Source: https://www2.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/Legal%20Advisories?OpenView&RestrictToCategory=%3Cbr/%3E%3Cstrong%3E1994%3C/strong%3E%3Cbr/%3E%3Chr/%3E
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 02:55:05+00:00

Document:
The Legal Advisories page contains the DAEOgrams on substantive ethics issues published by OGE from 1992 to 2010, the Advisory Opinions published by OGE from 1979 to 2010, and the Legal Advisories, which OGE began publishing in 2011. On occasion, OGE will add notes to past guidance documents when that guidance is updated or superseded by law, regulation, or subsequent OGE guidance.
OGE reminds employees about the ethics rules regarding holiday gifts and celebrations.
The acceptance by an executive branch employee of a "favorable price" based upon a company's incentive program would violate the Standards of Ethical Conduct. Such a favorable price would fall within the definition of a "gift" under the Standards. An employee's eligibility is based upon the employee's official position and acceptance is prohibited.
OGE explains example 5 in the "Use of nonpublic information" section of the Standards of Ethical Conduct, at 5 C.F.R. § 2635.703. Additionally, OGE generally discusses the "teaching, speaking and writing" section of the Standards, at 5 C.F.R. § 2635.807.
SGEs who do not perform the duties of their position for more than 60 days in a calendar year do not file SF 278s. SGEs are not subject to a 60-day threshold service requirement for filing new entrant SF 450s. SGEs should file SF 450s at the time of their initial one-year appointment and upon any reappointment or redesignation.
OGE reminds agencies to provide the Director of OGE with follow-up reports of any indictment, information, or declination of prosecution as well as any disciplinary or corrective action initiated, taken, or to be taken by the agency.
OGE believes it to be expedient to advise employees that the Department of Justice has not issued a definitive ruling on whether the terms "employee" and "employment" as used in 18 U.S.C. § 208 include an independent contractor or consulting situation. Employees should be counseled to seek waivers with this fact in mind.
OGE reminds agencies of the requirement to notify it of referrals to the Attorney General of possible violations of federal conflict of interest statutes and recommends that they use the OGE Form 202 to do so.
OGE issues guidance about designating positions as those which must file a confidential financial disclosure report.
OGE discusses whether a Government employee may participate in an official capacity in a conference sponsored by a private entity.
OGE advises an agency on the application of 18 U.S.C. § 207(a)(2) to a former employee who had official responsibilities relating to the agency's insurance program. OGE discusses whether the restriction would apply to an individual that was processing insurance registration forms.
Follow-up to 94x10(1): The section 2635.502(a) analysis is not required simply because a person with whom the employee has a covered relationship has a financial interest in a matter. Only when a household member has a financial interest in a matter is the employee required by section 2635.502(a) to undertake the reasonable person analysis.
The one-year restriction on certain senior personnel applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 207(c)(1) may be waived by the Director of OGE in certain circumstances pursuant to the authority of 18 U.S.C. § 207(c)(2)(C). Neither the statute nor the implementing regulation provides any authority to grant a waiver to an individual personally.
OGE found that fees for legal or other services, like any other liability, are required to be reported unless they fall within one of the exceptions specifically enumerated in 5 U.S.C. app. § 102(a)(4).
OGE clarifies the reporting periods of public financial reports filed by incumbents.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari filed by the Department of Justice asking the Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in NTEU v. United States concerning the honoraria ban at 5 U.S.C. app. § 501(b).
Although an employee has a "covered relationship" with the employee's brother under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502, the employee is not required to obtain authorization before participating in a hearing because the brother is not a party and does not represent a party.
OGE recommends that agencies resolve questions about Federal employees' nonmonetary charity drives at the Federal workplace by referring to the provisions of 5 C.F.R. part 2635, particularly the provisions in subpart G, and the provisions of applicable GSA regulations.
The Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch state that all executive branch employees are responsible for satisfying in good faith their just financial obligations, especially those that are imposed by law. Agencies do not have the authority to act as collection agents on behalf of an employee's creditors.
Determining whether a representational activity is permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 205 requires deciding whether the activity is in the proper discharge of an employee's official duties. It must be determined on a case by case basis if the employee's representation in the proceeding is inconsistent with the faithful performance of the employee's duties.
OGE publishes final rule on February 2, 1994, which grandfathers for up to an additional year certain agency standards of conduct regulations in effect prior to February 3, 1993.
An agency's creating, publishing, and keeping current a list of Department prohibited sources under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.203(d)(5) would present a number of problems. An organization that is a prohibited source with respect to one of the separate components would not necessarily be a prohibited source with respect to another component.
OGE discusses whether a particular agency is considered an agency under the Standards of Ethical Conduct. The agency treated itself as an executive agency for purposes of application of the ethics laws and regulation. As a result, OGE concluded that the Standards apply to the agency's employees.
A Government employee seeking to represent a private party in a Federal court action must take great care to ensure that he or she does not violate 18 U.S.C. § 205 even where the United States is not a named party. Other statutes must also be considered, particularly those that restrict a Government employee from engaging in outside employment.
The Department of Justice determines that it will not seek to enforce the honoraria ban with respect to executive branch employees who receive honoraria between September 28, 1993, and the date on which the Supreme Court issues its decision in NTEU v. United States.
OGE discusses the general categories under which it has granted waivers of the fee for filing the public financial disclosure form late.
OGE discusses the reasoning behind having a supervisor review confidential financial reports. OGE explains that by doing so, agency ethics staff can help employees avoid conflicts of interest. Additionally, confidential information disclosed is strictly protected by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.
OGE reviews and comments on proposed procedures for handling complaints that administrative law judges at an agency have engaged in misconduct during the hearings and appeals process. OGE comments on supplementing provisions of the Standards of Ethical Conduct and how different conflict of interest laws apply to special Government employees.
OGE discusses the factors to be considered in order to determine whether a Government employee can participate as a speaker in a conference conducted by a non-Governmental entity. OGE also discusses the parameters outlined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.807(b) for use of Government title in nonofficial speaking engagements.

References: § 2635
 § 2635
 § 208
 § 207
 § 207
 § 207
 § 102
 v. 
 § 501
 § 2635
 § 205
 § 2635
 § 205
 v. 
 § 2635