to contact 

the official about the job. Domenech said, “[The EPA senior official] is not the right person for 

4 
[family member 1] to interact with." Domenech further explained that the EPA senior official 

was in a position superior to Domenech as a senior advisor. Domenech said he would not often 

email someone at that official's level. 

Four days after the email exchange, the EPA senior official fo1warded the exchange with 

Domenech to the EPA employee who selected candidates and conducted interviews for that 

vacancy. In the email, the EPA senior official asked, "Do you know where this stands?" The 

EPA employee on the hiring panel responded to the EPA senior official the next day, saying, 

"Yes [they are] gearing up for a new wave of hires and [family member 1] is one ... in that 

bunch." 

Approximately 6 weeks later, Domenech sent the EPA senior official an email titled "[Family 

member 1]" from his DOI account on his iPhone, which did not contain a fon nal signature block. 

Domenech ' s email read, " ... hope you are well. Just circling back on [ family member 1]. [They 

were] initially contacted about the ... position but has not heard back from EPA. [They are] still 

interested. Thanks. Doug." 

Figure 2: Fall 2017 Email Domenech Sent to EPA Senior Official 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

- 10pe you are well. Just circling back on~ as initially contacted about theposition but has not heard back from EPA.  s still interested. 

Thanks. 

Doug 

Sent from my iPhone 

The following emails resulted from Domenech's contact with the EPA senior official on this 

same day: 

• 12:39 p.m.: The EPA senior official fo1warded Domenech's email to the EPA employee 

on the hiring panel and said, "Please call this [person]." 

• 1 :57 p.m.: The EPA employee replied to the EPA senior official, "Yes ... left a message 

but sure will." 

• 3:28 p.m.: The EPA senior official responded to Domenech 's email, "Let me know if 

[family member 1] didn't receive a call today." 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Domenech responded the next day to the EPA senior official’s email, saying, “[They] did! Thx 

so much.” 

We found that family member 1 interviewed for the EPA position in early winter 2017, along 

with one other candidate. The EPA selecting official selected family member 1 a few weeks after 

the interview. The EPA offered family member 1 employment, and family member 1 accepted. 

The EPA selecting official confirmed they had selected family member 1 for the position. The 

selecting official told us the EPA employee on the hiring panel had mentioned early in the 

process that the EPA senior official knew one of the applicants and “was interested in bringing 

[them] onto the team.” The selecting official said they told the EPA employee on the hiring panel 

“[t]hat’s not the way it works. [Family member 1] needs to make the cert[ificate list], needs to go 

through the interview process . . . and that’s the way it is.” The EPA selecting official said family 

member 1 met the U.S. Office of Personnel Management standards, was included on the 

certificate list, and was hired. The selecting official said the EPA did not hire family member 1 

because they were the EPA senior official’s friend and added that the EPA hired “[family 

member 1] because [they] made the cert and . . . [were] qualified for the job.” 

When asked if the conversations with the EPA employee on the hiring panel influenced the 

selecting official’s decision, the selecting official replied it was “hard to say it had zero influence 

on me . . . because I’m aware and . . . I would like [the EPA senior official] to continue to 

support our programs. But that’s not going to get in the way of me doing my job.” The EPA 

selecting official added, “. . . there might have been some attempted influence going on with 

other people. I just never really felt it personally.” When asked, the EPA employee on the hiring 

panel also told us they did not feel pressured or influenced by the EPA senior official to hire 

family member 1 and that family member 1 had gone through the proper hiring process. 

We contacted the EPA senior official six times—four times directly and twice through their 

assistant—to request a witness interview. The EPA senior official did not respond to any of our 

requests and has since left the EPA. 

B. Analysis 

Domenech’s actions in this matter implicate a variety of Federal ethics regulations, which are 

analyzed below. In presenting our analysis, we note that at the time of these events Domenech 

was not new to Government service; to the contrary, Domenech has more than 10 years of 

Federal service, a significant portion of which was at a senior level. Over those years, he 

received initial and annual ethics trainings. Moreover, he received two ethics trainings in the first 

2 months of his arrival in 2017, both of which specifically addressed the Federal prohibitions 

against misuse of position, title, and Government resources. 

1. Domenech’s Actions Related to Family Member 1’s EPA Job Application 

a. Section 702 and 702(a) Misuse of Office 

Domenech’s use of his official title and Government emails in connection with family member 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1’s hiring by the EPA implicates the prohibition on misuse of position articulated in 

5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch. 

Section 702 states in relevant part, “An employee shall not use his public office . . . for the 

private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a 

nongovernmental capacity.” This provision includes specific prohibitions that apply the general 

standard of Section 702 but are not meant to exclude or limit the provision in its entirety. 

The specific prohibition applicable to this investigation is Section 702(a), which states in 

relevant part that “an employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title 

or any authority with his public office in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another 

person . . . to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to . . . relatives . . . with whom the 

employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity.” 

Thus, to find a violation of Section 702(a), the evidence must establish that Domenech (i) used 

his position or title or permitted the use of his position or title (ii) in a manner intended to induce 

the EPA senior official and other EPA personnel (iii) to provide any financial or other benefit to 

family member 1. 

i. Use of Title and Position 

Regarding the first element, the evidence established that Domenech used his title and permitted 

the use of his title to further family member 1’s interests in three ways. First, Domenech used his 

title, as well as his Government email address, in multiple emails to the EPA senior official in 

connection with family member 1’s EPA application. 

Second, Domenech took advantage of his position in connection with family member 1’s 

application. Domenech told us he believed it would have been improper for family member 1 to 

contact the EPA senior official because family member 1 was too junior. Instead, Domenech 

contacted the EPA senior official himself, making it clear that Domenech believed his position at 

the DOI was sufficiently senior to reach out to someone at that level on family member 1’s 

behalf. In short, Domenech used his position to gain access to the EPA senior official when he 

believed family member 1 could not. 

Similarly, Domenech used his position and Government resources to obtain the EPA senior 

official’s email address—for the purpose of following up on the official’s offer to look into the 

status of family member 1’s application—from an NPS employee who had the official’s contact 

information for the purpose of providing tickets to the Wolf Trap concert. None of these actions 

described above could have occurred if not for Domenech’s position with the DOI. 

In addition, we determined that beyond using his own title and position, Domenech also satisfied 

the first element by permitting the EPA senior official to use Domenech’s title in connection 

with family member 1’s application. Domenech told us he assumed the EPA senior official 

would forward the email he sent, which included Domenech’s Government email address and 

title, to the proper “hiring person” at the EPA to ensure that person knew of family member 1’s 

continued interest in the EPA position. 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore, we concluded that Domenech used his title and position within the scope of Section 

702(a). 

ii. In a Manner Intended To Induce the EPA Senior Official and Other EPA Personnel 

The second element requires us to determine whether Domenech used his position and title in a 

manner intended to induce the EPA senior official or other EPA personnel to act. Domenech told 

us multiple times that he reached out to the EPA senior official to move the EPA’s hiring process 

forward, stating, “Well, when I think of influencing . . . I guess you’re right. I was trying to 

influence the process to move along.”3 

Considering that Domenech believed family member 1 was too junior to reach out to the EPA 

senior official directly, Domenech’s use of his senior position was integral to that effort. 

Similarly, Domenech said he assumed the EPA senior official would forward Domenech’s email, 

which referenced Domenech’s title, to the relevant decision makers inside the EPA. Domenech’s 

assumption suggests why he emailed the EPA senior official from his Government email account 

and not from his personal email account. Taken together, we concluded that the evidence 

indicates Domenech intended to use his position and title to induce the EPA to act. 

iii. To Provide a Financial or Other Benefit to Family Member 1 

The third element requires us to determine whether Domenech acted to provide a financial or 

other benefit to family member 1. The totality of the evidence indicates that Domenech intended 

to influence EPA personnel to hire family member 1. For example, Domenech highlighted 

family member 1’s employment background and qualifications in at least two different emails. In 

one message, Domenech indicated that family member 1 had lengthy experience that was 

germane to the EPA position at issue. One other email from Domenech noted family member 1’s 

continuing interest in the position. As such, we concluded that the content of Domenech’s emails 

indicate that he intended to induce the EPA to hire family member 1, which qualifies as a benefit 

to family member 1 within the scope of Section 702(a). 

Domenech asserted to us that he did not email the EPA senior official to influence the EPA to 

hire family member 1. Instead, he said that he intended to move the EPA hiring process along, 

regardless of whether family member 1 received a job offer. We note, however, that none of 

Domenech’s emails said that. To the contrary, three of Domenech’s six communications with the 

EPA senior official either highlighted family member 1’s work experience or expressed family 

member 1’s continuing interest in the position. Domenech also titled one of his emails “[Family 

member 1].” In that message, Domenech wrote, “Just circling back on [family member 1].” If 

Domenech intended to only expedite the process, he would have no reason to include family 

member 1’s relevant employment experience, reiterate family member 1’s interest in the 

position, use family member 1’s name as the email subject line, or indicate that he was “circling 

back on [family member 1].” Those actions demonstrate Domenech’s intent to advocate for 

family member 1’s hiring in particular, not just moving the hiring process forward generally. 

3 We note that Domenech also stated that while he was attempting to influence the EPA to move the process along, he was not 

doing so to influence the agency to hire family member 1. We address that issue in the following section. 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even accepting Domenech’s justification, however, we concluded that inducing the EPA to 

move forward would amount to an impermissible benefit to family member 1 under Section 

702(a). Domenech’s prodding the EPA into action would benefit family member 1 by resolving 

their application, which would either result in a job or, at a minimum, end the uncertainty 

surrounding that opportunity. Even if Domenech solely prodded the EPA to act, regardless of 

whether it resulted in a job for family member 1, Domenech must have believed that resolution 

would benefit family member 1, or else he presumably would not have reached out to the EPA 

senior official. It is immaterial that this benefit to family member 1 may not appear significant or 

monetary because the regulation does not exclude de minimus or nominal advantages and 

expressly includes “any” benefits that are “financial or otherwise.”4 

In sum, we concluded that Domenech violated Section 702(a) by using his position for family 

member 1’s private gain. For the same reasons described above, we concluded that these actions 

also violated the general prohibition in Section 702. 

We note that Federal ethics regulations, specifically Section 702(b), permit officials to use their 

titles and official letterhead in connection with professional and character references. Section 

702(b) authorizes an employee to sign letters of recommendation using their official title and 

Government letterhead “only in response to a request for an employment recommendation or 

character reference based upon personal knowledge of the ability or character of an individual 

with whom he has dealt in the course of Federal employment or whom he is recommending for 

Federal employment.” 

This provision, however, is not applicable here because Domenech’s emails did not respond to a 

request, nor did he send the emails as an employment recommendation or a character reference. 

Even construing Domenech’s statements in favor of family member 1, such as their prior work 

experience, as a character reference or an employment recommendation, the order of events is 

telling. The EPA had not reached out to Domenech to request a reference as it considered family 

member 1’s application; rather, Domenech reached out to the EPA senior official to prompt the 

EPA to consider family member 1. Moreover, Domenech was solely associated with family 

member 1 as a relative; he was not associated with family member 1 “in the course of Federal 

employment.” While under certain circumstances it may be permissible for a Government 

employee to recommend a relative for a Federal Government position, it was incumbent on 

Domenech in this instance to weigh the risk that he was using his Government position for the 

4 Section 702(a) provides an example to illustrate the scope of the provision: “An employee of the Department of Commerce was 

asked by a friend to determine why his firm’s export license had not yet been granted by another office within the Department of 

Commerce. At a department-level staff meeting, the employee raised as a matter for official inquiry the delay in approval of the 

particular license and asked that the particular license be expedited. The official used her public office in an attempt to benefit her 

friend[.]” To the extent this example establishes that the employee’s effort to expedite a Government process constituted a misuse 

of office, it supports the finding that Domenech’s efforts to speed up the EPA’s hiring process qualified as an impermissible 

benefit under Section 702(a). 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

private gain of his relative.5 

b. Section 101(b)(14), Appearance of Misconduct 

Even if we accept Domenech’s statement that he acted to push the EPA to move the process 

forward and not to have the EPA hire family member 1, we found that Domenech’s actions 

would violate 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(14). This section states that “. . . employees shall endeavor 

to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law, or the ethical 

standards set forth in this part,” which includes Section 702. The applicable standard is based on 

whether a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would believe that the 

circumstances created an appearance that the law or the standards had been violated. 

Domenech sent multiple emails to the EPA senior official from his DOI email account that had 

no business purpose, included Domenech’s official title in the signature block, and referenced 

family member 1’s relevant work experience. As such, we concluded that a reasonable person 

would believe that Domenech appeared to misuse his position in connection with family member 

1’s application. 

2. Domenech’s Actions Concerning Family Member 2’s Business 

As noted earlier, Domenech’s email to the EPA senior official also included the name of family 

member 2’s business and a link to its website. Domenech told us that he and family member 2 

discussed business services with the EPA senior official and their fiancée at the Wolf Trap event. 

In particular, Domenech stated he recalled family member 2 telling the EPA senior official about 

family member 2’s business and that the EPA senior official and their fiancée discussed what 

they wanted for their wedding. According to Domenech, the EPA senior official and their fiancée 

wanted to know more about family member 2’s work, so he included a link to the business 

website in the follow-up email he sent the next day. Domenech told us that the EPA senior 

official or their fiancée must have asked him for it. Domenech also said, “It could’ve been, hey, 

I’m getting married and I, I’d love to talk to you about doing my marriage. . . . I mean, doing 

[work] for my marriage, uh, wedding.” Domenech acknowledged the email had no DOI business 

purpose and said he understood the possibility that the EPA senior official could have been 

interested in family member 2 providing them business services. 

Domenech’s email implicates ethics regulations that prohibit a Government employee from 

using Government resources to endorse any service or enterprise or for an unauthorized purpose. 

Specifically, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702(c) provides, “An employee shall not use or permit the use of 

his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office to endorse any 

5 On August 1, 2007, Office of Government Ethics (OGE) Director Robert I. Cusick issued a memorandum titled, Regarding 

Misuse of Federal Position to Help Another Person Get a Job. In this memorandum, the OGE provides guidance on analogous 

situations involving private-sector employment. The OGE stated that who initiated the contact is a factor in determining whether 

an official misused their office, stating that “merely responding to a request” would be less likely to pose a problem under 702. 

The memorandum also noted that the relationship between the official and the recommended person can be a factor, stating: “An 

employment contact made on behalf of a relative or friend with whom the employee has no business relationship may increase 

the risk that the employee appears to be using his Government position for the private gain of his associate. Accordingly, the 

employee should carefully consider whether or not making the employment contact would be prudent.” On the other hand, we 

note that the OGE also stated that whether the recommended person had already applied for the position would be a factor on the 

other side in determining whether the action was appropriate. 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

product, service or enterprise.” Similarly, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.704 states, “An employee has a duty 

to protect and conserve Government property and shall not use such property, or allow its use, 

for other than authorized purposes.” Domenech’s email also implicates the DOI Departmental 

Manual, 410 DM 2, “Limited Personal Use of Government Office Equipment and Library 

Collections,” which defines an unauthorized use of Government equipment. The policy states 

employees are prohibited from using official email for any activity involving or relating to “. . . 

selling, advertising, soliciting . . . products or services for an employee’s personal financial profit 

or gain.” 

The crux of the analysis for Sections 702(c) and 704 and the DOI policy is Domenech’s intent in 

sending the link to family member 2’s business. If Domenech intended to endorse or promote the 

business, then he would have clearly violated all three of those provisions. Domenech stated he 

did not intend to solicit business from the EPA senior official and their fiancée but was 

responding to their request. He also told us, however, that the EPA senior official and their 

fiancée wanted to know where [family member 2] did business and to see their work, and that he 

understood the possibility that the official could have been interested in family member 2 

providing business services to the EPA senior official and their fiancée. 

Unlike Domenech’s communications involving family member 1’s application, in which 

Domenech mentioned family member 1’s relevant experience and continued interest in the 

position, the reference to family member 2’s business simply conveyed the link to the website 

and nothing more. Therefore, considering Domenech’s assertion that he included the link for 

information only, rather than commercial gain, and the lack of contradictory evidence, we 

concluded there is insufficient evidence that Domenech violated Section 702(c), Section 704, or 

DOI policy. 

Nevertheless, we determined that Domenech’s decision to include a link to the business in an 

official email created an impermissible appearance that he used his Government email to endorse 

and promote the business, which contravened the ethical principle established in 

5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(14). As noted above, Section 101(b)(14) provides that “[e]mployees shall 

endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law, or the 

ethical standards set forth in this part,” which includes the misuse of Government resources 

prohibited in Sections 702(c) and 704. The applicable standard is whether a reasonable person 

with knowledge of the relevant facts would believe that the circumstances created an appearance 

that the law or the standards had been violated. 

In this case, the evidence established that: 

• Domenech and family member 2 discussed business with the EPA senior official and 

their fiancée at Wolf Trap. 

• The EPA senior official and their fiancée wanted to know where family member 2 did 

business and asked to see some of their work. 

• Domenech told us he understood the possibility that the EPA senior official could have 

been interested in family member 2 providing services for the official. 

11 
 

 

 

• Domenech sent an email on his DOI account to the EPA senior official the next day with

a link to the business.

We determined that a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would conclude 

that Domenech appeared to misuse his position to endorse and promote family member 2’s 

business despite Domenech’s stated intent. As a result, we concluded that Domenech’s inclusion 

of the business name and link to its website ran afoul of the ethical principle articulated in 

5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(14). 

III. SUBJECT

Douglas Domenech, Assistant Secretary for Insular and International Affairs, Washington, DC. 

IV. DISPOSITION

We provided this report to the DOI Chief of Staff for any action deemed appropriate. 

12 
Report Fraud, Waste,

and Mismanagement

Fraud, waste, and mismanagement in

Government concern everyone: Office 

of Inspector General staff, departmental 

employees, and the general public. We 

actively solicit allegations of any 

inefficient and wasteful practices, fraud, 

and mismanagement related to 

departmental or Insular Area programs 

and operations. You can report 

allegations to us in several ways.

 By Internet: www.doioig.gov

 By Phone: 24-Hour Toll Free: 800-424-5081

Washington Metro Area: 202-208-5300

 By Fax: 703-487-5402

 By Mail: U.S. Department of the Interior

Office of Inspector General

Mail Stop 4428 MIB

1849 C Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20240