OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

U.S.DEPARTMENT OFTHE INTERIOR 

INVESTIGATION 

Alleged Violations of 

Ethics Pledge by a Senior DOI 

Political Employee 

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

Report Number: 19-0300 Date Posted on Web: October 21, 2020 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

We investigated allegations that a then senior political employee of the U.S. Department of the 

Interior (DOI) did not comply with his Federal ethics pledge under Executive Order No. 13770 

when he communicated with a former employer during the required 2-year recusal period 

following the political employee’s Federal appointment in the fall of 2017. 

We identified a number of interactions between the senior political employee and representatives 

of the former employer—namely, three phone calls and multiple email exchanges, one in-person 

meeting, and one presentation at an event hosted by the former employer. While some of these 

interactions with the former employer (email, phone, and in-person meeting) may have been 

relatively minor in nature, we found that the senior political employee nonetheless did not 

comply with the ethics pledge because those interactions occurred during the mandatory 2-year 

recusal period. In contrast, we found that, under the circumstances, a presentation made by the 

senior political employee at an event hosted by the former employer was permissible under the 

ethics pledge because the senior employee attended in his official capacity. 

In making these findings, we note that the senior political employee told us he initially did not 

understand that his unpaid, volunteer position with an entity related to an organization (the 

former employer described above) was itself considered former employment under the ethics 

pledge. In fact, the organization itself as well as the related entity are considered a “former 

employer” under the pledge. After it was alleged that the senior political employee violated 

ethics rules in his interactions with the former employer, the Departmental Ethics Office (DEO) 

provided the senior political employee with written guidance about communications with former 

employers and specifically found that the organization in question qualified as a former 

employer under the ethics pledge. In its written guidance, the DEO acknowledged that the senior 

political employee had not received specific written or verbal guidance from the DEO 

identifying the organization as a “former employer” for purposes of the ethics pledge. We found 

no further communications between the senior political employee and representatives of the 

organization after the senior political employee received this guidance. 

We provided our report to the Chief of Staff for the Office of the Secretary for any action 

deemed appropriate. 

II. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION 

We investigated alleged ethics violations by a senior political employee of the U.S. Department 

of the Interior (DOI). As a political appointee, he signed a Federal ethics pledge prohibiting him 

from participating in “any particular matter involving specific parties” directly and substantially 

related to a former employer for 2 years following his Federal appointment in the fall of 2017. 

It was alleged that the senior political employee communicated with a former employer during 

that time. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. Facts 

1. The Senior Political Employee’s Former Employment and Ethics Training as a DOI 

Employee 

Until 2017, the senior political employee held an unpaid, volunteer position with an entity related 

to an organization. The senior political employee considered the entity to be separate from the 

organization.1 The senior political employee told us that he represented another previous 

employer (distinct from the organization being described) in his volunteer interactions with the 

organization, which included meetings at annual conferences. 

The senior political employee became a DOI employee in the fall of 2017. According to training 

records from the Departmental Ethics Office (DEO), the senior political employee received 

initial ethics training from an ethics official on his second day. This training provided general 

guidance on the Federal ethics pledge and ethics regulations, including relationships covered 

under the pledge; regulations, rules, and restrictions concerning Federal employees’ receipt of 

gifts; and restrictions against Federal employees contacting their former employers.2 The senior 

political employee signed the ethics pledge on the day he received training. Neither the initial 

ethics training records provided by the DEO nor the ethics pledge defined “former employer.” 

2. The Senior Political Employee’s Communications With Representatives of the Former 

Employer 

i. Email and Telephone Contacts 

We found records indicating the senior political employee had three phone calls and multiple 

email exchanges with four different representatives of the organization that was his former 

employer (described above) between late 2017 and late 2018, as detailed in the below timeline. 

Date Communication 

Fall 2017: 

The senior political employee emailed 

employees of the former employer 

The senior political employee emailed an employee 

of the organization and copied another employee at 

the same organization, stating that he was looking 

“forward to working closely with you all going 

forward.” In a followup email, the employee copied 

on the original email proposed a meeting with the 

senior political employee, but the meeting was 

ultimately canceled. 

1 Throughout this report, we generally use the term “organization” to refer to the two associated entities together. In a few places 

in the text, we mention the entities separately to distinguish between them as needed. 2 A senior DEO official told us that the DEO could not confirm the specific training document used when the senior political 

employee was onboarded. She did, however, provide us the Political Appointee Initial Ethics Training that she said was provided 

to non-PAS (Presidential appointments with Senate confirmation) positions in the month prior to the senior political employee’s 

appointment. Another senior DEO official told us that the training document was consistent with the type of ethics training the 

senior political employee should have received. 

2 
Date Communication 

Fall 2017: 

The senior political employee 

responded to an emailfrom a 

consultant to the former employer 

A consultant for the organization emailed the senior 

political employee. On the following day, the senior 

political employee responded that he would give the 

consultant a phone call.

Late fall 2017: 

The senior political employee 

exchanged emails with the consultant 

The consultant requested a “brief call” with the 

senior political employee, who apologized for 

“dropping the ball earlier.” 

Winter 2017: 

The senior political employee emailed 

the consultant 

The senior political employee emailed the consultant 

that he was free for a phone call. 

Winter 2017: 

The senior political employee had a

phone call with the consultant 

The senior political employee told us that he had an 

“introductory phone call” with the consultant. After 

he reviewed his official DOI calendar, the senior 

political employee confirmed that the call likely 

occurred on this date. 

Spring 2018: 

The senior political employee had a

phone call with the former employer 

Per his official DOI calendar, the senior political 

employee had a call with the organization. After he 

reviewed the calendar entry, the senior political 

employee told us that he assumed the call was with a 

specific employee of the organization (theemployee 

to whom the next timeline entry refers), but he could 

not specifically remember. 

Fall 2018: 

The senior political employee 

introduced a special assistant and an 

employee of the former employer to 

each other during a phone call 

The senior political employee told us that he spoke 

to an employee of the organization to introduce a 

new special assistant. The senior political employee 

said that it was an “introductory phone call” during 

which he explained the special assistant’s role at the 

DOI. The senior political employee thought the call 

occurred in summer 2018, but after he reviewed his 

official DOI calendar, he saidthat the call likely 

took place on this date. 

 

 

 

ii. The Senior Political Employee’s Presentation at an Event Hosted by the Former 

Employer 

We found that the senior political employee represented the DOI at an event hosted by the 

former employer in 2018. The senior political employee said that the event was a “high-level 

discussion of the agency’s top priorities. And they [the former employer] talked to [two other 

Federal Government agencies] and me.” 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An employee at the organization told us that she organized the event, which included briefings 

from the two other Federal Government agencies and the DOI. The employee noted that the 

event was not a fundraiser and there was no admission fee. She confirmed that the senior 

political employee provided the DOI briefing. She explained that the organization had asked the 

senior political employee to provide a briefing on certain policy topics. An executive of the 

organization told us that he attended a roundtable meeting with the senior political employee and 

others at the event. He stated further that the senior political employee discussed DOI policy 

issues with the attendees. 

iii. The Senior Political Employee’s In-Person Meeting With an Employee of the Former 

Employer 

We found that the senior political employee and the previously mentioned special assistant met 

in person with the previously mentioned executive of the organization in late fall 2018. When we 

asked the senior political employee about the entry in his calendar for that date, he told us that 

was the day he introduced the special assistant to the executive. The senior political employee 

told us that during that meeting he talked to the executive about the special assistant’s role at the 

DOI. 

The executive of the organization told us that the special assistant had requested the meeting as 

“just an introduction meeting” that the senior political employee facilitated. According to the 

executive, they discussed various initiatives of the organization. The executive explained that it 

was a “very high-level . . . meet and greet” and noted that there was no followup to that meeting. 

3. The Senior Political Employee Recalled Asking the DEO About His Interactions With the 

Former Employer 

The senior political employee told us that he talked to DEO Director Scott de la Vega in 2018 

after he learned that it had been alleged that he violated ethics rules by meeting with 

representatives of the organization. The senior political employee said he stopped de la Vega in a 

hallway and asked, “Do we have any problem?” According to the senior political employee, de 

la Vega asked if the senior political employee had worked for the organization. The senior 

political employee said he told de la Vega, “No. . . . I volunteer[ed].” According to the senior 

political employee, de la Vega responded, “You don’t have a problem.” The senior political 

employee also recalled that de la Vega said that it was “nothing to worry about.” When asked if 

the senior political employee described the organization, its related entity, or his work there to 

de la Vega, the senior political employee responded that he may have but that he could not recall. 

The senior political employee said that, after talking to de la Vega, he thought that he was “good 

to go.” When asked if he would have felt comfortable talking to the organization after that 

discussion with de la Vega, the senior political employee said, “Yeah, yeah. . . . 100 percent.” 

De la Vega told us that he could not recall a specific discussion with the senior political 

employee about the possible violation of ethics rules, nor did he have any records documenting a 

discussion. He said, however, that he and the senior political employee “have had many 

conversations . . . over the course of the time that we had worked together. And I recall him 

being a rather very conscientious fellow, [and] someone who seemed to have a fair degree of 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

integrity.” When asked if it was possible that he provided the senior political employee informal 

advice based on the senior political employee’s description of his employment with the 

organization, de la Vega said it was possible. De la Vega said that he had no reason to question 

the senior political employee’s recounting of the conversation. 

4. The Senior Political Employee’s Discussions With DOI Ethics Officials About His 

Obligations Under the Ethics Pledge 

The senior political employee told us that he did not recall signing the ethics pledge as part of his 

initial ethics training in the fall of 2017. The senior political employee believed he had “some 

general kind of broad training” when he onboarded. Regarding former employers, he told us that 

he recalled the guidance as “ essentially, don’t communicate with former employers about 

specific issues.” 

In addition, the senior political employee told us that he did not recall receiving “specific 

training” or “verbal or written guidance on my situation at all” when he onboarded. He noted that 

he may have had other general ethics training, but said, “I definitely didn’t get into . . . my issue 

with [the organization] in any sort of way, no. . . . Even in the memo [a 2019 guidance 

memorandum from de la Vega, described below], it says that they [the DEO] didn’t provide me 

any guidance on that at all.” 

The senior political employee told us that after he learned about the alleged ethics issues, he 

went to de la Vega “close to immediately” and said, “I need some clarity on this. . . . I feel like I 

had no clue on it.” He also told us that he said to de la Vega, “I feel like I wanna go through 

everything to make sure that . . . there’s nothing that I’m missing here.” The senior political 

employee said he was under the impression that only the other previous employer (not the 

organization or its related entity) was considered a former employer for purposes of the ethics 

pledge. 

The senior political employee said that de la Vega then conducted a formal review and 

determined that the organization qualified as a former employer according to ethics rules. He 

said, “At no point in time . . . did they ever give me any indication that [the organization] was a 

former employer in any way whatsoever. And if they did, I wouldn’t have had any phone calls 

[with the organization].” The senior political employee reiterated that he never considered the 

organization a former employer. 

The senior political employee told us that, after the allegation of possible ethics violations, he 

had “numerous conversations” with de la Vega in the hallway, “to set up another ethics meeting 

for myself and each member of my team to go over any sort of specific recusals we may have 

and get additional guidance on any kind of ethics issue that [any] member of my team could 

have.” The senior political employee estimated that he had two or three hallway discussions with 

de la Vega about the possible ethics issues. 

The senior political employee told us that, in spring 2019, he asked a DEO attorney-advisor and 

a senior DEO official for specific guidance about his recusals. A few weeks later, the senior 

DEO official emailed the senior political employee the draft memorandum regarding de la 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vega’s discussion with the senior political employee about the alleged violation of ethics rules. 

On that same day, the senior DEO official and the senior political employee exchanged emails 

regarding the draft memorandum language. 

The final version of the DEO memorandum explained that both the organization and the entity 

were legally related, that the organization and its related entity were together considered a 

“former employer” of the senior political employee’s for purposes of the ethics pledge, and that 

the senior political employee could not participate personally and substantially in any particular 

matter involving specific parties that was directly related to his former employers or clients until 

fall 2019. The memorandum noted, however, that prior to this memorandum, the senior political 

employee “did not receive specific written or verbal guidance identifying [the organization] as a 

‘former employer’ for purposes of the Ethics Pledge.” 

We found no evidence that the senior political employee and representatives of the organization 

communicated in the timeframe between the senior political employee’s receipt of the DEO 

memorandum and his departure from the DOI in 2019. 

B. Analysis 

We determined that the senior political employee’s interactions with the organization implicated 

the Federal ethics pledge he signed in fall 2017. Paragraph 6 of the Federal ethics pledge under 

Executive Order No. 13770 states, “I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my 

appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and 

substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and 

contracts.” 

1. The Senior Political Employee Did Not Understand That the Organization Was Considered a 

Former Employer Under the Ethics Pledge 

As discussed above, the senior political employee received initial ethics training during his first 

week at the DOI. The senior political employee said he understood from that training that he 

could not communicate with the employer he worked for prior to his volunteer work for the 

organization. He said, however, that he never considered the organization to be a former 

employer because he was a volunteer and his position was unpaid. The senior political employee 

also stated that, before the allegation of a possible ethics violation, he did not recall any specific 

training from ethics staff, either verbal or written, that addressed his situation. We found that it 

was not until after the senior political employee learned it had been alleged that he violated 

ethics rules that he sought formal ethics guidance from de la Vega regarding his relationship with 

the organization. 

2. The Senior Political Employee Nonetheless Did Not Comply With His Ethics Pledge in 

Phone Calls, Email Exchanges, and an In-Person Meeting With Representatives of the 

Organization 

As summarized below, we conclude that various exchanges between the senior political 

employee and representatives of the organization were inconsistent with the terms of his ethics 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pledge. However, we also conclude that all of these communications—telephone calls and emails 

with representatives of the organization and one in-person meeting—occurred before the senior 

political employee received the DEO’s 2019 ethics guidance alerting him that the organization 

was considered a “former employer” for purposes of his ethics obligations. We identified no 

similar communications after he received the ethics guidance. 

i. Three Phone Calls and Multiple Email Exchanges Between Fall 2017 and Fall 2018 With 

Representatives of the Organization Were Not Consistent With the Senior Political 

Employee’s Ethics Pledge 

As previously stated, Executive Order No. 13770 prohibits DOI appointees from contacting their 

former employers for a period of 2 years from the date of their appointment to their Federal 

position.3 An Office of Government Ethics (OGE) memorandum, DO-09-011, explains that, in 

order to determine whether an appointee’s activities concern any particular matters involving 

specific parties, ethics officials must follow the longstanding interpretation of the term 

“particular matter involving specific parties” from 5 C.F.R. § 2641.201(h). Notably, the OGE 

memorandum states that the ethics pledge itself expands the scope of the phrase to include “any 

meeting or other communication with a former employer or former client relating to the 

performance of the appointee’s official duties, unless the communication applies to a particular 

matter of general applicability and participation in the meeting or other event is open to all 

interested parties.”4 The OGE memorandum states that meetings need not “be open to every 

comer, but should include a multiplicity of parties.” The memorandum continues, “The purpose 

of this expansion of the traditional definition is to address concerns that former employers and 

clients may appear to have privileged access, which they may exploit to influence an appointee 

out of the public view.” 

In sum, under the standard articulated in the OGE memorandum, the ethics pledge prohibits any 

meeting or other communication with a former employer relating to the performance of the 

appointee’s official duties, regardless of whether the interactions amount to the longstanding 

definition of a particular matter under Federal regulations. The OGE memorandum also creates a 

two-part test for exceptions to the ethics pledge’s ban on an appointee communicating with a 

former employer or client. An appointee may communicate with a former employer or client if 

the communication is (1) “about a particular matter of general applicability” and (2) “made at a 

meeting or other event at which participation is open to all interested parties”; this second part 

may be satisfied if the meeting includes a “multiplicity of parties.”5 

3 Based on our independent legal analysis, we agree with the conclusion in the 2019 DEO memorandum that the organization is 

considered the senior political employee’s former employer for purposes of the ethics pledge. 4 The term “particular matter involving specific parties” is used in Federal regulations governing personal and business 

relationships (5 C.F.R. § 2635.502) and further clarified in OGE memorandum DO-06-029. For the purposes of 5 C.F.R. 

§ 2635.502, a particular matter involving specific parties “typically involves a specific proceeding affecting the legal rights of the 

parties, or an isolatable transaction or related set of transactions between identified parties” (5 C.F.R. § 2640.102(l)). OGE 

memorandum DO-06-029 clarifies that examples of particular matters involving specific parties for purposes of the regulations 

include only “contracts, grants, licenses,” and other similar specific actions taken with regard to, or on behalf of, a party—a 

narrower interpretation of the term than that used for analysis under the Federal ethics pledge. Therefore, an action might not 

violate 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502 because it does not meet the regulation’s definition of a “particular matter involving specific parties” 

but could still violate the Federal ethics pledge.

5 OGE memorandum DO-09-011 states, “An appointee may participate in communications and meetings with a former employer 

or client about these particular or non-particular matters if the meeting or event is open to all interested parties.” The 

memorandum acknowledges, though, that because meeting spaces are typically limited and because time and other practical 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The evidence confirms that the senior political employee’s three phone calls and multiple email 

exchanges with representatives of the organization constituted communications with a former 

employer relating to the performance of his official duties. While these communications may 

appear to be minor in nature, they were prohibited under the ethics pledge because they did not 

satisfy the second part of the two-part exception articulated in the OGE memorandum: they were 

not made at a meeting or other event at which participation was open to all interested parties. 

Moreover, we found no evidence that the senior political employee sought or obtained a waiver 

from an ethics official prior to these communications. 

Based on the above analysis, we concluded that the senior political employee’s phone and email 

communications with the organization were not consistent with his obligations under the ethics 

pledge. 

ii. The Senior Political Employee’s In-Person Meeting With an Executive of the 

Organization Was Inconsistent With His Ethics Pledge 

Using the same analysis as above, we considered whether the senior political employee’s 

meeting with the executive of the organization was inconsistent with the senior political 

employee’s obligations under paragraph 6 of the ethics pledge. Because the meeting was not 

open to “all interested parties” or a “multiplicity of parties,” the meeting did not satisfy the twopart exception articulated in the OGE memorandum. We therefore concluded that the senior 

political employee’s meeting with the executive was not consistent with his obligations under the 

ethics pledge. 

3. The Senior Political Employee’s Presentation in His Official Capacity at an Event Hosted by 

the Organization Did Not Contradict His Ethics Pledge 

We also reviewed whether the senior political employee’s presentation in his official capacity at 

a 2018 event hosted by the organization was consistent with his obligations under the ethics 

pledge. 

According to the OGE, “the Pledge is not intended to prohibit an appointee from participating in 

an official speech unless the speech would have a demonstrable financial effect on the former 

employer or client.”6 The OGE has further explained that, in its experience, “usually the sponsor 

of an event will have a financial interest in an official speech only if an admission fee is charged, 

the event is a fundraiser, or the event is some kind of business development activity (such as a 

seminar for current or prospective clients).”7 

considerations also may constrain the size of meetings, “common sense” demands that reasonable limits be placed on what it 

means to be “open to all interested parties.” That is, such meetings do not have to be “open to every comer.”

6 OGE memorandum DO-09-020 states, “Where the decision to give an official speech actually would affect the financial 

interests of the sponsor, the concerns under the pledge about special access are relevant. Thus, if the former employer or client 

charges an admission fee or organizes the event for the purpose of fundraising or business development, the appointee will be 

barred from giving an official speech, absent a waiver.”

7 See OGE memorandum DO-09-020 at 2. 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The organization was the sponsor of the event, which was organized to allow senior officials of 

the organization “to engage in meetings with high-ranking officials” from two other Federal 

Government agencies and the DOI to “gain a nuanced understanding of each agency’s policy 

priorities.” 

We do not believe that this event had a “demonstrable financial effect” on the organization such 

that it would fall within the scope of the ethics pledge. The organization charged no fees and 

engaged in no fundraising at the event. Accordingly, we conclude that the senior political 

employee’s presentation in his official capacity at the event was consistent with his obligations 

under the ethics pledge.8 

C. Conclusion 

We concluded that the senior political employee’s telephone calls, email communications, and 

one in-person meeting with representatives of the organization did not comply with the 

requirements of his ethics pledge. In contrast, we concluded that the senior political employee’s 

presentation in his official capacity at an event hosted by the organization did not contradict his 

obligations under the ethics pledge and existing OGE guidance. In making these findings, we 

note that the senior political employee’s telephone and email communications with his former 

employer appear to have been minor in nature, and that, at the time of these communications, the 

senior political employee told us he did not understand that his unpaid, volunteer position at the 

organization was considered former employment. Additionally, the DEO acknowledged in its 

2019 ethics guidance that the senior political employee did not receive specific written or verbal 

guidance from the DEO identifying the organization as a “former employer” for purposes of the 

ethics pledge prior to that date. Finally, we found no further communications between the senior 

political employee and representatives of the organization after the DEO provided the senior 

political employee with written guidance about communicating with former employers. 

III. SUBJECT 

A former senior DOI political employee. 

IV. DISPOSITION 

We provided our report to the Chief of Staff for the Office of the Secretary for any action 

deemed appropriate. 

8 We also considered whether the senior political employee’s conduct was contrary to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502. The evidence 

established that, at the time of the senior political employee’s presentation at the 2018 event, he did not know that the 

organization was considered a former employer or that he had a covered relationship with the organization. Because § 2635.502 

requires an employee to have knowledge of these facts, we determined that § 2635.502 was not directly implicated in this case. 

9 
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