Department of Health and Human Services

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 

CDC’S ETHICS PROGRAM FOR 

SPECIAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES 

ON FEDERAL ADVISORY 

COMMITTEES 

 

 

Daniel R. Levinson 

Inspector General 

December 2009 

OEI-04-07-00260 
 

Office of Inspector General 

http://oig.hhs.gov 

The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as 

amended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) programs, as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those 

programs. This statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits, 

investigations, and inspections conducted by the following operating components: 

Office of Audit Services 

The Office of Audit Services (OAS) provides auditing services for HHS, either by conducting 

audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. Audits 

examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in carrying 

out their respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent assessments of 

HHS programs and operations. These assessments help reduce waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement and promote economy and efficiency throughout HHS. 

Office of Evaluation and Inspections 

The Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts national evaluations to provide 

HHS, Congress, and the public with timely, useful, and reliable information on significant 

issues. These evaluations focus on preventing fraud, waste, or abuse and promoting 

economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of departmental programs. To promote impact, OEI 

reports also present practical recommendations for improving program operations. 

Office of Investigations 

The Office of Investigations (OI) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative investigations 

of fraud and misconduct related to HHS programs, operations, and beneficiaries. With 

investigators working in all 50 States and the District of Columbia, OI utilizes its resources 

by actively coordinating with the Department of Justice and other Federal, State, and local 

law enforcement authorities. The investigative efforts of OI often lead to criminal 

convictions, administrative sanctions, and/or civil monetary penalties. 

Office of Counsel to the Inspector General 

The Office of Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG) provides general legal services to 

OIG, rendering advice and opinions on HHS programs and operations and providing all 

legal support for OIG’s internal operations. OCIG represents OIG in all civil and 

administrative fraud and abuse cases involving HHS programs, including False Claims Act, 

program exclusion, and civil monetary penalty cases. In connection with these cases, OCIG 

also negotiates and monitors corporate integrity agreements. OCIG renders advisory 

opinions, issues compliance program guidance, publishes fraud alerts, and provides other 

guidance to the health care industry concerning the anti-kickback statute and other OIG 

enforcement authorities. 
 

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

OBJECTIVE

To determine the extent to which the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) and its special Government employees (SGE) on 

Federal advisory committees (committees) complied with ethics 

requirements. 

BACKGROUND 

Committees play an influential role in decisionmaking for the Federal 

Government. Committee members (i.e., SGEs) are typically involved in 

work outside the Federal Government in the same areas as their 

committees’ work. To protect the committees’ integrity and credibility, 

agencies must not permit SGEs with conflicts of interest to 

inappropriately influence their committees’ work. 

At CDC, committees address important public health topics. For 

example, in 2007, one committee recommended the routine vaccination of 

young females in the United States to prevent cervical cancer. In 2009, 

this same committee recommended that H1N1 influenza vaccination 

efforts focus on five target groups in the United States. 

CDC must obtain from SGEs Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports, 

Office of Government Ethics (OGE) Forms 450, containing information 

such as the SGEs’ assets, sources of income, and non-income-earning 

activities. Before permitting SGEs to participate in committee meetings, 

CDC must review these forms and certify them to indicate that they are 

complete and that it has identified and resolved all conflicts of interest. 

CDC must create ethics agreements (e.g., waivers) to resolve SGEs’ 

conflicts of interest. CDC collaborates with the Department of Health and 

Human Services’ (HHS) Office of the General Counsel to identify and 

resolve conflicts of interest. 

CDC must also provide initial and annual ethics training to SGEs within 

required timeframes and obtain ethics training certificates from SGEs to 

document that they received the training. Finally, CDC must monitor 

SGEs’ compliance with ethics requirements during committee meetings. 

That is, SGEs must not participate in committee work during committee 

meetings without current, certified OGE Forms 450 or participate in 

committee work related to particular matters if their waivers prohibit 

such participation. 

We reviewed financial disclosure files (e.g., current, certified OGE 

Forms 450 and ethics agreements) for 246 SGEs on 17 CDC committees in 

 OEI-04-07-00 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL i 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 

2007. We determined whether SGEs’ OGE Forms 450 were complete 

after CDC certified them. Then, we determined whether CDC identified 

potential conflicts of interest that we identified. We also determined the 

extent to which CDC created ethics agreements and adequately 

documented them to resolve potential conflicts of interest. Further, we 

determined whether CDC ensured that SGEs’ financial disclosure files 

contained ethics training certificates to document that SGEs received 

ethics training within required timeframes. Finally, we determined 

whether SGEs complied with ethics requirements during committee 

meetings. 

2007. We determined whether SGEs’ OGE Forms 450 were complete 

after CDC certified them. Then, we determined whether CDC identified 

potential conflicts of interest that we identified. We also determined the 

extent to which CDC created ethics agreements and adequately 

documented them to resolve potential conflicts of interest. Further, we 

determined whether CDC ensured that SGEs’ financial disclosure files 

contained ethics training certificates to document that SGEs received 

ethics training within required timeframes. Finally, we determined 

whether SGEs complied with ethics requirements during committee 

meetings. 

FINDINGS FINDINGS 

For almost all special Government employees, CDC did not ensure 

that financial disclosure forms were complete in 2007. CDC certified 

OGE Forms 450 with at least one omission in 2007 for 97 percent of 

SGEs. Most of the forms had more than one type of omission.

CDC did not identify or resolve potential conflicts of interest for 

64 percent of special Government employees in 2007. Sixty-four 

percent of SGEs had potential conflicts of interest in 2007 that CDC did 

not identify and/or resolve before it certified their OGE Forms 450. 

Specifically, 58 percent of SGEs had potential conflicts of interest that 

CDC did not identify. In addition, 32 percent of SGEs had potential 

conflicts of interest that CDC identified but did not resolve. Twenty-six 

percent of SGEs had both CDC-unidentified and unresolved potential 

conflicts of interest. 

CDC did not ensure that 41 percent of special Government employees 

received required ethics training in 2007. CDC did not ensure that 

41 percent of SGEs had ethics training certificates on file to document 

that SGEs received initial or annual ethics training within required 

timeframes in 2007. 

Fifteen percent of special Government employees did not comply with 

ethics requirements during committee meetings in 2007. Fifteen 

percent of SGEs did not comply with ethics requirements during 

committee meetings in 2007. Specifically, 13 percent of SGEs participated 

in committee meetings in 2007 without having current, certified 

OGE Forms 450 on file. In addition, 3 percent of SGEs voted on 

particular matters when their waivers prohibited such participation. 

Four SGEs both participated in committee meetings without current, 

certified OGE Forms 450 on file and voted on particular matters when 

their waivers prohibited such participation. 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL ii 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL iii 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

We found that CDC had a systemic lack of oversight of the ethics program 

for SGEs. That is, CDC and its SGEs did not comply with ethics 

requirements in 2007. 

To address our findings, we recommend that CDC: 

Ensure that special Government employees’ Confidential Financial 

Disclosure Reports are complete before certifying them. 

Require special Government employees to disclose their involvement 

in grants and other relevant interests that could pose conflicts but 

that are not disclosed on the Confidential Financial Disclosure Report. 

Identify and resolve all conflicts of interest for special Government 

employees before permitting them to participate in committee 

meetings. 

Increase collaboration among CDC officials and with the HHS Office 

of the General Counsel. 

Ensure that special Government employees and CDC employees 

receive ethics training. 

Monitor special Government employee compliance with ethics 

requirements during committee meetings. 

Track special Government employee compliance with ethics 

requirements. 

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

RESPONSE 

CDC concurred with all seven of our recommendations. Since the time of 

our review, CDC indicated that it has begun or plans to implement 

improvements that coincide with our recommendations. 

We made technical changes to the report based on CDC’s comments. 
 

 

 TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................... i

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 

For almost all special Government employees, CDC did not 

ensure that financial disclosure forms were complete in 2007 . . . 16 

CDC did not identify or resolve potential conflicts of interest 

for 64 percent of special Government employees in 2007. . . . . . . . 16 

CDC did not ensure that 41 percent of special Government 

employees received required ethics training in 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . 21 

Fifteen percent of special Government employees did not comply 

with ethics requirements during committee meetings in 2007 . . . 21 

RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 

Agency Comments and Office of Inspector General Response . . . . 28 

APPENDIXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 

A: Federal Advisory Committees at the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, as of December 31, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . 30 

 B: Detailed Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 

C: Office of Government Ethics Guidance for Determining 

Whether 2007 Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports 

Are Complete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 

D: Details Regarding Number and Percentage of Certified 

2007 Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports That Were 

Incomplete, by Type of Omission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 

E: Average and Range in Committee Meetings in Which 

Special Government Employees Participated in 2007 After 

Their Forms Were Certified, by Type of Vulnerability in 

Their Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 

 F: Agency Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 

OBJECTIVE 

To determine the extent to which the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) and its special Government employees (SGE) on 

Federal advisory committees (committees) complied with ethics 

requirements. 

BACKGROUND 

Committees provide “expert advice, ideas, and diverse opinions” to the 

Federal Government and play an influential role in public policy and 

decisionmaking.1, 2 To protect the committees’ integrity and credibility, 

Federal agencies must not permit committee members with conflicts of 

interest to inappropriately influence their committees’ work.3, 4 OGE 

issues regulations regarding conflicts of interest and oversees Federal 

agencies’ ethics programs.5

SGEs are voting committee members who are temporary employees of 

the Federal Government.6 SGEs are subject matter experts and 

typically are actively involved in work outside the Government in the 

same areas as their committees’ work.7 Therefore, SGEs may have 

1 Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. II §§ 2(a) and 3(2)(c)(i). 

2 Office of Government Ethics (OGE) Memorandum to Designated Agency Ethics 

Officials, “Federal Advisory Committee Appointments.” DO-05-012, August 18, 2005. 

Available online at 

http://www.usoge.gov/ethics_guidance/daeograms/dgr_files/2005/do05012.pdf. Accessed on 

July 10, 2009. 

3 In this report, we will use the term “committee work” to include preliminary 

discussions, interim evaluations, votes, and final recommendations. 

4 In this report, we will use the term “conflict of interest” to refer to interests covered by 

the criminal conflict-of-interest statute (18 U.S.C. § 208) and/or the Standards of Ethical 

Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR § 2635). 

5 Ethics in Government Act, 5 U.S.C. app. IV §§ 401 and 402, 5 CFR pt. 2600. 

6 SGEs may serve in many roles in the Federal Government. 18 U.S.C. § 202(a). In this 

report, we will use the term “SGE” to refer only to SGEs on committees at CDC. In the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), most committee members are appointed 

as SGEs. HHS, Office of the General Counsel Ethics Division. “Ethics Rules for Advisory 

Committee Members and Other Individuals Appointed as Special Government Employees 

(SGE),” p. 1, October 2004. SGEs may serve multiyear terms on committees but may not 

serve in excess of 130 days during any 365-day period. 18 U.S.C. § 202(a). 

7 OGE, “Conflict of Interest and the Special Government Employee: A Summary of 

Ethical Requirements Applicable to SGEs.” Attachment to the OGE Memorandum to 

Designated Agency Ethics Officials, DO-00-003, February 15, 2000. Available online at 

http://www.usoge.gov/laws_regs/other_ethics_guidance/othr_gdnc/og_sge_coi_00.pdf. 

Accessed on July 10, 2008. 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 1 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
INTRODUCTION 

financial interests that conflict with their official duties as committee 

members. 

At CDC, committees address important public health topics, such as 

breast and cervical cancer, immunization, smoking, tuberculosis, and 

clinical laboratory improvement. For example, in 2007, one committee 

recommended the routine vaccination of young females in the United 

States to prevent cervical cancer.8 In 2009, this same committee 

recommended that H1N1 influenza vaccination efforts focus on five 

target groups in the United States.9

On December 31, 2007, 259 SGEs were serving on 17 CDC committees. 

The President, Congress, or the HHS Secretary may appoint SGEs to 

these committees. See Appendix A for a list of the 17 committees. 

CDC’s Ethics Program for Special Government Employees 

CDC’s Management Analysis and Services Office (MASO) is responsible 

for managing CDC’s ethics program for SGEs.10 MASO coordinates 

with each committee’s Designated Federal Official to ensure that SGEs 

comply with Federal ethics statutes and regulations, as well as CDC 

policy. Hereinafter, we refer to Federal ethics statutes and regulations 

and CDC policy as “ethics requirements.” 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 2 

8 CDC, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, “Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus 

Vaccine: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.” 

March 23, 2007. Available online at 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm?s_cid=rr5602a1_e. Accessed 

on September 9, 2009. 

9 CDC, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “Use of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 

Monovalent Vaccine: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization 

Practices.” August 28, 2009. Available online at 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5810a1.htm?s_cid=rr5810a1_e. Accessed 

on September 9, 2009. 

10 OGE requires each Department to assign a Designated Agency Ethics Official to 

establish, maintain, and carry out the Department’s various ethics programs. 

5 CFR § 2638.201. The HHS Designated Agency Ethics Official has delegated daily 

responsibility for administering HHS’s ethics programs to Deputy Ethics Counselors in each 

operating division. HHS Office of the General Counsel Ethics Division, “Deputy Ethics 

Counselor HHS Ethics Program Statement of Functions, Responsibilities, and Authority,” 

revised August 15, 2007. HHS Office of the General Counsel, Ethics Division, Designated 

Agency Ethics Official, “DAEO Supplemental Instruction No. 06-2,” December 14, 2006. 

CDC’s Deputy Ethics Counselor has further delegated certain aspects of the administration 

of CDC’s SGE ethics program to the Director of MASO. CDC Policy, CDC-GA-2001-05 

(formerly CDC-94), “Financial Disclosure for Federal Advisory Committee Members 

Appointed as Special Government Employees,” July 5, 2001. Available online at 

http://www.cdc.gov/maso/FACM/pdfs/policy294.pdf. Accessed on July 10, 2009. 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
INTRODUCTION 

The Designated Federal Official is not a committee member, but a CDC 

employee who serves as the committee’s Executive Secretary, attends 

each meeting, and manages the committee’s day-to-day operations.11, 12 

CDC (i.e., MASO and Designated Federal Officials) is responsible for: 

1. ensuring that Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports 

(OGE Forms 450) are complete, 

2. identifying and resolving SGEs’ conflicts of interest, 

3. providing and documenting initial and annual ethics training to 

SGEs, and 

4. monitoring SGEs’ compliance with ethics requirements during 

committee meetings.13 

The ethics program is based on a confidential financial reporting 

system. This system enables CDC to identify SGEs’ conflicts of interest 

and assists them in avoiding conflicts between their official duties and 

financial interests or affiliations.14 SGEs must submit OGE Forms 450 

to CDC, on which they disclose all financial interests and positions held 

in the previous 12 months.15, 16 

SGEs must complete four sections of the form: 

 Part I - Assets and Income 

 Part II - Liabilities 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 3 

11 Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. II § 10(e). CDC Policy, 

CDC-GA-2001-05, loc. cit. 

12 At CDC, the Designated Federal Official’s primary employment responsibilities exist 

outside the committee. This official is usually employed in a CDC program related to 

particular matters addressed by the committee. 

13 CDC Policy, CDC-GA-2001-05, loc. cit. 

14 OGE, OGE Form 450: A Review Guide, September 1996, pp. 26 and 27. Available 

online at http://www.usoge.gov/forms/oge450_pdf/rf450guide_96.pdf. Accessed on July 10, 

2009. 

15 OGE, Memorandum to Designated Agency Ethics Officials, DO-03-021. Financial 

Disclosure Reporting Requirements for Special Government Employees, October 23, 2003. 

Available online at 

http://www.usoge.gov/ethics_guidance/daeograms/dgr_files/2003/DO03021.HTML. Accessed 

on September 9, 2009. In January 2007, OGE issued an updated OGE Form 450. 

16 SGEs are required to report interests (e.g., assets, positions) held at any point in the 

previous 12 months, even if they are not held at the time of the filing. SGEs must also 

report financial interests attributed to them on behalf of another person or entity (e.g., a 

spouse or dependent child). For the purposes of this report, SGEs’ financial interests refer 

to both the SGEs’ own interests and those attributed to them during the reporting period. 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
INTRODUCTION 

 Part III - Outside Positions 

 Part IV - Agreements and Arrangements17 

CDC also requests (but does not require) SGEs to submit an updated 

curriculum vitae with the OGE Form 450.18 CDC uses the curriculum 

vitae to identify grants that pose potential conflicts of interest because 

this information is not required on the OGE Form 450.19 CDC also uses 

the curriculum vitae to identify other interests that could pose conflicts. 

CDC must maintain financial disclosure files for SGEs, by committee, 

including the current and prior OGE Forms 450 and supporting 

documentation (e.g., curriculum vitae).20 

Ensuring Complete Disclosure of Financial Information 

Once CDC receives an SGE’s OGE Form 450, it must ensure that the 

form is complete before approving (i.e., certifying) it.21 MASO reviewers 

take the SGEs’ disclosures on OGE Forms 450 at “face value.” 22 That 

is, MASO reviewers assess the extent to which forms are complete 

based on omissions that they can identify given the interests that are 

disclosed by the SGEs anywhere in their financial disclosure files 

(e.g., curricula vitae, 2006 and 2007 OGE Forms 450). MASO reviewers 

are not required to identify omissions that result from interests that the 

SGEs consistently fail to disclose anywhere in the file. 

If CDC determines that a form is incomplete, it must contact the SGE to 

obtain additional information.23 CDC then annotates the form with the 

additional information.24 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 4 

17 SGEs are not required to complete Part V – Gifts and Travel Reimbursement. 

18 A curriculum vitae is similar to a résumé but is a more comprehensive account of an 

individual’s professional history (e.g., education, employment, publications, grants). 

19 Information regarding SGEs’ involvement in grants that are awarded to their 

employers is not required to be disclosed on the OGE Form 450. 

20 CDC Policy, CDC-GA-2001-05, loc. cit. 

21 5 CFR §§ 2634.605(b)(1)(i) and (b)(2). OGE, “OGE Form 450: A Review Guide,” loc. 

cit. 

22 5 CFR § 2634.605(b)(2). 

23 CDC Policy, CDC-GA-2001-05, loc. cit. 

24 Ibid. 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
INTRODUCTION 

An OGE Form 450 is incomplete if, for example: 

 items are not fully described or listed in all appropriate sections of 

the form, according to OGE guidance and the form’s instructions;25

 the form does not contain all items that require disclosure;26 or 

 CDC’s annotations to the form (i.e., amendments) do not indicate 

that the SGE authorized the changes or include the reviewer’s 

initials or the date of the changes.27

Identifying Conflicts of Interest 

CDC reviews committee charters to determine the scope of the matters 

generally addressed by each committee.28 Then, CDC examines each 

SGE’s OGE Form 450 and curriculum vitae in relation to the committee 

charter to identify potential conflicts of interest.29, 30 

If CDC identifies a potential conflict of interest, it obtains additional 

information or legal guidance to determine whether a conflict actually 

exists. To do so, MASO consults with the SGE, the Designated Federal 

Official, and/or the HHS Office of the General Counsel.31 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 5 

25 For example, compensated non-Federal employment listed in Part II - Outside 

Positions must also be disclosed as a source of income in Part I - Assets and Income. OGE, 

OGE Form 450: Confidential Financial Disclosure Report, January 2007. 

26 For example, relevant items listed on the SGE’s curriculum vitae or prior 

OGE Form 450 must also be listed on the current year’s form. CDC Policy, CDC-GA-2001-

05, loc. cit. 

27 CDC Policy, CDC-GA-2001-05, loc. cit. OGE, OGE Form 450: A Review Guide, loc. cit. 

28 Committee charters outline the authority, purpose, and function of each committee. 

29 We use the term “potential” conflicts of interest to refer to interests that have not yet 

been deemed conflicts of interest. Additional information is needed to determine whether 

these interests do, in fact, pose conflicts. 

30 MASO reviewers take the OGE Form 450 at “face value.” 5 CFR § 2634.605(b)(2). 

Further, CDC (and the HHS Office of the General Counsel) must rely on SGEs’ self-reported 

interests (e.g., those on the curricula vitae and OGE Forms 450) to identify potential 

conflicts of interest. Therefore, CDC cannot identify potential conflicts of interest that 

result from interests SGEs did not disclose on the current OGE Forms 450 if SGEs 

consistently fail to disclose these interests in other documents (e.g., curricula vitae and 

prior OGE Forms 450) in the financial disclosure files. 

31 Attorneys within the HHS Office of the General Counsel Ethics Division provide 

conflict-of-interest and ethics-program expertise. Attorneys within the Public Health 

Division (i.e., program attorneys) provide expertise on program matters (i.e., knowledge of 

the committee’s work that is more extensive than the summary found in the charter). HHS 

Office of the General Counsel Ethics Division, “Deputy Ethics Counselor HHS Ethics 

Program Statement of Functions, Responsibilities, and Authority,” revised August 15, 2007. 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
INTRODUCTION 

MASO’s practice is to maintain in the SGEs’ financial disclosure files 

documentation of email and phone correspondences with the SGEs, 

Designated Federal Officials, and the HHS Office of the General 

Counsel pertaining to the identification and resolution of SGEs’ conflicts 

of interest.32 

There are two main types of conflicts of interest that apply to SGEs on 

CDC’s committees. SGEs may have conflicts of interest covered by the 

criminal conflict-of-interest statute, 18 U.S.C. § 208, or by the 

Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch 

(i.e., the Standards of Ethical Conduct), 5 CFR § 2635. 

Conflicts of interest covered by the criminal conflict-of-interest statute. 

SGEs must not participate in committee work regarding particular 

matters that could have a direct and predictable effect on their financial 

interests.33 A particular matter will have a direct effect on a financial 

interest if there is a close causal link between any decision or action to 

be taken in the matter and any anticipated effect of the matter on the 

financial interest. The effect does not need to be immediate to be direct. 

A particular matter will have a predictable effect if there is a real, as 

opposed to a speculative, possibility that the matter will affect the 

financial interest. The effect does not need to be of a specific magnitude 

or dollar amount to be direct. 

For example, in certain cases, SGEs may not participate in committee 

work that would affect a company if they hold that company’s publicly 

traded stock in excess of certain minimal (i.e., de minimis) values.34, 35 

Specifically, an SGE who holds stock in excess of $15,000 in a company 

is prohibited from participating in committee work that could affect that 

32 There is no statutory or regulatory requirement that CDC maintain this 

documentation. However, CDC policy requires MASO to maintain official files for each 

committee, which includes OGE Forms 450 and other pertinent information in accordance 

with the CDC Records Schedule. CDC Policy, CDC-GA-2001-05, loc. cit. 

33 5 CFR § 2635.402. 

34 We will use the term “particular matter” to refer to committee work that involves the 

interests of a specific entity (e.g., a company) or a class of entities (e.g., a sector of similar 

companies). 5 CFR § 2640.103 (a)(1). 

35 18 U.S.C. § 208. 5 CFR § 2640.202. OGE, Memorandum to Designated Agency Ethics 

Officials, DO-02-006. Publication of Final Rule Amending 5 CFR pt. 2640. March 19, 2002. 

Available online at 

http://www.usoge.gov/ethics_guidance/daeograms/dgr_files/2002/do02006.html. Accessed on 

July 10, 2009. 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 6 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
INTRODUCTION 

specific company.36 Further, if an SGE holds stock with a value 

exceeding $25,000 in a company or an aggregate of stock exceeding 

$50,000 in a sector (i.e., a group of companies in a related industry), the 

SGE is prohibited from participating in committee work that could 

affect all companies within that sector.37 

SGEs are required to list names of certain stock holdings, but not 

values, on the OGE Form 450. When CDC identifies a stock that poses 

a potential conflict of interest, it should contact the SGE to determine 

whether it exceeds de minimis values. Further, CDC should determine 

whether it must prohibit the SGE from participating in committee work 

involving individual companies or an entire sector of companies. 

In addition, SGEs are prohibited from participating in committee 

work that would affect their employment, grants, assets, or board 

membership. For example, an SGE’s employment with a vaccine 

manufacturer may pose a conflict of interest covered by the criminal 

conflict-of-interest statute if committee work could directly and 

predictably affect that specific vaccine manufacturer.38 However, an 

SGE’s grant, for example, would normally not pose a conflict of 

interest covered by the criminal conflict-of-interest statute if the 

committee deliberates on a particular grant or contract held by a 

different vaccine manufacturer. 

Conflicts of interest covered by the Standards of Ethical Conduct. SGEs 

must not participate in committee work regarding particular matters 

if a reasonable person would question their impartiality on these 

matters. Such impartiality concerns could arise because of SGEs’ own 

interests or those attributed to them on behalf of persons or entities 

with which SGEs have certain personal or business relationships.39 

For example, SGEs’ impartiality may be questioned if they receive 

36 5 CFR § 2640.202(a). 

37 5 CFR § 2640.202 (c) provides de minimis exemptions for values of stock owned by 

employees who participate in particular matters of general applicability. 

38 SGEs serving on committees have a regulatory exemption to participate in committee 

work regarding particular matters of general applicability that would affect their employer 

to the same extent that similarly situated entities would be affected. However, an SGE 

must not participate in committee work that would affect the financial interests of his or 

her specific employer but not similarly situated entities. 5 CFR § 2640.203(g). 

39 5 CFR 2635.501 et seq. sets forth the relevant prohibitions and identifies the five 

applicable “covered relationships.” 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 7 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
INTRODUCTION 

consulting fees, honoraria, or speaking fees from companies that could 

be affected by the committee’s work. 

Resolving Conflicts of Interest 

CDC may resolve SGEs’ conflicts of interest with ethics agreements, 

including 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(3) waivers (i.e., waivers).40, 41 If CDC does 

not resolve a conflict of interest with an ethics agreement, it should not 

certify the SGE’s OGE Form 450 or permit the SGE to participate in 

committee work.42 

Waivers acknowledge that a conflict of interest exists but that the need 

for the SGE’s services outweighs the risk posed by the conflict. CDC 

collaborates with the HHS Office of the General Counsel to develop 

waivers. 

Adequately documented waivers must, among other requirements, 

reflect the SGE’s unique conflict(s) of interest.43 For example, CDC 

must specify in a waiver: 

 the specific interest(s) that pose a conflict(s), 

 the general matter(s) in which CDC permits the SGE to participate, 

and 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 8 

40 In this report, we use the term “ethics agreements” to include waivers, recusal plans, 

divestitures, and authorizations, which may all be used to resolve SGEs’ conflicts of 

interest. 5 CFR §§ 2634.802(a) and 2635.502(d). Most ethics agreements that CDC issues 

are limited waivers, which contain a section that describes the particular matters in which 

CDC prohibits the SGE from participating (i.e., recusal plans). However, CDC can 

document these recusal plans for an SGE separately from a waiver in cases where it 

determines that the SGE should be prohibited from participating in particular matters but 

should not be granted a waiver to participate in general committee matters. 

See 5 CFR §§ 2635.402(c) and 2634.804(b)(1). In cases where an SGE owns stock that 

exceeds established de minimis values, the SGE may be directed to sell (i.e., divest) the 

portion of the stock that exceeds de minimis values. 5 CFR § 2635.402(e). MASO must 

document in the SGE’s file that the divestiture occurred. 5 CFR § 2634.804(b)(2). An 

agency can determine that impartiality concerns pursuant to Subpart E of the Standards of 

Ethical Conduct require an employee’s recusal from participating in a particular matter. 

5 CFR § 2635.502(c)(1). If the agency believes that the SGE should participate in a 

particular matter despite impartiality concerns, then the agency may grant the SGE an 

authorization to participate in that particular matter. 5 CFR § 2635.502(d). 

41 5 CFR part 2634 Subpart H (“Ethics Agreements”) defines these agreements to include 

“any oral or written promise by a reporting individual to undertake specific actions in order 

to alleviate an actual or apparent conflict of interest.” Furthermore, “Subpart H of this part 

applies to both the public and confidential reporting systems.” 5 CFR 2634.909(c). 

42 CDC Policy, CDC-GA-2001-05, loc. cit. 

43 5 CFR § 2640.302 sets forth requirements for adequately documented waivers. 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
INTRODUCTION 

 any particular matter(s) in which CDC prohibits the SGE from 

participating. 

In addition, CDC must ensure that the SGE signs the waiver to confirm 

and acknowledge the terms of the waiver.44 

Providing and Documenting Ethics Training 

CDC must provide ethics training to ensure that SGEs are familiar with 

ethics requirements and their responsibilities not to participate in 

committee work regarding particular matters related to their conflicts of 

interest.45 New SGEs must receive initial ethics training within 

90 days of their appointment.46 Incumbent SGEs must receive annual 

ethics training anytime in the calendar year.47 CDC requires SGEs to 

submit signed and dated training certificates to document that they 

completed the training and understood their ethics obligations.48 

Monitoring Compliance With Ethics Requirements During Committee 

Meetings 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 9 

ear 

CDC must prohibit SGEs from participating in committee meetings if 

they do not have current, certified OGE Forms 450 on file.49 That is, 

new SGEs must file OGE Forms 450 within 30 days of their 

appointment.50 Incumbent SGEs must file forms annually within 1 

y

44 CDC Policy, CDC-GA-2001-05, loc. cit. In addition, pursuant to 5 CFR § 2640.302 

(a)(6), SGEs with conflicts of interest may not participate in official duties related to their 

conflicts of interest until they are granted a waiver. 

45 Ibid. 

46 5 CFR § 2638.703. 

47 5 CFR § 2638.705 and CDC Policy, CDC-GA-2001-05, loc. cit. 

48 CDC Policy, CDC-GA-2001-05, loc. cit. 

49 OGE requires the SGE to file “before any advice is rendered by the employee to the 

agency, or in no event, later than the first committee meeting.” 5 CFR § 2634.903(b)(3). 

OGE also requires CDC to review and certify the form as complete. 5 CFR § 2634.605(b). 

Additionally, CDC requires that SGEs file and MASO certify the OGE Form 450 before the 

SGE participates in committee meetings. CDC Policy, CDC-GA-2001-05, loc. cit. 50 5 CFR § 2634.903(b)(1). 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
INTRODUCTION 

of the dates CDC received their prior forms.51, 52 CDC must certify 

current forms before SGEs participate in committee meetings. 

Additionally, SGEs must not participate in committee work regarding 

particular matters if their waivers prohibit such participation.53 

MASO must notify the Designated Federal Official when an SGE is 

prohibited from participating in committee work.54 The Designated 

Federal Official is responsible for actively monitoring committee 

meetings to ensure that SGEs do not violate ethics requirements.55 

SGEs who participate in committee meetings without current, certified 

OGE Forms 450 on file are not in compliance with OGE regulations 

and/or CDC policy. SGEs who do not comply with the terms of their 

waivers while participating in committee meetings may violate the 

criminal conflict-of-interest statute and/or the Standards of Ethical 

Conduct, depending on the nature of their conflict(s) of interest. 

SGEs who do not comply with OGE regulations or CDC policy are 

subject to agency administrative action.56 In addition, SGEs who 

allegedly violate the criminal conflict-of-interest statute are subject to 

prosecution by the Department of Justice.57 In HHS, alleged violations 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 10 

51 5 CFR § 2634.903(b). OGE, Memorandum to Designated Agency Ethics Officials, 

DO-95-019. Confidential financial disclosure and special Government employees serving in 

a position for more than one year, April 11, 1995. Available online at 

http://www.usoge.gov/ethics_guidance/daeograms/dgr_files/1995/do95019.txt. Accessed on 

July 10, 2009. CDC Policy, CDC-GA-2001-05, loc. cit. Therefore, according to CDC policy, 

each SGE has a unique filing deadline for submitting OGE Forms 450. 

52 Incumbent SGEs submit new forms each year, regardless of whether their financial 

interests have changed. SGEs are also required to update the forms during the year if their 

financial interests change. CDC Policy, CDC-GA-2001-05, loc. cit. 

53 OGE, Memorandum to Designated Agency Ethics Officials, DO-04-012. “Effective 

Screening Arrangements for Recusal Obligations,” June 1, 2004. Available online at 

http://www.usoge.gov/ethics_guidance/daeograms/dgr_files/2004/do04012.html. Accessed on 

July 10, 2009. 

54 CDC Policy, CDC-GA-2001-05, loc. cit. 

55 Ibid. 

56 Pursuant to 5 CFR § 2635.106, a violation of OGE regulations justifies appropriate 

corrective or disciplinary action. 

57 Violations of the criminal conflict-of-interest statute remain allegations until the SGE 

is prosecuted and the judicial system determines that the SGE has actually violated the 

statute. 18 U.S.C. § 216 and 18 U.S.C. § 208. 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
INTRODUCTION 

of criminal ethics statutes must be reported to the Office of Inspector 

General (OIG).58 

Previous Office of Inspector General Work 

In 1994, OIG reported on the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) 

ethics program for SGEs.59 OIG found that NIH did not review 

financial disclosure forms to identify conflicts of interest or have 

up-to-date guidance on identifying and resolving conflicts of interest. 

In response to OIG’s recommendations, NIH implemented corrective 

actions to improve internal controls over conflicts of interest. For 

example, NIH developed a process to require ongoing updates of 

financial disclosure information and review of SGEs’ financial interests. 

NIH also developed an alternate financial disclosure form to allow SGEs 

to disclose non-Federal grants and contracts. Further, NIH developed 

updated guidance to responsible NIH officials for identifying conflicts of 

interest and determining when waivers should be issued. 

METHODOLOGY 

Scope 

We reviewed financial disclosure files for 246 of 259 SGEs on all 17 CDC 

committees in 2007.60 See Appendix B for additional details on our 

methodology, including reasons for excluding 13 SGEs. 

Data Sources and Collection 

We reviewed ethics requirements and OGE guidance documents. 

We collected 2007 data from the following sources: 

 SGE financial disclosure files (e.g., OGE Forms 450 and supporting 

documentation, which include waivers and curricula vitae); 

 committee meeting minutes; and 

 committee charters. 

We reviewed financial disclosure files for SGEs, meeting minutes, and 

committee charters. Once we reviewed all the documents that 

58 HHS, General Administration Manual, chapter 5-10, “Responsibility and Procedures 

for Reporting Misconduct and Criminal Offenses,” December 26, 2006. 

59 OIG, Review of the National Institutes of Health’s Controls Over Advisory 

Committees’ Potential Conflicts-of-Interest, A-15-93-00020. 

60 As of December 31, 2007, CDC had assigned SGEs to 17 committees. 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 11 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
INTRODUCTION 

pertained to one committee, we met with MASO to request all missing 

documentation for that committee (e.g., OGE Forms 450, ethics training 

certificates, and meeting minutes). 

Data Analysis 

We classified the 246 SGEs as new or incumbent committee members 

based on their appointment dates.61 In 2007, 79 percent (195 of 246) of 

SGEs were incumbents. We accounted for different timeframes for 

completing ethics requirements (e.g., submitting OGE Forms 450) for 

new and incumbent SGEs. 

We reviewed documents in the financial disclosure files to determine 

whether SGEs’ OGE Forms 450 were complete after CDC certified 

them.62 Then, we identified potential conflicts of interest and 

determined whether CDC identified all those that we identified. We 

also determined the extent to which CDC created and adequately 

documented ethics agreements to resolve potential conflicts of interest 

that it identified. Further, we determined whether SGEs’ financial 

disclosure files contained ethics training certificates. Finally, we 

determined whether SGEs complied with ethics requirements during 

committee meetings. 

Complete disclosure of financial information. We determined whether 

SGEs’ OGE Forms 450 were complete after CDC certified them in 2007. 

We used OGE review criteria to assess a form’s completeness (see 

Appendix C). That is, we determined the extent to which reportable 

items were fully described and listed in appropriate sections of the 

certified forms. We also determined whether relevant items on SGEs’ 

curricula vitae or the prior OGE Forms 450 were disclosed on the 

certified 2007 forms. In addition, we determined whether reviewers 

adequately documented their amendments to the forms. 

We then counted the number of SGEs with incomplete OGE Forms 450 

and determined how many of these SGEs were new and incumbents. 

Finally, we determined the number of meetings that SGEs with 

certified, incomplete OGE Forms 450 attended in 2007. 

61 OIG analysis of CDC’s 2007 SGE financial disclosure files, 2008. 

62 CDC certified OGE Forms 450 for 86 percent (212 of 246) of SGEs in 2007. 

Seventy-six percent (161 of 212) of the SGEs with certified forms were incumbents. (OIG 

analysis of CDC’s 2007 SGE financial disclosure files, 2008.) 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 12 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
INTRODUCTION 

Identification of potential conflicts of interest. We reviewed committee 

meeting minutes, charters, and financial disclosure files to identify 

potential conflicts of interest for SGEs with OGE Forms 450 certified by 

CDC in 2007. We compared these potential conflicts of interest to those 

CDC identified. If CDC did not document any contact with the SGE, 

Designated Federal Official, or HHS Office of the General Counsel 

regarding those interests, we classified them as potential conflicts of 

interest not identified by CDC. 

We then counted the number of SGEs with at least one potential conflict 

of interest that we identified but CDC did not. We also determined how 

many of those SGEs were new and incumbents. We consulted with the 

HHS Office of Counsel to the Inspector General to confirm CDCunidentified potential conflicts of interest. 

Finally, we determined the number of meetings attended by SGEs in 

2007 whose OGE Forms 450 had been certified by CDC even though it 

had not identified potential conflicts of interest. 

Resolution of potential conflicts of interest. We determined the extent to 

which CDC created ethics agreements to resolve the potential conflicts 

of interest that it identified in 2007. If CDC did not create an ethics 

agreement for a potential conflict of interest that it identified, we 

determined whether the documentation in the SGE’s file supported 

CDC’s conclusion that an ethics agreement was unnecessary. If CDC 

did create an ethics agreement (i.e., waiver), we determined whether it 

was adequately documented. If the documentation in an SGE’s file did 

not support CDC’s conclusion regarding a conflict of interest or if the 

SGE’s waiver was inadequately documented, we classified the SGE as 

having an unresolved potential conflict of interest. 

We then counted the number of SGEs with at least one unresolved 

potential conflict of interest. We also determined how many of those 

SGEs were new and incumbents. We consulted with the HHS Office of 

Counsel to the Inspector General to confirm unresolved potential 

conflicts of interest. 

Finally, we determined the number of meetings attended by SGEs in 

2007 whose OGE Forms 450 had been certified by CDC even though it 

had not resolved the potential conflicts of interest that it had identified. 

Documentation of ethics training. We determined whether CDC ensured 

that SGEs’ financial disclosure files contained ethics training 

certificates to document that SGEs received ethics training within 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 13 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
INTRODUCTION 

required timeframes. For SGEs with training certificates in their files, 

we determined whether they were signed by new SGEs within 90 days 

of their appointment and by incumbents at any time within the 2007 

calendar year. 

We then counted the number of SGEs who did not have signed 

certificates on file within the required timeframes. For new SGEs, we 

also calculated the average and range in the number of days late they 

signed their ethics training certificates. 

Finally, we determined the number of meetings that new SGEs without 

training certificates on file attended in 2007. We then calculated the 

average and range of meetings that these SGEs attended in 2007. 

Compliance with ethics requirements during committee meetings. We 

reviewed meeting minutes to identify SGEs who attended the meetings, 

the dates of the meetings, and the particular matters in which SGEs 

voted. 

First, we determined whether SGEs participated in committee meetings 

without current OGE Forms 450 on file. To do so, we determined 

whether SGEs submitted their forms within required timeframes in 

2007. For new SGEs, we determined whether they participated in 

committee meetings after their appointment dates and before 

submitting their OGE Forms 450. For incumbents, we determined 

whether they participated in committee meetings after the forms were 

due and before they submitted the forms. Second, we determined 

whether SGEs participated in committee meetings while having current 

OGE Forms 450 on file, but before CDC certified the forms. 

Then, we determined the number of meetings that SGEs without 

current, certified forms on file attended in 2007. We also calculated the 

average and range of meetings that these SGEs attended in 2007. 

Finally, we determined whether SGEs complied with the terms of their 

waivers. To do so, we compared the subjects of SGEs’ votes with the 

particular matters in which they were prohibited from participating, 

according to the terms of their waivers. We then counted the number of 

SGEs who voted on particular matters even though the terms of their 

waivers prohibited such participation. 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 14 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 15 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES

INTRODUCTION 

Limitations 

We did not attempt to identify all potential conflicts of interest that 

CDC did not identify or resolve for each SGE. We reported one 

unidentified and one unresolved potential conflict per SGE, even if we 

found that the SGE had additional potential conflicts of interest. 

We classified CDC-identified potential conflicts of interest based on 

documented correspondence between CDC and the SGE, the Designated 

Federal Official, or the HHS Office of the General Counsel. MASO 

reviewers may have identified, without documenting, potential conflicts of 

interest that we classified as unidentified. While there is no statutory or 

regulatory requirement that CDC maintain this documentation, without 

it, CDC cannot demonstrate that MASO identified an SGE’s conflict of 

interest. 

We determined whether CDC ensured that SGEs received ethics 

training within required timeframes based on the existence of ethics 

training certificates. MASO is required to collect these certificates from 

SGEs. We did not search for other indicators that SGEs received 

required training. 

Further, we based our assessment of SGEs’ compliance with ethics 

requirements on a review of meeting minutes. However, CDC was 

unable to provide minutes for two committee meetings. 

We reported when SGEs did not comply with the terms of their waivers 

only if they voted on particular matters in which they were prohibited 

from participating, according to the terms of their waivers. However, 

SGEs may have participated in prohibited committee work in ways 

other than voting (e.g., preliminary discussions, interim evaluations, 

final recommendations). 

Standards 

This study was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for 

Inspections approved by the Council of the Inspectors General on 

Integrity and Efficiency. 
 FINDINGS 

For almost all special Government employees, 

CDC did not ensure that financial disclosure 

forms were complete in 2007 

CDC certified OGE Forms 450 

with at least one omission in 2007 

for 97 percent (205 of 212) of SGEs 

with certified forms on file.63 

Most (186 of 212) of the OGE Forms 450 had more than one type of 

omission. Seventy-seven percent (157 of 205) of the incomplete, certified 

2007 OGE Forms 450 were submitted by incumbent SGEs. 

Table 1 lists the number and percentage of certified 2007 OGE Forms 450 

that were incomplete, by type of omission. Appendix D contains 

additional details about the types of omissions on the forms. 

Table 1: Of 212 Certified 2007 Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports, Number and 

Percentage That Were Incomplete, by Type of Omission 

Number of 

Certified Forms 

Percentage of 

Type of Omission Certified Forms 

Disclosure not made according to the form’s instructions 190 90% 

Relevant items on other documents not on form 167 79% 

Improper amendments to form 34 16% 

 Total* 205 97% 

Source: OIG review of CDC’s 2007 SGE financial disclosure files, 2008. 

* Numbers in columns do not sum to total because some forms contained multiple types of omissions. 

Seventy-two percent (147 of 205) of SGEs with incomplete, certified forms 

participated in committee meetings in 2007 after CDC certified their forms. 

These SGEs participated in an average of 2 committee meetings after CDC 

certified the forms, ranging from 1 to 16 meetings. 

If CDC does not ensure that SGEs submit complete financial disclosure 

information prior to certifying the OGE Forms 450, it cannot ensure that it 

has identified and resolved all of the SGEs’ potential conflicts of interest 

before permitting them to participate in committee meetings. 

CDC did not identify or resolve potential 

conflicts of interest for 64 percent of special 

Government employees in 2007 

In 2007, 64 percent (136 of 212) of 

SGEs had potential conflicts of 

interest that CDC did not identify 

and/or resolve before it certified 

63 We analyzed 212 forms because 212 of 246 SGEs had certified forms on file in 2007. 

 OEI-04-07-00260 CDC’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 16 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
FINDINGS 

their OGE Forms 450. Specifically, 58 percent (124 of 212) of SGEs had 

potential conflicts of interest that CDC did not identify. In addition, 

32 percent (67 of 212) of SGEs had potential conflicts of interest that CDC 

identified but did not resolve. Twenty-six percent (55 of 212) of SGEs had 

both CDC-unidentified and unresolved potential conflicts of interest. 

Seventy percent (95 of 136) of the SGEs with CDC-unidentified and/or 

unresolved potential conflicts of interest were incumbents. 

Nearly three-fourths (97 of 136) of SGEs with CDC-unidentified and/or 

unresolved potential conflicts of interest participated in at least one 

committee meeting in 2007 after their OGE Forms 450 were certified. 

These SGEs participated in an average of 3 meetings, ranging from 1 to 

16 meetings. Appendix E shows the average and range in number of 

meetings in which these SGEs participated, by type of vulnerability. 

Permitting SGEs with unidentified or unresolved conflicts of interest to 

participate in committee work creates vulnerabilities. That is, the SGEs 

may inadvertently violate ethics requirements during committee meetings 

because they are not aware that the conflicts of interest exist. Further, 

permitting such participation could compromise the integrity of the 

committees’ work if committees make recommendations to the 

Government that do not best serve the public’s interest. 

Fifty-eight percent of special Government employees with certified 

Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports had potential conflicts of interest 

that CDC did not identify 

Fifty-eight percent (124 of 212) of SGEs with certified forms had at least 

one potential conflict of interest that CDC did not identify in 2007. For 

these SGEs, CDC did not document any contact with the SGE, the 

Designated Federal Official, or the HHS Office of the General Counsel to 

discuss at least one interest that we identified as a potential conflict and 

determine whether it did pose a conflict. Seventy-one percent (88 of 124) 

of these SGEs were incumbents. 

Potential conflicts of interest that we identified but CDC did not fall into 

three general categories: employment and grants, equity ownership, and 

consulting. Table 2 provides the number and percentage of SGEs with 

CDC-unidentified potential conflicts of interest, by category. 

 OEI-04-07-00 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 17 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
FINDINGS 

Table 2: Of 212 Special Government Employees With Certified Confidential Financial 

Disclosure Reports, Number and Percentage With CDC-Unidentified Potential Conflicts of 

Interest, by Category 

Category 

Number 

of SGEs 

Percentage 

of SGEs 

Employment and grants 85 40% 

Equity ownership 28 13%

Consulting 11 5%

 Total 124 58%

Source: OIG review of CDC’s 2007 SGE financial disclosure files, 2008. 

The most common category was employment and grants (e.g., employment 

with a potential CDC or HHS grantee or contractor, recipient of CDCfunded grant). In 2007, 40 percent (85 of 212) of SGEs had potential 

conflicts of interest in this category that CDC did not identify. For 

example, over half (7 of 11) of SGEs on one committee were employed by 

research institutions that conducted grant-funded studies related to 

committee work. These research institutions were potential CDC grant 

recipients. However, CDC did not identify the SGEs’ employment as an 

interest that could conflict with committee work for any of these seven 

SGEs. As a result, CDC did not inform the SGEs that they would violate 

the criminal conflict-of-interest statute if they participated in committee 

work regarding particular matters affecting their specific employers’ 

financial interests. 

Equity ownership (e.g., stocks, patents, business partnership) was the 

second most common category. In 2007, 13 percent (28 of 212) of SGEs 

had potential conflicts of interest in this category that CDC did not 

identify. For example, most (26 of 28) of these SGEs held stock in 

companies related to committee work, and CDC did not identify 

ownership of the stock as potential conflicts of interest. As a result, CDC 

did not contact these SGEs regarding the stocks to determine whether 

they exceeded de minimis values. Further, CDC did not determine, based 

on the value of the stock, whether it must prohibit the SGE from 

participating in committee work involving individual companies or an 

entire sector. 

Finally, consulting (e.g., advisory board memberships, honoraria, 

speaking engagements, and expert witness activities) was the least 

common category. In 2007, 5 percent (11 of 212) of SGEs had potential 

conflicts of interest in this category that CDC did not identify. 

 OEI-04-07-00 260 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 18 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
FINDINGS 

Nearly one-third of special Government employees with certified 

Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports had potential conflicts of interest 

that CDC identified but did not resolve 

In 2007, 32 percent (67 of 212) of SGEs with certified forms had at least 

one potential conflict of interest that CDC identified but did not resolve. 

Sixty-seven percent (45 of 67) of the SGEs were incumbents. For these 

67 SGEs, CDC contacted the SGE, the Designated Federal Official, and/or 

the HHS Office of the General Counsel about the interests. However, 

CDC did not sufficiently resolve these potential conflicts of interest. 

CDC did not create ethics agreements to resolve potential conflicts of interest

for 23 percent (49 of 212) of SGEs. In 2007, CDC identified potential 

conflicts of interest for 49 SGEs but did not create ethics agreements to 

resolve them. 

For 25 of the 49 SGEs, our review of the SGEs’ files indicated that 

conflicts of interest clearly existed and ethics agreements were necessary, 

but CDC had not developed ethics agreements to resolve the conflicts. For 

example, one SGE was a member of a committee that reviewed CDC grant 

applications. This SGE listed a CDC-funded grant, which was active in 

2007, related to committee work on his curriculum vitae. CDC contacted 

the SGE regarding this grant, but it did not create an ethics agreement to 

resolve this conflict of interest. Further, CDC did not notify this SGE that 

he was prohibited from participating in particular matters regarding his 

specific employer and/or grant.64 

For the remaining 24 of the 49 SGEs, our review of the SGEs’ files 

indicated that conflicts of interest may have existed, but CDC did not 

gather the necessary information to support its conclusion that conflicts 

did not exist. For example, one SGE emailed CDC indicating that she 

likely owned stock in a company related to committee work in excess of 

$25,000. The Designated Federal Official and a program attorney within 

the HHS Office of the General Counsel advised MASO that ownership of 

stock in that company did not pose a conflict because the SGE’s committee 

would not likely discuss that specific company. However, CDC should 

prohibit an SGE with stock in excess of $25,000 from participating in 

committee work that could affect the entire sector of companies. CDC 

documented its determination that there was no conflict of interest 

without first confirming whether the stock was above $25,000. 

64 CDC subsequently issued an ethics agreement for this SGE, citing this grant, in March 

2008. 

 OEI - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 19 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
FINDINGS 

CDC created waivers but did not adequately document them for 8 percent

(18 of 212) of SGEs. Eight percent (18 of 212) of SGEs had waivers on file 

in 2007. However, CDC certified these SGEs’ OGE Forms 450 in 2007 

without adequately documenting their waivers. Specifically, all (18 of 18) 

of these SGEs had waivers that did not specify the SGEs’ conflicts of 

interest, the general matters in which they were permitted to participate, 

or the particular matters in which they were prohibited from 

participating. 

That is, CDC used general language in these waivers covering broad 

categories of interests to describe the SGEs’ conflicts that it identified 

during its review of the OGE Forms 450 and curricula vitae. Identical 

language was often repeated in different SGEs’ waivers. For example: 

 “[e]mployment or consulting with, and honoraria or other 

compensation from, research institutions, state and local government, 

pharmaceutical companies, health care industries, or other 

organizations . . . ;” 

 “[g]rants, contracts, or other funding for research or other services 

that he may receive from the Federal government and from nonFederal sources;” and 

 “[e]xpert witness, litigation or advocacy services.” 

CDC did not specify each SGE’s unique conflicts of interest by stating, for 

example, that an SGE’s employment with university X, a current CDC 

grantee, creates a conflict of interest. 

Additionally, CDC stated, for example, that the SGE would be granted “a 

waiver under 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(3), permitting him to participate in the 

deliberations and recommendations of [the committee].” However, CDC 

did not specify the general matters related to the conflicts of interest in 

which the SGE was permitted to participate. 

Further, CDC did not specify the particular matters in which the SGE 

was prohibited from participating. For example, CDC did not state that 

the SGE is prohibited from participating in committee work addressing 

radiation exposure at facility X. 

Finally, CDC certified 2007 OGE Forms 450 for 7 of these 18 SGEs with 

waivers without ensuring that the SGEs signed their waivers to indicate 

that they were informed of the terms of the waiver and any limitations on 

 OEI - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 20 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
FINDINGS 

their participation in committee work because of their conflicts of 

interest.65 

CDC did not ensure that 41 percent of special 

Government employees received required 

ethics training in 2007 

CDC did not ensure that 41 percent 

(101 of 246) of SGEs had ethics 

training certificates on file to 

document that SGEs received ethics 

training within required timeframes 

in 2007.66 

Thirteen percent (13 of 101) of these SGEs were new committee members 

who did not have ethics training certificates on file to demonstrate that 

they received initial ethics training within 90 days of their appointment. 

On average, these SGEs completed the training 183 days late, ranging 

from 21 to 288 days late. 

Nine of the thirteen new SGEs participated in committee meetings prior 

to completing initial ethics training in 2007. These SGEs participated in 

an average of 4 committee meetings before the dates of their training 

certificates, ranging from 1 to 14 meetings. These SGEs’ participation 

poses a vulnerability because they had not received initial ethics training 

prior to participating in committee meetings and were not informed about 

their ethics obligations as an SGE. 

The remaining 87 percent (88 of 101) of the SGEs without training 

certificates were incumbents. These SGEs did not have ethics training 

certificates on file to demonstrate that they received annual ethics 

training at any point in 2007. 

If CDC does not document SGEs’ receipt of ethics training, it cannot 

demonstrate that SGEs were aware of their ethics requirements when 

participating in committee work. 

Fifteen percent of special Government 

employees did not comply with ethics 

requirements during committee meetings 

in 2007 

In 2007, 15 percent (36 of 246) of 

SGEs did not comply with ethics

requirements during committee 

meetings. Specifically, 13 percent 

65 In addition, one SGE signed, but did not date, the waiver. We did not count this SGE 

among the seven who did not sign their waivers before CDC certified their OGE Forms 450. 

66 We analyzed the entire sample of 246 SGEs rather than only 212 SGEs with certified 

OGE Forms 450 on file because the existence of a training certificate in an SGE’s file is 

independent of a certified OGE Form 450. 

 OEI-04-07-00 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 21 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
FINDINGS 

(33 of 246) of SGEs participated in committee meetings in 2007 without 

having current, certified OGE Forms 450 on file. In addition, 3 percent 

(7 of 246) of SGEs voted on particular matters when the terms of their 

waivers prohibited such participation. Four SGEs both participated in 

committee meetings without current, certified OGE Forms 450 on file and 

voted on particular matters when their waivers prohibited such 

participation. 

Thirteen percent of special Government employees participated in 

committee meetings without having current, certified Confidential Financial 

Disclosure Reports on file 

Thirteen percent (33 of 246) of SGEs participated in at least one meeting 

without having current, certified OGE Forms 450 on file in 2007.67 

Almost all (31 of 33) of these SGEs were incumbents. 

Specifically, 7 percent (17 of 246) of SGEs participated in at least one 

committee meeting before submitting 2007 OGE Forms 450. Almost all 

(16 of 17) of these SGEs were incumbents and, at the time of their 

participation, had not submitted OGE Forms 450 within 12 months of 

their prior submissions. One SGE was new and did not submit an 

OGE Form 450 within 30 days of appointment. These 17 SGEs 

participated in an average of one meeting without having current forms 

on file, ranging from one to two meetings. 

In addition, 7 percent (18 of 246) of SGEs participated in at least one 

committee meeting before CDC certified their 2007 OGE Forms 450.68 

Almost all (17 of 18) of the SGEs were incumbents. The 18 SGEs 

participated in an average of two meetings without having certified forms 

on file, ranging from one to eight meetings. 

To prevent SGEs from participating in committee meetings without 

current, certified OGE Forms 450, we shared detailed information 

regarding these 33 SGEs with CDC and the HHS Office of the General 

Counsel in April 2009. 

Three percent of special Government employees voted on particular 

matters in which they were prohibited from participating 

Three percent (7 of 246) of SGEs voted on particular matters when the 

terms of their waivers prohibited such participation. All seven of these 

SGEs were on one committee, and five were incumbents. 

67 In 2007, 42 percent (103 of 246) of SGEs did not submit their OGE Forms 450 by the 

filing deadline. These SGEs submitted their forms an average of 75 days late, ranging from 

1 to 361 days late. 

68 Two of these eighteen SGEs also participated in at least one meeting before submitting 

their 2007 OGE Forms 450. 

 OEI - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 22 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
FINDINGS 

To prevent continued noncompliance at subsequent committee meetings, 

we shared detailed information regarding these seven SGEs with CDC 

upon discovery and with the HHS Office of the General Counsel in April 

2009. These cases were also forwarded to OIG’s Office of Investigations 

for review and evaluation to determine the appropriate course of action.69 

69 The cases were forwarded to the OIG Office of Investigations because the waivers were 

created pursuant to the criminal conflict-of-interest statute. The OIG Office of Investigations 

reviewed information regarding these seven SGEs and determined, largely as a result of 

CDC’s systemic lack of oversight of the ethics program for SGEs identified in this report, that 

the actions of the seven SGEs did not rise to the level of criminal violations of the conflict-ofinterest statute. 

 OEI-04-07-00 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 23 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS 

SGEs on CDC Federal advisory committees are voting members who may 

have conflicts of interest with their committee work. To protect the 

committees’ integrity and credibility, SGEs with conflicts of interest must 

not inappropriately influence their committees’ work. However, we found 

that CDC had a systemic lack of oversight of the ethics program for SGEs. 

That is, for almost all SGEs, CDC did not ensure that they submitted 

complete financial information in 2007. Additionally, CDC did not 

identify or resolve potential conflicts of interest for 64 percent of SGEs. 

CDC also did not ensure that 41 percent of SGEs had ethics training 

certificates on file to indicate that they received initial or annual ethics 

training and were informed about their ethics obligations. Finally, 

15 percent of SGEs did not comply with ethics requirements during 

committee meetings. 

Therefore, we recommend that CDC: 

Ensure that special Government employees’ Confidential Financial Disclosure 

Reports are complete before certifying them 

During its review of the OGE Forms 450, CDC should ensure that all items 

are complete and listed in all relevant sections of the form, according to the 

form’s instructions and OGE guidance. In addition, CDC should compare 

the OGE Form 450 with the SGE’s curriculum vitae and the prior 

OGE Form 450 to ensure that all relevant items disclosed on these 

documents are contained on the current OGE Form 450. For all items 

requiring amendments, CDC should ensure that MASO reviewers document 

the SGE’s authorization of the changes. Further, CDC should ensure that 

MASO reviewers initial and date their amendments. CDC could also 

implement an automated system for SGEs to submit their OGE Forms 450. 

Require special Government employees to disclose their involvement in 

grants and other relevant interests that could pose conflicts but that are not 

disclosed on the Confidential Financial Disclosure Report 

The OGE Forms 450 do not require SGEs to disclose all interests that could 

pose conflicts. For example, information about SGEs’ grant activities and 

patents are not required to be disclosed on the OGE Forms 450. However, 

CDC should obtain information regarding SGEs’ interests that could pose 

conflicts, such as their involvement in grants, to identify conflicts of interest 

posed by these interests. To accomplish this, CDC could require, rather 

 OEI - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 24 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
RECOMMENDATIONS 

than request, SGEs to submit updated curricula vitae. However, SGEs do 

not disclose all necessary information consistently, or at all, on the curricula 

vitae. Therefore, CDC could also request OGE to approve an alternate 

OGE Form 450 that requires SGEs to disclose their involvement in grants 

and other relevant interests that are not disclosed on the OGE Form 450. 

Identify and resolve all conflicts of interest for special Government employees 

before permitting them to participate in committee meetings 

CDC should thoroughly review each SGE’s financial disclosure file to 

identify conflicts of interest covered by the criminal conflict-of-interest 

statute or the Standards of Ethical Conduct. CDC should thoroughly review 

the OGE Forms 450, curricula vitae, committee charters, and meeting 

minutes to become more familiar with topics covered by the committees and 

identify interests that could pose a conflict of interest with committee work. 

Additionally, CDC could seek SGEs’ input on what interests could pose 

conflicts. That is, for each committee, CDC could develop targeted 

questionnaires to elicit information from the SGEs to help CDC identify 

potential conflicts of interest. By virtue of their expertise in the field related 

to committee work, SGEs may be better positioned to identify potential 

conflicts of interest with committee work than MASO reviewers. For 

example, to determine if an SGE who holds stock in a pharmaceutical 

company has a potential conflict of interest, MASO reviewers would need to 

be familiar with the drugs currently marketed and under development by 

the company and all uses for these drugs. While MASO reviewers are 

typically not as knowledgeable in these areas, SGEs are considered experts. 

Alternatively, CDC could implement a system whereby, before each meeting, 

CDC program staff would generate and share with MASO a list of potential 

conflicts of interest that pertain to matter(s) that will be discussed during 

that meeting. Additionally, SGEs would disclose their interests before each 

meeting so that MASO could identify potential conflicts of interest based on 

the most up-to-date disclosures. At the meeting, MASO would provide each 

SGE with a list of his or her own potential conflicts of interest as well as the 

more general list of potential conflicts of interest developed by CDC program 

staff prior to the meeting. 

Once CDC determines that a conflict of interest does exist, it should resolve 

it with a properly documented ethics agreement. CDC should ensure that 

SGEs sign their ethics agreements, especially when the documents describe 

particular matters in which SGEs are prohibited from participating. CDC 

should ensure that SGEs sign these ethics agreements before it certifies the 

OGE Forms 450 and before the SGEs participate in committee meetings. 

 OEI-04-07-00 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 25 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
RECOMMENDATIONS 

When CDC develops a waiver for an SGE, it should ensure that the 

document describes the specific conflict of interest, general matters in which 

that SGE is permitted to participate, and particular matters in which the 

SGE is prohibited from participating. 

If CDC determines that an interest does not pose a conflict, it should ensure 

that the documentation in the SGE’s file supports this conclusion. 

Increase collaboration among CDC officials and with the HHS Office of the 

General Counsel 

To improve CDC’s ability to identify and resolve conflicts of interest, MASO 

should increase its collaboration with the Designated Federal Officials and 

the HHS Office of the General Counsel. For example, when CDC requests 

additional information from the Designated Federal Official or the HHS 

Office of the General Counsel, it could request a written explanation to 

support their conclusion regarding the conflict. 

Additionally, CDC should coordinate with both ethics attorneys and program 

attorneys from the Office of the General Counsel to ensure ethics 

agreements include language to comply with ethics statutes and regulations, 

as well as specific language to address particular matters in which SGEs are 

prohibited from participating. 

Ensure that special Government employees and CDC employees receive 

ethics training 

CDC should ensure that all SGEs receive required initial and annual ethics 

training and that receipt of the training is documented in the SGEs’ files. 

To ensure that SGEs receive ethics training as required, CDC should 

prohibit new SGEs from participating in committee meetings until they 

submit the training certificates. To facilitate its ability to identify SGEs who 

have received ethics training, CDC could implement a computer-based 

training system to automatically generate ethics training certificates and 

track whether SGEs completed their ethics training. 

Further, CDC should develop additional training for SGEs on how to submit 

complete OGE Forms 450. For example, CDC could identify common 

technical and substantive errors on the OGE Forms 450 and provide 

training to SGEs in these areas. 

Finally, CDC should also provide training for MASO reviewers and 

Designated Federal Officials in reviewing forms for completeness, 

identifying conflicts of interest, and determining when ethics agreements 

should be developed. 

 OEI-04-07-00 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 26 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
RECOMMENDATIONS 

Monitor special Government employee compliance with ethics requirements 

during committee meetings 

CDC should prohibit SGEs from participating in any committee meetings if 

they do not have current, certified OGE Forms 450 on file. MASO should 

notify the Designated Federal Official when an SGE has not submitted an 

OGE Form 450 by the filing deadline and advise that the SGE is prohibited 

from participating in committee meetings. When the SGE subsequently 

submits the form and CDC certifies it, MASO should notify the Designated 

Federal Official that the SGE is permitted to participate in committee 

meetings. 

In addition, CDC should ensure that SGEs comply with the terms of their 

ethics agreements during committee meetings. To do this, CDC could 

review ethics agreements and remind each SGE about the matters in which 

they are prohibited from participating before each meeting. Further, CDC 

should ensure that the Designated Federal Officials prohibit SGEs from 

participating in particular matters when their ethics agreements prohibit 

their participation on such matters. To facilitate their ability to monitor the 

SGEs’ compliance with ethics agreements, CDC should ensure that, during 

committee meetings, the Designated Federal Officials have a list of SGEs 

and the particular matters in which they are prohibited from participating. 

CDC could also have MASO reviewers attend committee meetings to ensure 

SGEs’ compliance with ethics requirements during the meetings. 

Track special Government employee compliance with ethics requirements 

CDC officials, independent of those who attend the committee meetings, 

should regularly review meeting minutes to determine whether SGEs 

complied with ethics requirements. Specifically, CDC officials should track 

whether SGEs participate in committee meetings without certified 

OGE Forms 450 on file. Additionally, qualified CDC officials should track 

whether SGEs with ethics agreements participate in particular matters 

when their ethics agreements prohibit such participation. 

Finally, if an SGE does not comply with the criminal conflict-of-interest 

statute, CDC should notify the SGE and the Designated Federal Official and 

report the case to the HHS OIG. If an SGE does not comply with the 

Standards of Ethical Conduct or CDC policy during committee meetings, 

CDC should notify the SGE and the Designated Federal Official and take 

appropriate administrative action. 

 OEI-04-07-00 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 27 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
RECOMMENDATIONS 

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

RESPONSE 

CDC concurred with all seven of our recommendations. Since the time of 

our review, CDC indicated that it has begun or plans to implement 

improvements that coincide with our recommendations. Specifically, CDC 

noted that (1) CDC has strengthened its controls to ensure that there are 

no omissions related to reportable information required by the 

OGE Form 450; (2) CDC will work with HHS and OGE to develop a 

means of collecting information on interests (e.g., grants) that are not 

currently required on the OGE Form 450; (3) CDC has implemented a 

“Record of Analysis” to document that MASO has performed an analysis 

of potential conflicts of interest; (4) MASO has established a workgroup, 

which includes the Designated Federal Officials and the HHS Office of the 

General Counsel Ethics Division, to raise and/or resolve matters relating 

to the management of CDC’s committees including issues related to 

financial disclosure and conflicts of interest; (5) CDC is revising its 

process to allow SGEs to electronically report their receipt and review of 

ethics training; (6) CDC will consult with other HHS agencies to 

determine best practices that could be implemented to enhance its 

program and improve its process for monitoring SGE compliance with 

ethics requirements during committee meetings; and (7) MASO will have 

a greater presence at committee meetings and audit minutes to track SGE 

compliance with ethics requirements. 

However, CDC expressed concerns with fully implementing our 

recommendation to ensure that OGE Forms 450 are complete. That is, 

CDC indicated that it is impractical to follow up with SGEs to verify 

interests not found on the OGE Forms 450 if these interests can be found 

through a comprehensive review of supplementary documents, such as the 

curricula vitae. CDC indicated that, through this review, it is able to 

accomplish the primary purpose of financial disclosure, which is to 

identify and resolve potential conflicts of interest. However, pursuant to 

Federal regulation, all required information must be documented on the 

OGE Form 450. Therefore, we recommend that CDC ensure that each 

required item is disclosed on the OGE Form 450. Accordingly, in 

assessing OGE Form 450 completeness, CDC should not consider 

supplemental documents (e.g., the curriculum vitae) to be part of the 

OGE Form 450. Further, we determined that CDC did not identify and 

resolve all potential conflicts of interest that we identified based on our 

review of all the information in the financial disclosure files, including the 

SGEs’ curricula vitae. 

 OEI-04-07-00 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 28 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 29 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES

RECOMMENDATIONS 

We made technical changes to the report based on CDC’s comments. For 

the full text of CDC’s comments, see Appendix F. 
 

APPENDIX~A APPENDIX~A 

Federal Advisory Committees at the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, as of December 31, 2007

Office of the Director

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices 

Advisory Committee to the Director, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) 

Coordinating Center for Environmental Health and Injury Prevention

Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention 

Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental 

Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Injury Prevention 

and Control70

Coordinating Center for Health Information and Service

Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Health Statistics 

National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics 

Coordinating Center for Health Promotion

Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection and Control Advisory 

Committee 

Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health 

Coordinating Center for Infectious Diseases

Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis 

Board of Scientific Counselors, Coordinating Center for Infectious 

Diseases 

CDC/Health Resources and Services Administration Advisory 

Committee on Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Sexually 

Transmitted Disease Prevention and Treatment 

Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee 

Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee 

70 This committee was previously chartered as the Advisory Committee for Injury 

Prevention and Control. 73 Fed. Reg. 80412 (Dec. 31, 2008). Available online at 

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-31111.htm. Accessed on July 10, 2009. 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 30 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
 

APPENDIX~A 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health 

Mine Safety and Health Research Advisory Committee 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 31 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
 

 APPENDIX~B 

DETAILED METHODOLOGY 

Scope 

We reviewed financial disclosure files for 246 of 259 special Government 

employees (SGE) on all 17 Federal advisory committees (committees) to 

which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had 

assigned SGEs. The 246 SGEs were active as of December 31, 2007, 

(i.e., they were listed on a January 22, 2008, printout from CDC’s 

committee database and were appointed prior to January 1, 2008). 

We did not review files for 9 of the 259 SGEs because they were 

assigned to a committee sponsored jointly by CDC and the Health 

Resources and Services Administration. These SGEs were technically 

employed by the Health Resources and Services Administration. 

We also excluded an additional four SGEs who were appointed in late 

2007 and had not submitted Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports 

(Office of Government Ethics (OGE) Forms 450) in 2007. These forms 

were not due until 2008. 

Data Sources and Collection 

We reviewed conflict-of-interest statutes, OGE regulations and 

guidance documents, and CDC policy regarding SGE ethics 

requirements. Hereinafter, we refer to conflict-of-interest statutes, 

OGE regulations, and CDC policy as “ethics requirements.” 

We collected 2007 data from the following sources: 

 SGE financial disclosure files (i.e., SGEs’ current and prior 

OGE Forms 450; curricula vitae; official correspondence between 

CDC and SGEs, Designated Federal Officials, and/or the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the 

General Counsel; ethics agreements; and ethics training 

certificates); 

 committee meeting minutes; and 

 committee charters. 

We reviewed financial disclosure files for SGEs, meeting minutes, and 

committee charters. Once we reviewed all the documents that 

pertained to one committee, we met with the Management Analysis and 

Services Office to request all missing documentation for that committee 

(e.g., OGE Forms 450, ethics training certificates, and meeting 

minutes). 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 32 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
 

APPENDIX~B 

Data Analysis 

We classified the 246 SGEs as new or incumbent committee members 

based on their appointment dates. We defined new SGEs as those 

appointed in 2007 or appointed within the last 30 days of 2006. All 

other SGEs were incumbents. In 2007, 21 percent (51 of 246) of CDC’s 

SGEs were new; 79 percent (195 of 246) were incumbents. 71 We 

accounted for different timeframes for completion of ethics requirements 

imposed on new and incumbent SGEs. 

CDC certified OGE Forms 450 for 86 percent (212 of 246) of SGEs in 

2007. Twenty-four percent (51 of 212) of the SGEs with certified forms 

were new; 76 percent (161 of 212) were incumbents.72 

We reviewed financial disclosure files for 212 SGEs with certified 2007 

OGE Forms 450 to determine whether their forms were complete after 

CDC certified them. Then, we identified potential conflicts of interest 

and determined whether CDC identified all those that we identified. 

We reviewed financial disclosure files for all 212 SGEs to determine the 

extent to which CDC created ethics agreements and adequately 

documented them to resolve potential conflicts of interest that it 

identified. Further, we determined whether SGEs’ financial disclosure 

files contained ethics training certificates. Finally, we determined 

whether SGEs complied with ethics requirements during committee 

meetings. 

Complete disclosure of financial information. We determined whether 

SGEs’ OGE Forms 450 were complete after CDC certified them in 2007. 

Upon receipt, CDC has 60 days to review OGE Forms 450, and it should 

certify them shortly thereafter.73 By December 31, 2007, CDC had 

received 224 OGE Forms 450 from its 246 SGEs. The 12 forms that 

CDC did not certify by the end of 2007 were received between June 14 

and December 31, 2007. Nine of the twelve forms were submitted 

within the last 60 days of 2007. 

To determine whether a certified form was complete, we used relevant 

criteria from OGE’s guide for reviewing OGE Forms 450 (see 

Appendix C). That is, we determined the extent to which reportable 

71 OIG analysis of CDC’s 2007 SGE financial disclosure files, 2008. 

72 Ibid. 

73 HHS Office of the General Counsel, Ethics Division, Designated Agency Ethics Official 

(DAEO). “DAEO Supplemental Instruction No. 06-2,” loc. cit. 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 33 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
 

APPENDIX~B 

items were fully described and listed in appropriate sections of the form, 

according to the OGE Form 450 instructions. We also determined 

whether relevant items on curricula vitae or the prior OGE Form 450 

were disclosed on the 2007 certified form. Finally, we reviewed 

OGE Forms 450 for reviewers’ annotations and determined whether the 

amendments indicated that the SGEs authorized the changes and 

contained the reviewers’ initials and the dates of the changes. That is, 

we determined whether there was evidence that SGEs approved 

changes made by MASO to the forms (e.g., email correspondence 

between MASO and the SGE or MASO documentation indicating that a 

phone conversation had taken place with the SGE regarding the 

change). We also determined whether the amendment contained the 

reviewer’s initials and the date of the change. 

We then counted the number of SGEs with incomplete forms. We also 

determined how many of those SGEs were new and incumbents. 

Finally, we determined the number of meetings that SGEs with 

certified, incomplete OGE Forms 450 attended in 2007. We counted the 

number of meetings these SGEs attended between the dates CDC 

certified their 2007 OGE Forms 450 and December 31, 2007. 

Identification of potential conflicts of interest. To assess CDC’s 

identification and resolution of conflicts of interest, we reviewed 

meeting minutes and committee charters to ascertain the scope of the 

matters generally discussed by each committee. We then reviewed 

financial disclosure files for SGEs with OGE Forms 450 certified by 

CDC in 2007 to identify potential conflicts of interest. 

We reviewed the certified OGE Forms 450 and determined whether 

CDC identified all potential conflicts of interest that we identified before 

it certified them. If CDC did not document any contact with the SGE, 

Designated Federal Official, or HHS Office of the General Counsel 

regarding interests we identified as potential conflicts, we classified the 

interests as not identified by CDC. 

We then counted the number of SGEs with at least one interest that we 

identified but CDC did not. We also determined how many of those 

SGEs were new and incumbents. We consulted with the HHS Office of 

Counsel to the Inspector General to confirm the CDC-unidentified 

potential conflicts of interest. 

Finally, we determined the number of meetings attended by SGEs in 

2007 whose OGE Forms 450 had been certified by CDC even though it 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 34 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
 

APPENDIX~B 

had not identified the potential conflicts of interest. We counted the 

number of meetings these SGEs attended between the dates CDC 

certified their 2007 OGE Forms 450 and December 31, 2007. 

Resolution of potential conflicts of interest. We determined the extent to 

which CDC resolved potential conflicts of interest that it identified 

before certifying OGE Forms 450. If the documentation in an SGE’s file 

did not support CDC’s conclusion regarding a conflict of interest or if the 

SGE’s waiver was inadequately documented, we classified the SGE as 

having an unresolved potential conflict of interest. 

If CDC did not create an ethics agreement for an interest that it 

identified, we determined whether the documentation in the SGE’s file 

supported CDC’s conclusion that an ethics agreement was unnecessary. 

For example, CDC documented advice from Designated Federal Officials 

to support its determination that a conflict of interest did not exist. In 

some cases, the documented advice contained only a statement by the 

Designated Federal Official indicating that he or she did not see a 

conflict of interest, but the Designated Federal Official did not provide 

any facts or analysis to support this conclusion. In these cases, we 

determined that the conclusory statement alone was not sufficient to 

outweigh other facts in the file suggesting that a potential conflict of 

interest existed. Additionally, if documented advice was based on an 

inaccurate interpretation of ethics requirements, we determined that 

the potential conflict of interest was not resolved. 

If CDC did create an ethics agreement to resolve an SGE’s conflict of 

interest, we determined whether it was adequately documented. We 

classified 18 U.S.C. 208 § (b)(3) waivers (i.e., waivers) as adequately 

documented if they specified (1) the item(s) that posed the conflict(s) of 

interest, (2) any general matters in which the SGE was permitted to 

participate in committee meetings, and (3) particular matters in which 

the SGE was prohibited from participating. In addition, we determined 

whether SGEs signed and dated their waivers. 

We then counted the number of SGEs with at least one unresolved 

conflict of interest. We did not consider potential conflicts of interest 

that CDC did not identify in our count of unresolved potential conflicts 

of interest. We also determined how many of those SGEs were new and 

incumbents. We consulted with the HHS Office of Counsel to the 

Inspector General to confirm that the SGEs had at least one unresolved 

potential conflict of interest. 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 35 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
 

APPENDIX~B 

Finally, we determined the number of meetings attended by SGEs in 

2007 whose OGE Forms 450 had been certified by CDC even though it 

had not resolved the potential conflicts of interest that it had identified. 

We counted the number of meetings these SGEs attended between the 

dates CDC certified their 2007 OGE Forms 450 and December 31, 2007. 

Documentation of ethics training. We determined whether CDC ensured 

that SGEs’ financial disclosure files contained ethics training 

certificates to document that SGEs received ethics training within 

required timeframes. For SGEs with training certificates in their files, 

we determined whether they were signed by new SGEs within 90 days 

of their appointment and by incumbents at any time within the 2007 

calendar year. 

We then counted the number of SGEs who did not have signed 

certificates on file within the required timeframes. For new SGEs, we 

also calculated the average and range in the number of days late they 

signed their ethics training certificates.

One new SGE was appointed less than 90 days prior to the end of 2007 

and did not have a training certificate on file. We did not include this 

SGE in our count of SGEs without training certificates on file because 

the training certificate was not yet due. 

Finally, we determined the number of meetings that new SGEs without 

training certificates on file attended in 2007. We counted the number of 

meetings these SGEs attended between the dates their training 

certificates were due and the dates they signed their training 

certificates or December 31, 2007. We then calculated the average and 

range of meetings that these SGEs attended in 2007. 

Compliance with ethics requirements during committee meetings. We 

reviewed meeting minutes to identify SGEs who attended the meetings, 

the dates of the meetings, and the particular matters in which SGEs 

voted. 

First, we determined whether SGEs participated in committee meetings 

without current OGE Forms 450 on file. To do so, we determined 

whether SGEs submitted their forms within required timeframes in 

2007. That is, we determined the extent to which new SGEs submitted 

their forms within 30 days of their appointment and incumbent SGEs 

submitted their forms within 1 year of their prior filing. 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 36 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
 

APPENDIX~B 

For new SGEs, we determined each SGE’s appointment date based on 

the SGEs’ official appointment records. We then compared this date to 

the SGE’s 2007 OGE Form 450 submission date to determine whether 

the SGE submitted the form within the required 30 days. For 

incumbent SGEs, we determined whether SGEs submitted the 2007 

OGE Forms 450 within 1 year of the dates CDC received their prior 

OGE Forms 450. Eight SGEs each submitted two OGE Forms 450 in 

2007. In these cases, we reviewed the most recently submitted 

OGE Forms 450 in 2007 that CDC had certified by the time of our 

review (i.e., spring 2008). For these SGEs, we used the prior 2007 OGE 

Forms 450 to serve as the prior forms. 

One SGE submitted an illegible OGE Form 450 in 2007. CDC did not 

accept this form as a valid submission, so we classified this SGE as not 

submitting a form in 2007. 

We then determined whether SGEs participated in committee meetings 

before submitting their current OGE Forms 450. For new SGEs, we 

determined whether they participated in committee meetings after their 

appointment dates and before submitting their OGE Forms 450. For 

incumbents, we determined whether they participated in committee 

meetings after the forms were due and before they submitted the forms. 

Second, we determined whether SGEs participated in committee 

meetings before CDC certified their current OGE Forms 450. That is, 

we determined whether SGEs participated in committee meetings after 

submitting their current forms and before CDC certified them. 

Then, we determined the number of meetings that SGEs without 

current, certified forms on file attended in 2007. We also calculated the 

average and range of meetings that these SGEs attended in 2007. 

Finally, we determined whether SGEs complied with the terms of their 

waivers. To do so, we compared the subjects of SGEs’ votes with the 

particular matters in which they were prohibited from participating, 

according to their waivers. We reviewed meeting minutes to identify 

particular matters in which SGEs voted. We compared the subjects of 

these votes with the particular matters in which the SGEs were 

prohibited from participating, as outlined in the SGEs’ waivers. We 

counted the number of SGEs who voted on particular matters even 

though the terms of their waivers prohibited such participation. 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 37 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
 

 APPENDIX~C 

Office of Government Ethics Guidance for Determining Whether 2007 

Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports Are Complete74 

To determine whether Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports 

(OGE Forms 450) were complete, we used the following criteria from the 

Office of Government Ethics (OGE) guidance and instructions on the 

OGE Form 450.75 

For Part I – Assets and Income 

 Was specific employer listed? 

 Were specific names of sector-specific mutual funds listed? 

 Were specific names of publicly traded stock disclosed? 

 Was type of income indicated (i.e., stock)? 

 For honoraria, were dates shown (month and year that services were 

provided)? 

 If sources of income are from outside employment, have they been 

described in Part III - Outside Positions? 

For Part II - Liabilities 

 Is the name and location (city and State) for all reportable creditors 

indicated? 

 Is the type of liability (debt) shown, such as promissory note, 

mortgage, or loan? 

 For mortgages, are there corresponding rental properties reported in 

Part I? 

For Part III - Outside Positions

 Are name and location (city and State) for the organization indicated? 

 Is the organization’s purpose or function stated? 

 Has the filer indicated the specific position held or nature of activity 

with the organization? 

74 OGE, “OGE Form 450: A Review Guide,” op. cit., beginning on p. 30. 

75 The OGE guidance was issued in 1996. Because of changes to the OGE Form 450 in 

January 2007, we excluded some of OGE’s original criteria, which no longer apply. An 

attorney from the Office of Counsel to the Inspector General confirmed that the criteria 

listed in this Appendix reflect the current review requirements for the January 2007 OGE 

Form 450. 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 38 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
 

APPENDIX~C 

 For positions that would ordinarily produce reportable earned 

income, such as an employee, consultant, or director, check to see 

that an entry is shown in Part I - Assets and Income. 

For Part IV - Agreements and Arrangements

 Are the basic elements of the agreement or arrangement stated, such 

as employment terms, effective dates, etc.? 

 Are the parties identified, with location (city and State)? 

 Is a date (month and year) for the agreement or arrangement shown? 

 If the agreement or arrangement is for a pension or for other 

payments due from a former or current employer, is that asset or 

source of income reported in Part I - Assets and Income? 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 39 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
 

 APPENDIX~D 

Details Regarding Number and Percentage of Certified 2007 Confidential Financial 

Disclosure Reports That Were Incomplete, by Type of Omission 

Number of 

Certified Forms 

Percentage of 

Type of Omission Certified Forms 

Disclosure not made according to form’s instructions 190 90% 

Items were not fully described (e.g., full name, location, or 

type of position was not listed in Part III - Outside Positions)

120 57% 

Items were not listed in all appropriate sections (e.g., 

income-earning positions in Part III – Outside Positions 

were not listed as sources of income in Part I – Income) 

170 80% 

 Relevant items on other documents not on form 167 79% 

Relevant item was on curriculum vitae 123 58% 

Relevant item was on prior form 103 49% 

Improper amendments to form 34 16% 

Special Government employee’s (SGE) authorization of 

change was not documented 34 16% 

Reviewer did not initial the change 11 5% 

Reviewer did not date the change 11 5% 

Total* 205 97% 

Source: Office of Inspector General review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2007 SGE financial 

disclosure files, 2008. 

* Numbers in columns do not sum to total because some forms contained multiple types of omissions. 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 40 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 41 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES

 APPENDIX~E 

This table provides the number and percentage of special Government 

employees (SGE) who had vulnerabilities in their files and who 

participated in committee meetings in 2007, by type of vulnerability and 

average and range in meeting participation. 

Average and Range in Committee Meetings in Which Special Government Employees 

Participated in 2007 After Their Forms Were Certified, by Type of Vulnerability in Their Files 

Number of 

SGEs 

Percentage of 

SGEs 

Average 

Meeting 

Participation 

Range in 

Meeting 

Type of Vulnerability Participation 

File contained potential conflicts of 

interest that the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) did not 

identify 

124 58% 2 1-16 

File contained potential conflicts of 

interest that CDC did not resolve 67 32% 2 1-14 

 Total* 136 64 % 2 1-16 

Source: Office of Inspector General review of CDC’s 2007 SGE financial disclosure files and committee meeting minutes, 

2008. 

* Numbers in columns do not sum to total because some forms contained multiple types of omissions.
 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 42 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES

 APPENDIX~F 

 AGENCY COMMENTS
 

APPENDIX~F 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 43 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 44 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES

APPENDIX~F 
 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 45 

 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 45 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES

APPENDIX~F APPEN D IX~F 

APPENDIX~F 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES
A P PEN 0 x F 

Page 5 - Page 4 - Daniel R. Levinson 

It is critical to note that MASO ensures that all new SGEs receive initial Ethics Training upon 

appointment, and distributes Annual Ethics Training to all SGEs as required. In addition, MASO 

attends certain advisory committee meetings to provide ethics training. Additionally, MASO 

employees who work with advisory committees are provided ongoing instruction and coaching 

on ethics requirements; DFOs are provided the same materials that are sent to SGEs for Annual 

Ethi.cs training. 

Office ofInspectol' General (DIG) Recommendation: Monitor special GovclUmcnt employee 

compliance witheLhics requirements during committee meetings. 

CDC Response: CDC concurs \vlth this recommendation. MASO collaborates with DFOs and 

HHS Ethics advisors to detemline when SGEs should not participate in certain matters. As 


subject maILer experts for their respective advisory committees, the DFOs are actively engaged 


from the onset in helping to identify real and apparent conflicts ofinterest and to recommend 


ways to resolve the conflict (disqualification, recusal, divestiture, 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(3) waiver, 


authorization under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.S02(a)). CDC wiII continue to seek methods for 


improvement, by consulting with other HHS agencies to detennine best practices that could be 


implemented to enhance our program. 


Office ofInspector General (DIG) Recommendation: Track special Government employee 

compliance with ethics requirements. 

CDC Response: CDC concurs with this recommendation. Recognizing the role that DFOs hold 

in this process, MASO also acIalowledges its oversighirespollsibility for SGEs compliance \vith 

financial disclosure and ethics requiremcnts. MASO continues to collaborate with internal 

partners (DFOs, OGC Ethics) involved in the confidential financial disclosure process to track 

and document SGEs compliance with ethics requirements. MASO will have a greater presence 

at advisory committee meetings, audit meeting minutes, and continually seek methods to 

improve and enforce of CDC's Financial Disclosure policy for SOEs. 

CDC Summary Comments to DIG Findings: 

In summary, CDC concurs with the recommendations ofthe OIG report. Over the past (wo 

years, CDC has implemented measures that coincide with these recommendations. Regarding 

OIG findings, CDC's technical comments on the draft report, previously submitted, are also 

attached. We appreciate your consideration of the comments contained in this memo ancl the 

technical comments as you develop the final report. We are happy to discuss any ofthese 

comments with you. Please direct any questions regarding these comments to Mr. Shaun Ratliff 

by telephone at (404) 639-2809 or by email at iggao@cdc.gov. 

Thomas R. FJied"~n, M.D., M.P.H. 

OEI·04·07·00260 CDC's ETHICS PROGRAM FOR SPECIAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ON FEDERAL 

ADVISORY COMMITTEES 

46 
 

 O E I - 0 4 - 0 7 - 0 0 2 6 0 C D C ’ S E THICS P ROGRAM FOR S PECIAL GOVERNMENT E MPLOYEES ON F EDERAL 47 

ADVISORY C OMMITTEES

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPENDIX~E 

This report was prepared under the direction of Dwayne Grant, 

Regional Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections in the 

Atlanta regional office. 

Jaime Durley served as the team leader for this study, and Leila Samy 

served as lead analyst. Other principal Office of Evaluation and 

Inspections staff who contributed to this report include Starr Daniell, Al 

Olson, Shaun Owens, Gerius Patterson, and Mina Zadeh from the 

Atlanta regional office and Robert A. Vito from the Philadelphia 

regional office; central office staff who contributed include Talisha 

Searcy. We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of Melinda 

Golub and Pamela Langer from the Office of Inspector General’s Office 

of Counsel to the Inspector General.