" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REV

09

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETH

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES 

————— 

Report and Findings 

Transmitted to the 

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 

February 5, 2010 

and released publicly pursuant to H. Res. 895 of 

110th Congress as amended 

February 2010 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
House of Representatives Office of Congressional Ethics Review No. 09–1022 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

55–496 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REV

2009

09

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETH

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES 

————— 

Report and Findings 

Transmitted to the 

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 

February 5, 2010 

and released publicly pursuant to H. Res. 895 of 

110th Congress as amended 

February 2010 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
(II) 

OFFICE OF 

CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 

BOARD 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

DAVID SKAGGS, Chair 

PORTER GOSS, Co-Chair 

YVONNE BURKE 

KAREN ENGLISH 

ALLISON HAYWARD 

JAY EAGEN 

WILLIAM FRENZEL 

ABNER MIKVA 

Leo J. Wise, Chief Counsel & Staff Director 

Paul J. Solis, Investigative Counsel 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
(1) 

REPORT 

Review No. 09–1022 

The Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics (the ‘‘Bo

a vote of no less than four members, on January 28, 2010

the following report and findings and ordered them to 

mitted to the Committee on Standards of Official Condu

United States House of Representatives. 

SUBJECT: Representative Nathan Deal 

NATURE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION: Represent

than Deal and his business partner own Recovery Service

k/a Gainesville Salvage & Disposal (‘‘GSD’’), located in Ga

Georgia. GSD is a regional vehicle salvage station that 

merly authorized by the state of Georgia to facilitate insp

damaged vehicles before they were sold or driven. In 2

2009, Representative Deal and a member of his Congressi

contacted and met with Georgia state officials related 

templated state action on the vehicle inspection program. 

Further, on his 2009 Financial Disclosure Statement 

calendar year 2008), Representative Deal listed unearn

‘‘Dividends’’ income (unearned ‘‘Partnership Income’’ on a

ed form) from $50,001 to $100,000. His 2008 tax return 

$75,000 in earned wages from GSD. 

Representative Deal’s conduct may have violated Hou

and House Standards of Conduct. 

RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that t

mittee on Standards of Official Conduct further review t

allegations. 

VOTES IN THE AFFIRMATIVE: 6 

VOTES IN THE NEGATIVE: 0 

ABSTENTIONS: 0 

MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR STAFF DESIGNA

PRESENT THIS REPORT TO THE STANDARDS COM

Leo Wise, Staff Director & Chief Counsel. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
2 

Table of Contents 

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................

A. Summary of Allegations .........................................................

B. Jurisdictional Statement ........................................................

C. Procedural History ..................................................................

D. Summary of Investigative Activity ........................................

II. REPRESENATIVE DEAL’S CONTACTS WITH GEORGIA STATE 

FICIALS REGARDING THE STATE SALVAGE INSPECTION 

GRAM .................................................................................................

A. Relevant Law, Regulations, Rules or Standards of Conduct 

B. Representative Deal Owns a Vehicle Salvage Business tha

cilitated Vehicle Inspections Until August 2009 ................

C. Representative Deal Met with Georgia State Officials and A

cated for the Continuance of a State Vehicle Inspection 

gram that the Department of Revenue Sought to Modify .

D. Representative Deal’s Chief of Staff Contacted Georgia 

Officials About Meetings on the Vehicle Inspection Pro

and Attended Three Meetings on the Program with Repre

ative Deal ..............................................................................

III. REPRESENTATIVE DEAL’S BUSINESS INTERESTS IN GAI

VILLE SALVAGE & DISPOSAL, INC. ...........................................

A. Relevant Law, Regulations, Rules, or Standards of Conduct 

B. Representative Deal is a GSD Corporate Officer in Add

to Being a ‘‘Partner’’ in the Company .................................

C. Representative Deal Discussed GSD with His Business Pa

on a Regular Basis and Participated in Some GSD Bus

Actions ...................................................................................

D. Representative Deal Disclosed ‘‘Unearned’’ Income from 

on His 2009 Financial Disclosure Statement but Characte

the Same Amount as Wages on His Federal Income Taxes 

IV. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................

V. INFORMATION THE OCE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN 

RECOMMNEDATIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
(3) 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CITATIONS TO L

Review No. 09–1022 

On January 28, 2010, the Board of the Office of Cong

Ethics (the ‘‘Board’’ and the ‘‘OCE’’) adopted the following 

of fact and accompanying citations to law, regulations, r

standards of conduct (in italics). The Board notes that th

ings do not constitute a determination that a violation ac

curred. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

A. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS

1. In 2008 and 2009, Representative Deal sought to p

state vehicle inspection program that had generated s

personal financial benefit for him and a business partn

resentative Deal attended meetings on the state inspec

gram with Georgia officials and told the OCE he atte

meetings, not as a private citizen, but rather as a ‘‘public 

acting in some official capacity. Changes to the vehicle i

program concerned a purely state issue and according to 

cials, no other Member of Congress from Georgia involv

selves in it. Thus, the Board concludes that there is a su

reason to believe that Representative Deal may have 

House Rule 23, clause 3 and Rule 5 of the Code of Gov

Service. 

2. In addition, Representative Deal was accompanied by 

of Staff at meetings on the vehicle inspection program and 

the Chief of Staff to use a House email account to send e

lated to the meetings. Thus, there is substantial reason t

Representative Deal violated the House Ethics Manual’s 

tion on using House equipment and resources for personal 

purposes. 3. Representative Deal disclosed $50,001 to $100,000 in 

‘‘Dividends’’ income (and unearned ‘‘Partnership Incom

amended form) from GSD on his 2009 Financial Disclosu

ment (covering calendar year 2008). However, the same in

described as earned wages on his 2008 personal income t

Specifically, Representative Deal’s 2008 tax documen

$75,000 in GSD wages; in addition, Representative Deal r

W–2 from GSD in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Thus, there is a 

tial reason to believe Representative Deal violated the Ho

ics Manual’s directive to disclose all earned income. 

4. Further, Representative Deal rendered some degree 

to GSD in 2008 and 2009 and his 2008 taxes show $75,00

wages. Thus, there is substantial reason to believe Repre


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
1 H. Res 895, 110th Cong. (2008) (‘‘the Resolution’’). 2 Id. at § 1(e) (2008). 3 A preliminary review is ‘‘requested’’ in writing by members of the Board of t

request for a preliminary review is ‘‘received’’ by the OCE on a date certain. Acc

Resolution, the timeframe for conducting a preliminary review is 30 days from th

ceipt of the Board’s request. 4 According to the Resolution, the Board must vote (as opposed to making a wr

ization) on whether to conduct a second-phase review in a matter before the exp

30-day preliminary review. If the Board votes for a second-phase, the second-phas

the day after the preliminary review ends. 5 Id. at § 1(c)(2)(A)(ii) (2008). 6 The 14-day extension expires after the 45-day second-phase review ends. The 

sion does not begin on the date of the Board vote. 

Deal violated the earned income limitation, House Rule 2

1. 

5. Representative Deal is the GSD corporate secretary. 

taxes show $75,000 in GSD wages. Thus, there is substa

son to believe Representative Deal violated the prohibiti

ceiving compensation as a corporate officer, House Rule 2

2. 

6. Representative Deal also failed to disclose his statu

GSD corporate secretary on his financial disclosure form

there is substantial reason to believe Representative Dea

the House Ethics Manual’s directive to disclose all no

mental positions held. 

B. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

7. The OCE has jurisdiction to review any alleged viola

Member, officer, or employee of the House of any law, rul

tion, or other standard of conduct applicable to the conduc

Member, officer, or employee in the performance of his 

the discharge of his responsibilities.1 The allegations tha

subject of this review concern Representative Deal, a M

the United States House of Representatives from Georgia. 

olution the United States House of Representatives ado

ating the OCE directs that, ‘‘[n]o review shall be underta

by the board of any alleged violation that occurred before 

of adoption of this resolution.’’ 2 The House adopted this R

on March 11, 2008. Because the conduct under review oc

relates to actions taken after March 11, 2008, review by 

is in accordance with the Resolution. 

C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

8. The OCE received a written request for a preliminar

in this matter signed by at least two members of the Boa

tober 5, 2009. The preliminary review commenced on O

2009.3 The preliminary review was scheduled to end on N

4, 2009. 

9. At least three members of the Board voted to initiate 

phase review in this matter on November 3, 2009. Th

phase review commenced on November 5, 2009.4 The seco

review was scheduled to end on December 19, 2009. 

10. The Board voted to extend the 45-day second-phase r

an additional 14 days on December 18, 2009, as provided 

the Resolution.5 Following the extension, the second-pha

was scheduled to end on January 2, 2010.6


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
7 See Exhibit 14 at 09–1022—70. 8 See section V of the Findings of Fact and Citations to Law. 9 House Ethics Manual (2008) at 197. 

11. The Board voted to refer the matter to the Comm

Standards of Official Conduct for further review and adop

findings on January 28, 2010. Representative Deal also s

a statement to the Board.7

12. This report and findings in this matter were trans

the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on Feb

2010. 

D. SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITY

13. The OCE requested and received documentary, and 

cases testimonial, information from the following sources: 

(1) Representative Deal; 

(2) Representative Deal’s Chief of Staff; 

(3) Representative Deal’s Business Partner; 

(4) A Georgia State Legislator; 

(5) The Georgia Revenue Commissioner; 

(6) The Georgia Deputy Revenue Commissioner. 

14. The OCE requested, but was unable to conduct, in

with the Georgia Lieutenant Governor, former membe

staff, and current members of his staff because the Lieuten

ernor refused to cooperate with the OCE investigation.8

II. REPRESENATIVE DEAL’S CONTACTS WITH G

STATE OFFICIALS REGARDING THE STATE SALV

SPECTION PROGRAM 

A. RELEVANT LAW, REGULATIONS, RULES OR STANDARDS OF 

15. House Rule 23, Cl. 1 states that Members ‘‘shall beh

times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House

16. House Rule 23, Cl. 3 states that ‘‘[a] Member, Deleg

dent Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House ma

ceive compensation and may not permit compensation to 

his beneficial interest from any source, the receipt of whi

occur by virtue of influence improperly exerted from his p

Congress.’’ 

17. The Code of Government Service rule 5 states that 

in government should ‘‘[n]ever discriminate unfairly by 

pensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether f

neration or not; and never accept, for himself or his fami

or benefits under circumstances which might be construe

sonable persons as influencing the performance of his gove

duties.’’ 

18. The House Ethics Manual states that ‘‘[a] provisio

rules issued by the House Administration Committee allow

incidental personal use of House equipment and supplies. 

the Standards Committee understands that this provisio

such use of those resources for personal purposes only, and 

allow their use for outside employment or business purpose


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
10 Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal (December 16, 2009) (Exh

1022—2 ¶ 2). 11 A corporation taxed under 26 U.S.C. § 11 and Subchapter C (26 U.S.C. § 3

Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code. 12Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal (December 16, 2009) (Exh

1022—2 ¶ 3). 13 Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal’s business partner (Octob

(Exhibit 3 at 09–1022—12 ¶ 2). 14 Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal (December 16, 2009) (Exh

1022—2 ¶ 4). 15 Id. 16 Id. 17 Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal’s business partner (Octob

(Exhibit 3 at 09–1022—12 ¶ 3). 18 Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal (December 16, 2009) (Exh

1022—3 ¶ 10). 19 Id. at ¶ 5. 20 Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal’s business partner (Octob

(Exhibit 3 at 09–1022—12 ¶ 3). 21 Initially, six stations were established until 2009, when inspections ceased at o

tions. GSD was one of the five remaining stations. 

B. REPRESENTATIVE DEAL OWNS A VEHICLE SALVAGE BUSINE

FACILITATED VEHICLE INSPECTIONS UNTIL AUGUST 20

19. In 1988, Representative Deal and his business 

opened a vehicle salvage company in Gainesville, Georgi

rently, this company conducts business under the name ‘‘G

is a ‘‘C corporation.’’ 11 GSD has always been a C corporati

is owned, 50 percent each, by Representative Deal and his 

partner.13

20. GSD’s salvage service assists automobile insuranc

nies in the disposal of damaged vehicles.14 GSD acts as 

and facilitates the auction of salvaged cars; GSD then bil

surance companies for conducting the auction.15 Accordin

resentative Deal, this service generates most of GSD’s r

GSD employs 10 clerical workers, 5 full-time yard workers

ers, and Representative Dea’s business partner.17 Repre

Deal is the corporate secretary.18

21. Beginning sometime in 1990, GSD began facilitatin

inspections of rebuilt, salvaged vehicles.19 This inspectio

lasted for approximately 20 years; GSD stopped provi

service in August of 2009.20

C. REPRESENTATIVE DEAL MET WITH GEORGIA STATE OFFIC

ADVOCATED FOR THE CONTINUANCE OF A STATE VEHICLE 

TION PROGRAM THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SO

MODIFY

22. According to the Georgia Department of Revenue, t

gia state Salvage Inspection Program, as it existed in 2

part of 2009, authorized 5–6 21 privately owned stations th

the state of Georgia to facilitate inspections of damaged 

before these vehicles could return to the road. These stat

exclusive jurisdiction within their designated region to fac

spections which were conducted by authorized state-emp

spectors. In exchange for this service, owners of salvaged 

a fee to both the state of Georgia and to the inspection 

State inspectors travelled between the regional stations, o

ing basis (visiting each station twice per month) and gran

to salvaged cars in addition to conducting some level of 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
22 The level of safety inspection is a disputed fact between witnesses interviewed 

Representative Deal’s business partner stated that the state inspectors are typically 

shop workers who have a working knowledge of vehicle safety specifications and t

spect the vehicles. See Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal’s business 

tober 30, 2009) (Exhibit 3 at 09–1022—13 ¶17). Representative Deal stated that sta

checked for safety of airbags and brakes among other items. Memorandum of Inte

resentative Deal (December 16, 2009) (Exhibit 1 at 09–1022—4 ¶ 22). The Reve

sioner stated that the inspections have never included a safety check and focus 

sively on inspections of titles. Memorandum of Interview of the Georgia Revenue C

(October 30, 2009) (Exhibit 4 at 09–1022—17 ¶15). 23 Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal (December 16, 2009) (Exh

1022—2 ¶ 5); Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal’s business partner 

2009) (Exhibit 3 at 09–1022—12 ¶ 3). 24 The full chart is Exhibit 6 at 09–1022—23. 25 Memorandum of Interview of the Georgia Revenue Commissioner (October 3

hibit 4 at 09–1022—17 ¶ 9); see also 2005 Department of Revenue Memorandum d

inspection program history in Georgia at Exhibit 5 09–1022—20. 26 Id. at ¶ 11. 27 Id. at ¶ 16. 28 Id. at ¶ 11. 29 Id. at ¶ 11. 30 Memorandum of Interview of the Georgia Revenue Commissioner (October 3

hibit 4 at 09–1022—17 ¶s 8 & 11). In 2009, the Revenue Commissioner administra

mented his changes. He also stated that as of the date of the interview, he believe

of inspection station applications had increased, especially within GSD’s Atlanta-

¶ 10. 

spection.22 Under the program, if a proposed new inspectio

applied for state authorization, its designated geographic

would not be placed anywhere within the regional jurisdict

already-established station.23 GSD, the station owned in 

Representative Deal, participated in the Salvage Inspec

gram from 1990 to August 2009.24

23. The Board notes that GSD, represented on the De

of Revenue chart 25 below as ‘‘Hall County,’’ facilitated the 

spections, assessed the highest fee ($100), and generated 

revenue ($288,500) out of the six stations operating in G

2008. 

24. The Revenue Commissioner’s 2008 plan would ha

nated state inspector positions and permitted qualified in

to conduct private inspections.26 Private inspectors woul

certified through a standardized program.27 The plan w

ask for proposals from anyone in Georgia who wished to 

inspection station, regardless of proximity to an existing 

The changes would also place no limitation, per station

number of cars that could be inspected because each stati

hire its own private inspectors, as opposed to waiting for 

state inspectors.29 The Revenue Commissioner believed 

private sector could best administer the inspection progra

state of Georgia and described his plan as effectively ter

what he described as ‘‘regional monopolies.’’ 30

25. The Revenue Commissioner stated that he met w

resentative Deal and others on three occasions in 2008 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
31 Id. at ¶ 12. The Revenue Commissioner also stated that no other Congressma

from Georgia contacted him about the vehicle inspection program. Memorandum 

of the Georgia Revenue Commissioner (October 30, 2009) (Exhibit 4 at 09–1022—18 

32 Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal’s business partner (Octob

(Exhibit 3 at 09–1022—12 ¶s 7–13); Memorandum of Interview of Representative 

of Staff (October 30, 2009) (Exhibit 7 at 09–1022—27 ¶ 10); Memorandum of Inte

resentative Deal (December 16, 2009) (Exhibit 1 at 09–1022—3 ¶s 12–25). 33 See Exhibit 8 at 09–1022—30. 34 Memorandum of Interview of the Georgia Revenue Commissioner (October 3

hibit 4 at 09–1022—17 ¶ 13). 35 Id.; Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal (December 16, 2009) 

09–1022—4 ¶ 15). 36 Memorandum of Interview of the Georgia Revenue Commissioner (October 3

hibit 4 at 09–1022—17 ¶ 17). 37 Id. at ¶ 18. 

to discuss the Salvage Inspection Program.31 Representat

his business partner, and his Chief of Staff confirmed this 

tion.32

26. The Revenue Commissioner described the subject of 

meetings as follows.33

27. The Board notes that Representative Deal is listed 

Representative Nathan Deal’’ in the ‘‘attendees’’ column. 

28. According to the Revenue Commissioner, the first m

January 28, 2008, concerned a proposed program named 

(Georgia Registration and Title Information System).34 

sought to streamline the sharing of title information betwe

ance companies and the state.35

29. The Revenue Commissioner stated that the purpo

second meeting on June 30, 2008, was to discuss a reques

resentative Deal and his business partner to keep a pe

state inspector at GSD.36 The Lieutenant Governor also s

this request.37 The Revenue Commissioner explained to R


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
38 Id. at ¶ 19. 39 Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal’s business partner (Octob

(Exhibit 3 at 09–1022—12 ¶ 7); Memorandum of Interview of Representative De

16, 2009) (Exhibit 1 at 09–1022—2 ¶ 17). 40 Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal (December 16, 2009) (Exh

1022—2 ¶ 17). 41 Id. at ¶ 14. 42 Id. at ¶ 16. 43 Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal’s business partner (Octob

(Exhibit 3 at 09–1022—3 ¶ 9); Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal’s 

(October 30, 2009) (Exhibit 7 at 09–1022—27 ¶ 13). 44 Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal’s Chief of Staff (October 3

hibit 7 at 09–1022—27 ¶ 7). 45 Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal’s business partner (Octob

(Exhibit 3 at 09–1022—13 ¶ 11); Memorandum of Interview of Representative De

16, 2009) (Exhibit 1 at 09–1022—4 ¶ 18). 46 Memorandum of Interview of the Georgia Deputy Revenue Commissioner 

2009) (Exhibit 9 at 09–1022—33 ¶ 6). 47 Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal (December 16, 2009) (Exh

1022—3 ¶ 14); Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal’s Chief of Staff 

2009) (Exhibit 7 at 09–1022—27 ¶ 14). 48 Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal (December 16, 2009) (Exh

1022—4 ¶ 23). 

ative Deal and his business partner that he felt the req

inappropriate and created a conflict because no other st

ceived such treatment.38

30. Representative Deal and his business partner told 

that the first meeting on January 28, 2008 was to discuss 

TIS program and that the second meeting on June 30, 

curred as a ‘‘follow-up’’ to the first meeting.39 Representa

stated that he did not recall any other issues discussed a

ond meeting besides a follow-up on the GRATIS issue.40

31. The January 28, 2008 and June 30, 2008 meetings w

ated by the Chief of Staff at Representative Deal’s directio

resentative Deal stated that he asked for the meetings 

auto insurance companies had contacted his business partn

the GRATIS issue and he felt that the GRATIS progra

save the state money.42

32. Both Representative Deal’s business partner and his 

Staff stated that the Revenue Commissioner randomly an

ly brought up the issue of privatization at the second 

which prompted the request for the third meeting.43 In 

the Chief of Staff stated that Representative Deal had rece

stituent calls about the status of the inspection program

resentative Deal and his business partner stated that in

involved with the inspection program (e.g., state employe

tors and inspection station owners) could not obtain inform

the status of the program, despite attempts to contact th

ment of Revenue, which prompted the request for the th

ing.45 The Deputy Revenue Commissioner stated that his 

tempts to provide information to anyone who requests it.46

33. The third meeting was initiated by Representativ

Chief of Staff who contacted the Lieutenant Governor’s o

also the Deputy Revenue Commissioner.47 When asked ho

the third meeting, Representative Deal stated that ‘‘prob

Lieutenant Governor’’ helped get the meeting.48

34. At the third meeting on March 27, 2009, the Reven

missioner stated that Representative Deal and Repre

Deal’s business partner advocated against the changes in 

vage Inspection Program that the Revenue Commissioner 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
49 Memorandum of Interview of the Georgia Revenue Commissioner (October 3

hibit 4 at 09–1022—18 ¶ 23). 50 Id. at ¶ 21. 51 Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal’s Chief of Staff (October 3

hibit 7 at 09–1022—27 ¶ 15). 52 Memorandum of Interview of the Georgia Revenue Commissioner (October 3

hibit 4 at 09–1022—18 ¶ 22). 53 Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal (December 16, 2009) (Exh

1022—4 ¶ 20). 54 Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal’s Chief of Staff (October 3

hibit 7 at 09–1022—28 ¶ 19). 55 Memorandum of Interview of the Georgia State Legislator (October 30, 2009

at 09–1022—37 ¶ 14). 56 Id. at ¶ 18. 57 Statement of Representative Deal (Exhibit 14 at 09–1022—70); Memorandum 

of Representative Deal (December 16, 2009) (Exhibit 1 at 09–1022—3 ¶s 6 & 22); M

of Interview of Representative Deal’s business partner (December 16, 2009) (Exh

1022—13 ¶s 16 & 20). 58 Id. 59 Id. 60 Id. 61 Memorandum of Interview of the Georgia Revenue Commissioner (October 3

hibit 4 at 09–1022—17 ¶s 15 & 23). 62 Id. at ¶ 15. 63 Id. 

posed.49 The Revenue Commissioner also told the OCE 

would characterize interactions at the last meeting as 

tious.50 Representative Deal’s Chief of Staff characterized 

ing as ‘‘hostile.’’ 51

35. The Revenue Commissioner stated that at the third 

the Georgia State Legislator accompanying Representat

and his business partner ‘‘hotboxed’’ him and treated him 

were a witness under cross-examination.52 When asked a

the State Legislator attended the meeting, Representat

stated that he did not know but speculated that either the 

partner or his Chief of Staff asked for his attendance.53 T

of Staff stated that the State Legislator attended becau

Representative Deal’s and the business partner’s represen

the state legislature.54 The State Legislator confirmed th

tion by the Chief of Staff.55 The State Legislator also st

no other constituents came to him with concerns over ch

the inspection program.56

36. Representative Deal and his business partner main

although it was not in their financial interest to do so, at 

meeting they expressed to the Revenue Commissioner tha

gram should not be changed.57 They argued that any i

should be conducted by state-employed and authorized i

to ensure the safety of drivers on Georgia roads.58 Repre

Deal and his business partner stated that state inspectors 

former body shop workers or law enforcement personnel w

experience with vehicle safety specifications.59 They expla

they were concerned that inexperienced, private inspecto

jeopardize vehicle safety.60

37. The Revenue Commissioner stated that the vehicle i

program never covered the safety of vehicles.61 He stated 

state inspectors’ only role was to grant title to salvaged c

their position was named ‘‘Salvage Title Inspectors.’’ 62 Th

vage Title Inspectors’’ examined the title of the vehicle, w

ited examination of the physical vehicle itself, to make pr

assessments.63 He further stated that his proposed elimi


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
64 Id. at ¶16; http://www.i–car.com/index—us.shtml. 65 Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal (December 16, 2009) (Exh

1022—4 ¶ 25). 66 Id. 67Memorandum of Interview of the Georgia Revenue Commissioner (October 3

hibit 4 at 09–1022—18 ¶ 25). 68 Id. 69Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal (December 16, 2009) (Exh

1022—4 ¶ 26). 70Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal’s Chief of Staff (October 3

hibit 7 at 09–1022—27 ¶ 16). 71 Id. at ¶ 11. 

state employed inspectors would not decrease vehicle s

cause private inspectors would be required to receive accr

from a ‘‘worldwide collision repair training’’ program and 

a result, be even more qualified than previous inspectors.6

38. When asked in what capacity he attended the meeti

resentative Deal stated that he attended them as some

‘‘personal knowledge’’ that was trying to ‘‘get information’’ 

Revenue Commissioner because nobody else could.65

39. The Board notes that the OCE specifically asked Re

tive Deal again whether he attended these meetings as a 

of Congress or as a salvage station owner and he respon

he attended as a ‘‘public servant.’’ 66

40. The Board also notes that Representative Deal s

that others could not get meetings with the Department of 

and that his contact with the Lieutenant Governor aide

getting the March 2009 meeting. 

41. During his interview with the OCE, the Revenue 

sioner stated that he and Representative Deal had a priva

sion at one of the meetings but that he could not disclos

ture of the conversation without being subpoenaed on the 

the Georgia Attorney General.67 He stated that the infor

a tax-related matter and for confidentiality reasons, he 

discuss the matter without being compelled to do so.68

42. When asked about this private conversation, Repre

Deal stated that he recalled talking to the Revenue Comm

about the Commissioner’s preference that Representativ

Chief of Staff refrain from contacting Department of 

staff.69

D. REPRESENTATIVE DEAL’S CHIEF OF STAFF CONTACTED 

STATE OFFICIALS ABOUT MEETINGS ON THE VEHICLE IN

PROGRAM AND ATTENDED THREE MEETINGS ON THE PROGR

REPRESENTATIVE DEAL

43. Representative Deal’s Chief of Staff attended all th

ings with the Department of Revenue.70 When asked why 

attend the meetings, the Chief of Staff stated that he rare

Representative Deal to go anywhere without him, unles

family matter.71

44. Roughly twenty emails were sent from Representati

Chief of Staff to employees of the Georgia Department of 

and the Lieutenant Governor’s Office regarding meetings o

inspection program. These emails were sent from the 

Staff’s U.S. House of Representatives email account. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
72See Exhibit 11 at 09–1022—40 for additional emails. 73 Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal (December 16, 2009) (Exh

1022—2 ¶s 5–6); Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal’s business par

30, 2009) (Exhibit 3 at 09–1022—14 ¶ 20); Memorandum of Interview of Represen

Chief of Staff (October 30, 2009) (Exhibit 7 at 09–1022—26 ¶ 17). 74 House Ethics Manual (2008) at 214. 

45. For example, a February 27, 2009 email from the Re

tive Deal’s Chief of Staff requested a meeting with the 

Commissioner on the topic of vehicle inspections.72 Th

notes that ‘‘Congressman Nathan Deal, GA–9’’ appears at 

tom of the email. 

46. As stated above, Representative Deal, his Chief of S

his business partner maintain that any contact with Geor

officials on the vehicle inspection program concerned the 

Georgia citizens that, in their view, would be affected by 

in the state program.73 Thus, Representative Deal and his 

Staff assert that the use of house emails was a constituen

issue. 

47. However, the Board notes that the Ethics Manual’s 

tion on the use of staff for personal business does not crea

ception for matters affecting both personal financial inte

constituent interests. 

III. REPRESENTATIVE DEAL’S BUSINESS INTERES

GAINESVILLE SALVAGE & DISPOSAL, INC. 

A. RELEVANT LAW, REGULATIONS, RULES, OR STANDARDS OF 

48. House Rule 25, Cl. 1(a)(1) states that ‘‘[e]xcept as pro

paragraph (b), a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissione

or employee of the House may not—(1) have outside earne

attributable to a calendar year that exceeds 15 percent of th

rate of basic pay for level II of the Executive Schedule und

5313 of title 5, United States Code, as of January 1 of that 

year . . .’’ 

49. The House Ethics Manual states that the outside e

come limit for calendar year 2008 was $25,830.74


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
75 Id. at 231. 76 Id. at 252. 77 Id. at 254. 78 Id. at 260. 

50. The House Ethics Manual states that ‘‘[t]he annual l

applies to compensation for personal services (termed ‘‘ea

come’’), but not to moneys received from ownership or oth

ments of equity (so-called ‘‘unearned income’’). In this rega

sory Opinion No. 13 emphasizes that the ‘‘real facts’’ of a p

case would control as to whether moneys received would b

earned income: 

[T]he label or characterization placed on a transa

rangement or payment by the parties may be disrega

purposes of the Rule. Thus, if amounts received or to be 

by a Member, officer, or employee are in fact attributab

significant extent to services rendered by the Member, 

employee the characterization of such amounts as pa

distributive share, dividends, rent, interest, payment f

ital asset, or the like, will not serve to prevent the ap

of Rule 25 to such amounts. . . . 

For purposes of this Opinion, there are two types of 

earned and unearned. If the compensation received 

tially a return on equity, then it would generally not b

ered to be earned income. If the income is not a retu

uity, then such income would generally be consider

earned income and subject to the limitation.’’ 75

51. House Rule 25, Cl. 2(d) states that ‘‘[a] Member, 

Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House m

(d) serve for compensation as an officer or member of the 

an association, corporation, or other entity. . . .’’ 

52. The House Ethics Manual states that ‘‘[a]ll Membe

House . . . must file a Financial Disclosure Statement by 

of each year.’’ 76 This Statement must disclose all income 

and ‘‘unearned’’ over $200.77 Further, the House Ethics 

states that ‘‘[i]ndividuals must disclose any nongovernmen

tions, whether or not compensated, that they hold, unless t

ment is the first one filed with the House . . . Included 

positions as officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, re

tive, employee, or consultant of any corporation, compa

partnership, or other business enterprise, any nonprofit 

tion, any labor organization, or any educational or othe

tion.’’ 78


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
79Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal (December 16, 2009) (Exh

1022—2 ¶ 10). 80 ‘‘Recovery Services, Inc.’’ is the official corporate name; the company does 

‘‘Gainesville Salvage & Disposal.’’ See Memorandum of Interview of Representati

cember 16, 2009) (Exhibit 1 at 09–1022—2 ¶ 3). 

B. REPRESENTATIVE DEAL IS A GSD CORPORATE OFFICER IN A

TO BEING A ‘‘PARTNER’’ IN THE COMPANY

53. Representative Deal stated that he is the ‘‘Secreta

urer’’ at GSD.79 Further, the Georgia Secretary of State l

resentative Deal as the GSD corporate secretary under t

fication of ‘‘Officers.’’ 80

54. The Board notes that on his amended 2009 U.S. 

Representatives Financial Disclosure Statement, covering 

year 2008, schedule VIII (‘‘Positions’’) Representative D


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
81 Represented Deal also filed an amended Financial Disclosure Statement on 

2010, but did not list any additional positions held. See Exhibit 14 at 09–1022—81. 82Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal (December 16, 2009) (Exh

1022—3 ¶ 9). 83 Id. 84 Id. at ¶ 10. 85 Id.; Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal’s business partner (D

2009) (Exhibit 3 at 09–1022—12 ¶ 2). 86Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal (December 16, 2009) (Exh

1022—3 ¶ 10). 87 Id. 88Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal’s Chief of Staff (December 1

hibit 7 at 09–1022—26 ¶ 6). 89 Id. 90 Id. 

himself as a ‘‘member/partner/owner’’ of GSD but does no

that he is also the corporate secretary.81

C. REPRESENTATIVE DEAL DISCUSSED GSD WITH HIS BUSINE

NER ON A REGULAR BASIS AND PARTICIPATED IN SOME G

NESS ACTIONS

55. Representative Deal stated that he talks with his 

partner several times a week because they are close friend

resentative Deal estimated that GSD is discussed with his 

partner once a week.83

56. Representative Deal stated that his business part

and fires employees, sets schedules, and buys equipmen

resentative Deal stated further that he has no day-to-da

GSD operations and does not make business judgments

ment corroborated by his business partner.85

57. Representative Deal does, however, sign bank note

purchase of new equipment.86

58. Representative Deal does not provide any legal 

GSD; one of the partners at his former law firm provides 

ice to GSD.87

59. The Board notes that Representative Deal’s Chief 

stated that because he is so close to Representative De

‘‘very familiar’’ with GSD.88 The Chief of Staff stated t

resentative Deal and his business partner speak daily but 

state with certainty whether these discussions involved G

ness matters.89 He further stated that Representative D

‘‘good attorney’’ and assists his business partner with busin

sions.90


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
91Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal (December 16, 2009) (Exh

1022—3 ¶ 11). 

60. Representative Deal stated that as a general rule

not visit the GSD facilities but may occasionally stop by on 

to the airport.91

D. REPRESENTATIVE DEAL DISCLOSED ‘‘UNEARNED’’ INCOME F

ON HIS 2009 FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT BUT CH

IZED THE SAME AMOUNT AS WAGES ON HIS FEDERAL INCO

61. On his 2009 U.S. House of Representatives Financi

sure Statement schedule III (‘‘Assets and ’Unearned’ Inco

porting for calendar year 2008 and filed on May 13, 20

resentative Deal listed GSD’s ‘‘Rent’’ income at $15,001 to 

and ‘‘Dividends’’ income from $50,001 to $100,000. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
92Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal (December 16, 2009) (Exh

1022—4 ¶ 27). Represented Deal also filed an amended 2009 Financial Disclosu

on January 22, 2010 where he classifies GSD income as unearned ‘‘Partnership 

Exhibit 14 at 09–1022—81. 93Pursuant to an agreement between the OCE and Representative Deal, scree

returns are not displayed in these findings of fact. 94Memorandum of Interview of Representative Deal (December 16, 2009) (Exh

1022—3 ¶ 27). 95 Id. 96 Id. at ¶ 13. 

62. On his amended 2009 Financial Disclosure Statem

ering calendar year 2008), filed January 22, 2010, Repre

Deal changed the GSD income from ‘‘Dividends’’ to ‘‘Partne

come.’’ 

63. Representative Deal stated that the reported ‘‘Divi

come from $50,001 to $100,000 on the statement, reflected 

received from GSD during 2008.92

64. However, on his 2008 tax return, Representative 

closed wages of $75,000 from GSD. Further, a W–2 was 

Representative Deal, from GSD, acknowledging $75,000 

and compensation.93 Representative Deal told the OCE 

$75,000 in wages listed on his tax return is the same in

described as ‘‘Dividends’’ (and then subsequently ‘‘Partne

come’’) on his 2009 Financial Disclosure Statement 

2008).94

65. When asked about the $75,000 amount reported 

from GSD on his income taxes, Representative Deal stated 

amount actually reflected ‘‘equity’’ in the business and no

income.95 The $75,000 amount is issued to Representat

each year, in monthly installments, and is based on an or

ment with his business partner.96

66. The Board notes that Representative Deal’s ac

signed an October 26, 2009 letter stating that ‘‘due to an 

vestigation’’ and ‘‘based on various discussions,’’ the $75,

resentative Deal received from GSD was mistakenly rep

GSD income for the last three years. 

67. The Board also notes that as of December 16, 2009

form in the OCE’s possession had not been amended or c


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
97The Lieutenant Governor’s Office responded to the OCE that because the Lie

ernor is a member of the Georgia State Legislature, any meeting relating to h

branch duties would not be discussed due to restrictions under the Georgia Con

Georgia state law. Citations by Legislative Counsel to the Lieutenant Governor: 

stitution Art. 3 Section IV; OCGA 50–14–1; OCGA 50–18–70. 

and when interviewed, Representative Deal did not tell 

that he had filed an amended form. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

68. Representative Deal asserts that his interest in mee

Georgia officials on the topic of vehicle salvage and inspe

volved state safety and budget concerns. He argues that he 

tion as a public servant concerned with issues affecting th

In contrast, the Georgia Revenue Commissioner asserts 

sought to open up state vehicle inspections to privatiza

marketplace competition, thereby potentially decrea

amount of vehicles inspected by existing stations. 

69. The OCE does not take a position on Representati

motivations for inserting himself into discussions of potent

fications to a state vehicle inspection program. However, d

eration of the previous vehicle inspection system, Repre

Deal received a significant financial benefit as a GSD par

corporate officer. It is undisputed that as a ‘‘public serva

resentative Deal took active steps to preserve a purely s

gram, one that had generated financial benefit for Repre

Deal and his business partner. Further, while taking the

Representative Deal used resources of the House of Re

tives. 

70. The OCE reviews the facts as presented at the time 

and does not take a position on whether Representative D

come from GSD was mistakenly reported as earned inco

2006 on his federal income taxes. The evidence before the 

that Representative Deal characterized his income from 

wages on his tax return and, by contrast, as unearned ‘‘D

or unearned ‘‘Partnership Income’’ on his Financial D

Statements. This inconsistency, as of the end of the seco

review and Board vote, has not been resolved. 

71. The $75,000 reported as earned income on the tax r

ceeded the limit on outside earned income and prohibiti

ceiving any income while serving as a corporate officer. 

Representative Deal did not disclose that he was the 

porate secretary on his 2009 Financial Disclosure Statem

ering calendar year 2008). 

72. For all the reasons stated above, the OCE Board rec

further review by the Committee on Standards of Official 

V. INFORMATION THE OCE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAI

RECOMMNEDATIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUBP

73. The OCE requested an interview with the Georgia 

ant Governor and a former member of his staff. The Li

Governor’s Office would not cooperate with the OCE’s req

interviews 97 but did produce some information concer

Lieutenant Governor’s presence at meetings discussed ab

cerning vehicle inspections. Thus, the OCE recommends 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
pg

ant Governor. 

74. The OCE was unable to access any information, te

or otherwise, concerning the matter discussed by the Geo

enue Commissioner during his interview with the OCE. 

enue Commissioner stated that he would release inform

subpoenaed. Thus, the OCE recommends that the Comm

Standards of Official Conduct subpoena the Georgia Reven

missioner. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS