RESEARCH, EDUCATION ECONOMICS ETHICS OFFICE

1. RESEARCH, EDUCATION & ECONOMICS ETHICS OFFICE ARS, Midwest Area Leadership Meeting �Accountability in Ethics at ARS� Dwaine Grove, REE Ethics Advisor dgrove@ars.usda.gov 301-504-1472 http://www.afm.ars.usda.gov/hrd/ethics Before I get started with the presentation, I would like to say a few words about the Ethics business card CD that I�ve handed out. It is our hope at the REE Ethics Office that the Ethics Business card CD will serve as a supplement to our website to help research leaders manage supervisory ethics functions and complete annual ethics requirements such as financial disclosure. Thus, you will see from our table of contents that we have included all of our ethics forms on the disc, including financial disclosure forms, conflict of interest certifications, outside employment forms, and so forth and so on. The most compelling thing about the Business card CD however, is the ability to provide you with full text ethics references on a medium that fits in your shirt pocket. The CD contains full text references of - The Compilation of Federal Ethics Laws, The Standards of Ethical Conduct, The REE Ethics Desk Reference, and the Encyclopedia of Ethical failure, put together by the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense has worked hard to put together this encyclopedia because they believe that only on pain of punishment do employees adhere to ethics regulations. In any case, many have found great humor in this encyclopedia despite the serious message that underlies this text. Several stories of impropriety are listed therein and the resulting penalty. Not to be outdone by the department of defense. I highly recommend the full text version of the REE Ethics Desk Reference; this is a plain language approach to ethics that focuses specifically on REE Ethics issues. Finally, I recommend that you take a look at two ethics issuances on this CD; ethics issuances that serve as the basis for many of the comments I will make today � the first being the Adjunct Professor Issuance, the second is the Ethics Issuance concerning Participation in non-Federal Organizations � I recommend these to you not to torture you, but to provide you with working policies that are directly applicable to your life as a Federal scientists. They are not new policies; they simply organize and summarize existing laws and regulations that have something to say about these activities. Of course, I don�t recommend that you read these without at least a bottle of wine or some pain killers within arms reach. I guess that would make these �at home� reading suggestions. Before I get started with the presentation, I would like to say a few words about the Ethics business card CD that I�ve handed out. It is our hope at the REE Ethics Office that the Ethics Business card CD will serve as a supplement to our website to help research leaders manage supervisory ethics functions and complete annual ethics requirements such as financial disclosure. Thus, you will see from our table of contents that we have included all of our ethics forms on the disc, including financial disclosure forms, conflict of interest certifications, outside employment forms, and so forth and so on. The most compelling thing about the Business card CD however, is the ability to provide you with full text ethics references on a medium that fits in your shirt pocket. The CD contains full text references of - The Compilation of Federal Ethics Laws, The Standards of Ethical Conduct, The REE Ethics Desk Reference, and the Encyclopedia of Ethical failure, put together by the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense has worked hard to put together this encyclopedia because they believe that only on pain of punishment do employees adhere to ethics regulations. In any case, many have found great humor in this encyclopedia despite the serious message that underlies this text. Several stories of impropriety are listed therein and the resulting penalty. Not to be outdone by the department of defense. I highly recommend the full text version of the REE Ethics Desk Reference; this is a plain language approach to ethics that focuses specifically on REE Ethics issues. Finally, I recommend that you take a look at two ethics issuances on this CD; ethics issuances that serve as the basis for many of the comments I will make today � the first being the Adjunct Professor Issuance, the second is the Ethics Issuance concerning Participation in non-Federal Organizations � I recommend these to you not to torture you, but to provide you with working policies that are directly applicable to your life as a Federal scientists. They are not new policies; they simply organize and summarize existing laws and regulations that have something to say about these activities. Of course, I don�t recommend that you read these without at least a bottle of wine or some pain killers within arms reach. I guess that would make these �at home� reading suggestions.

2. PRESENTATION GOALS Stretch Out Canvas & Start With a Deeper Hue Foundation & central ideas of Government Ethics Paint a Picture Significant Ethics issues at ARS Define Lines & Apply Proper Shading Discuss the permissibility of activities in your domain Open the Gallery Questions, comments & discussion With the administrative details out of the way, let me begin by setting forth some presentation goals. Call it an agreement if you will; something that you can hold me to. Obviously, this is not new SY training folks. Looking around today, I see an audience filled with distinguished scientists, extraordinary Federal bureaucrats, and experienced veterans of the Agricultural Research Service moreover. As such, I think it�s necessary that we allow ourselves to reflect on the aim and purpose of Federal Ethics Laws and Regulations in hopes of having an informed conversation about what these laws and regulations mean to us as an Agency. So, forgive me for the ambitious analogy, because I am anything but artistic, but if this presentation were a work of Art, I would stretch out that canvass and start with a deeper or bolder hue. Specifically, I will lay out the Foundation of Government Ethics and the Central Ideas within these bodies of law. Next, I�m going to paint you a picture�something of significance I hope. I will attempt to do so by presenting the most important ethics issues facing Federal scientists, and include therein a story about our current state of affairs, and what I think it requires of you. Once the picture is painted, I will define where possible those lines that are clear, and apply proper shading to those that are not. I�m sure that those of you familiar with the appearance principle know by now that some areas of the Ethics regulations are gray at best (the appearance principle maintains that one should endeavor to avoid even an appearance of violation of federal ethics law and regulation). Finally, I will open up the gallery for comments, questions, and discussion. I encourage you to share your thoughts then. However, since I will be here through Friday, presumably the gallery will be open until I leave the hotel. With the administrative details out of the way, let me begin by setting forth some presentation goals. Call it an agreement if you will; something that you can hold me to. Obviously, this is not new SY training folks. Looking around today, I see an audience filled with distinguished scientists, extraordinary Federal bureaucrats, and experienced veterans of the Agricultural Research Service moreover. As such, I think it�s necessary that we allow ourselves to reflect on the aim and purpose of Federal Ethics Laws and Regulations in hopes of having an informed conversation about what these laws and regulations mean to us as an Agency. So, forgive me for the ambitious analogy, because I am anything but artistic, but if this presentation were a work of Art, I would stretch out that canvass and start with a deeper or bolder hue. Specifically, I will lay out the Foundation of Government Ethics and the Central Ideas within these bodies of law. Next, I�m going to paint you a picture�something of significance I hope. I will attempt to do so by presenting the most important ethics issues facing Federal scientists, and include therein a story about our current state of affairs, and what I think it requires of you. Once the picture is painted, I will define where possible those lines that are clear, and apply proper shading to those that are not. I�m sure that those of you familiar with the appearance principle know by now that some areas of the Ethics regulations are gray at best (the appearance principle maintains that one should endeavor to avoid even an appearance of violation of federal ethics law and regulation). Finally, I will open up the gallery for comments, questions, and discussion. I encourage you to share your thoughts then. However, since I will be here through Friday, presumably the gallery will be open until I leave the hotel.

3. FOUNDATION OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS �Legal authority� Title 18 U.S.C. 201-209 Eclectic and archaic body of law Standards of Ethical Conduct �Public service is a public trust� - regulations detail what this requires Agency Supplemental Regulations Mission specific Accountability in Ethics is really quite simple, on the face of it. There exists an archaic and eclectic body of law that applies to all Federal Employees, which serves as the backbone to Government Ethics: Title 18 U.S.C. 201 � 209. And, I do in fact mean what I say here about archaic and eclectic. For example, the evolution of the bribery statute, Title 18 U.S.C. 201, dates back to a case in the late 1780�s involving a U.S. Treasury solicitation. As for the restrictions on representation, Title 18 U.S.C. 203 & 205, they have case law that dates back to the middle 1800�s when congressional lawyers attempted to use information that they were privy to because of their public positions to then represent those parties that volunteered the information back before the Federal Government in a personal capacity. Now, when you read these provisions, in their current form, you can�t help but think �anyone attempting to construct these criminal provisions in a single instance could have done a much better job.� In any case, I am now standing here telling you that there is a criminal code that apples to you that is scandal driven, poorly conceived, and hastily fashioned, most of which deal redundantly with problems relating to a government reality that no longer exists. Ok. So why am I making a scene about this. Let�s go back to the department of defense idea. One story to tell is that on pain of punishment lawyers fashioned a smorgasbord of ethics laws aimed to cover the backsides of congressional leaders, and it�s been dumped on everyone else in government. Another story to tell, might be that these laws represent an essential aspect of governance that establishes credibility and accountability with American taxpayers � establishing a level of honesty and integrity that some countries would only dream of having. Perspective is important here of course. Fast forward to 1978, and then 1989 - enter the Office of Justifying their existence, otherwise known as �The Office of Government Ethics.� This independent regulatory Agency was established via executive order of the President to codify a uniform set of regulations that would flesh out the spirit of existing Ethics law into the everyday activities of employees of the executive branch. The foundation of these regulations are the 14 general principles, the most important of which is concept that public service is a public trust, therefore employees must not use their public office for their own personal financial gain. Then you have the specific subparts themselves: detailed rules on gifts from outside sources, seeking employment, post employment, outside activities, teaching, speaking, and writing, etc. Since the central principle of this doctrine is that public service is a public trust, I like to think of these standards as setting out what that trust requires. Finally, there are Agency supplemental regulations, which to this date ARS as not implemented individually. Thus far, the USDA as a department has requirements to seek approval for outside activities, but nothing of great consequence. NIH of course took advantage of this opportunity when they restricted all employees outside activities and financial interests regardless of Federal ethics law and regulation � to hold employees to a higher standard in light of crises. I will talk more about that later. Accountability in Ethics is really quite simple, on the face of it. There exists an archaic and eclectic body of law that applies to all Federal Employees, which serves as the backbone to Government Ethics: Title 18 U.S.C. 201 � 209. And, I do in fact mean what I say here about archaic and eclectic. For example, the evolution of the bribery statute, Title 18 U.S.C. 201, dates back to a case in the late 1780�s involving a U.S. Treasury solicitation. As for the restrictions on representation, Title 18 U.S.C. 203 & 205, they have case law that dates back to the middle 1800�s when congressional lawyers attempted to use information that they were privy to because of their public positions to then represent those parties that volunteered the information back before the Federal Government in a personal capacity. Now, when you read these provisions, in their current form, you can�t help but think �anyone attempting to construct these criminal provisions in a single instance could have done a much better job.� In any case, I am now standing here telling you that there is a criminal code that apples to you that is scandal driven, poorly conceived, and hastily fashioned, most of which deal redundantly with problems relating to a government reality that no longer exists. Ok. So why am I making a scene about this. Let�s go back to the department of defense idea. One story to tell is that on pain of punishment lawyers fashioned a smorgasbord of ethics laws aimed to cover the backsides of congressional leaders, and it�s been dumped on everyone else in government. Another story to tell, might be that these laws represent an essential aspect of governance that establishes credibility and accountability with American taxpayers � establishing a level of honesty and integrity that some countries would only dream of having. Perspective is important here of course. Fast forward to 1978, and then 1989 - enter the Office of Justifying their existence, otherwise known as �The Office of Government Ethics.� This independent regulatory Agency was established via executive order of the President to codify a uniform set of regulations that would flesh out the spirit of existing Ethics law into the everyday activities of employees of the executive branch. The foundation of these regulations are the 14 general principles, the most important of which is concept that public service is a public trust, therefore employees must not use their public office for their own personal financial gain. Then you have the specific subparts themselves: detailed rules on gifts from outside sources, seeking employment, post employment, outside activities, teaching, speaking, and writing, etc. Since the central principle of this doctrine is that public service is a public trust, I like to think of these standards as setting out what that trust requires. Finally, there are Agency supplemental regulations, which to this date ARS as not implemented individually. Thus far, the USDA as a department has requirements to seek approval for outside activities, but nothing of great consequence. NIH of course took advantage of this opportunity when they restricted all employees outside activities and financial interests regardless of Federal ethics law and regulation � to hold employees to a higher standard in light of crises. I will talk more about that later.

4. FOUNDATION OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS �Central ideas� Discourage Misuse of Public Office For Personal Financial Gain Restrict non-Federal Organizations Capacity to Curry Favor Delineate a Boundary Between Public and Private Responsibilities We can discuss the Legal Authority in Ethics as the backbone of any ethics program, but to what end do these laws and regulations aim? I�ve chosen three key ideas for you to consider that are embedded in the ethics laws and regulations. For one, the ethics laws are set up to discourage misuse of public office for personal financial gain. A bona fide conflict of interest is covered by this principle: the idea that you can take an official action that has a direct and predictable effect on your own personal financial interests. This of course, is not what federal employment is about�the taxpayers do not pay to facilitate are personal financial interests. Two, the laws and regulations restrict non-Federal organizations ability to curry favor. And, as such, they ensure that non-Federal organizations cannot conduct business with government officials as they do in the private sector. Thus, even though the $20/$50 limit seems arbitrary, it goes along way to preventing a general acceptance of gift exchanges. Now, I could have written this two ways, since the gift regulations also restrict the ability of employees to solicit gifts, etc. Three, the ethics laws and regulations require that we delineate a boundary between public and private responsibilities. In this principle, we are undoubtedly dabbling in political philosophy. In our world, the distinction is made real through our University partnerships and participation professional and scientific societies, but also in our consulting with private firms. For example, we have specific authority to transfer technology to the private sector, but we do not and may not designate appropriated funds to market or endorse those particular products. We can discuss the Legal Authority in Ethics as the backbone of any ethics program, but to what end do these laws and regulations aim? I�ve chosen three key ideas for you to consider that are embedded in the ethics laws and regulations. For one, the ethics laws are set up to discourage misuse of public office for personal financial gain. A bona fide conflict of interest is covered by this principle: the idea that you can take an official action that has a direct and predictable effect on your own personal financial interests. This of course, is not what federal employment is about�the taxpayers do not pay to facilitate are personal financial interests. Two, the laws and regulations restrict non-Federal organizations ability to curry favor. And, as such, they ensure that non-Federal organizations cannot conduct business with government officials as they do in the private sector. Thus, even though the $20/$50 limit seems arbitrary, it goes along way to preventing a general acceptance of gift exchanges. Now, I could have written this two ways, since the gift regulations also restrict the ability of employees to solicit gifts, etc. Three, the ethics laws and regulations require that we delineate a boundary between public and private responsibilities. In this principle, we are undoubtedly dabbling in political philosophy. In our world, the distinction is made real through our University partnerships and participation professional and scientific societies, but also in our consulting with private firms. For example, we have specific authority to transfer technology to the private sector, but we do not and may not designate appropriated funds to market or endorse those particular products.

5. THE MISSION OF ARS �To develop and transfer solutions to agricultural problems in the public�s interest.� Core Mission Related Activities Research Publication (writing, editing, & presenting) Technology transfer What Else? Participation in professional & scientific societies Service on scientific/technical committees Travel under 31 U.S.C. 1353 Guest lectures Now that I�ve laid out the foundation of government ethics, and the central ideas, what do they have to say about how we do business at ARS? How do we do business at ARS? Generally speaking, we develop and transfer solutions to Agricultural problems that are in the public�s interest. The Midwest Area of ARS of course, has it�s specific interests and accomplishments. But what exactly is it that we do, or let me put it a different way � �what can we justify the use of appropriated funds for?� Here are some of our core mission related activities. Clearly research. And, as part of research endeavors, we publish that information, write about it, edit articles in our specific fields of interest and present research and information at symposia and scientific/industry meetings. We also designate funds to facilitate technology transfer � to bring products to bear on market interests to facilitate consumers in America and around the world. Thus we designate ADODR�s on projects with Universities, we present research findings at widely attended gatherings, and engage in CRADA�s with private companies. But what else can we do with appropriated funds? What might we justify as an extension of official duties that is mission related? I bring this up because so often research SY�s contact the ethics office to discuss an activity with a non-Federal organization for compensation that involves the exact same material or expertise that one performs officially. And thus begins the conversation about what extent public service is a benefit or sacrifice. The Agency, and it�s management has broad discretion as to what may be assigned as an extension of official duties. Thus, we openly allow our employees to attend professional and scientific societies on the Federal dime to facilitate professional development, and we allow official time and resources for peer review of journal articles, etc. We also allow employees to serve on scientific/technical review committees, etc. - all the way up to serving as Agency liaison�s to boards of directors. We also send employees on travel under 31 U.S.C. 1353 to perform services that we might not otherwise be able to afford with our own budgets. Finally, we allow scientists to provide guest lectures about their research at graduate seminars at Universities. Now that I�ve laid out the foundation of government ethics, and the central ideas, what do they have to say about how we do business at ARS? How do we do business at ARS? Generally speaking, we develop and transfer solutions to Agricultural problems that are in the public�s interest. The Midwest Area of ARS of course, has it�s specific interests and accomplishments. But what exactly is it that we do, or let me put it a different way � �what can we justify the use of appropriated funds for?� Here are some of our core mission related activities. Clearly research. And, as part of research endeavors, we publish that information, write about it, edit articles in our specific fields of interest and present research and information at symposia and scientific/industry meetings. We also designate funds to facilitate technology transfer � to bring products to bear on market interests to facilitate consumers in America and around the world. Thus we designate ADODR�s on projects with Universities, we present research findings at widely attended gatherings, and engage in CRADA�s with private companies. But what else can we do with appropriated funds? What might we justify as an extension of official duties that is mission related? I bring this up because so often research SY�s contact the ethics office to discuss an activity with a non-Federal organization for compensation that involves the exact same material or expertise that one performs officially. And thus begins the conversation about what extent public service is a benefit or sacrifice. The Agency, and it�s management has broad discretion as to what may be assigned as an extension of official duties. Thus, we openly allow our employees to attend professional and scientific societies on the Federal dime to facilitate professional development, and we allow official time and resources for peer review of journal articles, etc. We also allow employees to serve on scientific/technical review committees, etc. - all the way up to serving as Agency liaison�s to boards of directors. We also send employees on travel under 31 U.S.C. 1353 to perform services that we might not otherwise be able to afford with our own budgets. Finally, we allow scientists to provide guest lectures about their research at graduate seminars at Universities.

6. GOVERNMENT ETHICS AT ARS �Applying central ideas - generally� Misuse of Public Office For Personal Financial Gain Tech transfer must foster public trust in Agency REE 102 process is a means to that end Restrict non-Federal org�s capacity to curry favor University dealings must be treated with integrity All gift rules apply since they are prohibited sources Delineate a Boundary Between Public and Private Roles in professional associations must be transparent Is participation official or personal? After a remedial reminder about things that we do, let�s go back and start applying those central ideas � generally. How do the central ideas play out for key functions? Clearly technology transfer, a high stakes atmosphere, the end game of which is products for industry/consumers, cannot be tainted by conflicts of interests. The REE-102 is a means to that end. OTT and the ethics office now have employees fill out the REE-102 conflict of interest certification prior to the start of any CRADA. This certification deals with one specific company, and all the possible conflicts that might exists � a more substantial review process than the OGE-450 form. This way the integrity of our collaborators is not questioned. We also must ensure that University partnerships are not avenues for non-Federal influence via gifts and benefits. It can�t seem as though our Federal scientists are in the pockets of Universities facilitating University responsibilities on the Federal dime. More on that later. Finally, with respect to proper boundaries between public and private entities, we must be upfront about the nature of our relationships and responsibilities in professional associations. Are you participating personally or officially? The Federal liaison document is an example of what the Ethics Office can provide to facilitate a transparent boundary. Federal liaison�s provide the outside organization a document upfront that will prevent pressure to engage in fiduciary matters. It protects the employee from violation, and the Agency form unwarranted liability risks.After a remedial reminder about things that we do, let�s go back and start applying those central ideas � generally. How do the central ideas play out for key functions? Clearly technology transfer, a high stakes atmosphere, the end game of which is products for industry/consumers, cannot be tainted by conflicts of interests. The REE-102 is a means to that end. OTT and the ethics office now have employees fill out the REE-102 conflict of interest certification prior to the start of any CRADA. This certification deals with one specific company, and all the possible conflicts that might exists � a more substantial review process than the OGE-450 form. This way the integrity of our collaborators is not questioned. We also must ensure that University partnerships are not avenues for non-Federal influence via gifts and benefits. It can�t seem as though our Federal scientists are in the pockets of Universities facilitating University responsibilities on the Federal dime. More on that later. Finally, with respect to proper boundaries between public and private entities, we must be upfront about the nature of our relationships and responsibilities in professional associations. Are you participating personally or officially? The Federal liaison document is an example of what the Ethics Office can provide to facilitate a transparent boundary. Federal liaison�s provide the outside organization a document upfront that will prevent pressure to engage in fiduciary matters. It protects the employee from violation, and the Agency form unwarranted liability risks.

7. CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS �The optics have changed� Congressional leaders and the Ethics community have placed Federal scientists under the microscope Both outside activities and official activities with industry related non-Federal organizations are tightly scrutinized Administrative burdens require scientific experts to assist in conflict of interest analysis Why so much focus on Universities, Tech Transfer, and participation in non-Federal organizations? Well folks, if you�ve followed the story of NIH over the past year, you know that the optics have changed. Congressional leaders and the government ethics community have placed Federal scientists under the microscope. There are a variety of reasons for that, the most obvious of which is that your research has the ability to affect the financial interest of non-Federal organizations. And, the idea that an NIH researcher is making a half a million dollars for consulting about activities that are related to official duties is egregious to the general public, and it�s absurd that these interests were never formally disclosed to the NIH ethics office. Consequently, not only are the outside activities of employees getting the royal treatment, all activities with non-Federal organizations are also being treated. Let me clarify � on the personal side of things, the worry is that you could take an official action on behalf of a non-Federal organization that could have a direct and predictable effect on your personal financial interests. On the flip side, if you are engaging a non-Federal organization on official time, there is a concern that official dollars could be spent on activities that facilitate a non-Federal organization, even without personal financial interest, via marketing, endorsement, etc. In order to respond to these criticisms, it is an inevitable consequence that burdens are filtered down to scientific experts and leaders, since the individuals that best understand the work that is being done, will best understand aspects of impropriety.Why so much focus on Universities, Tech Transfer, and participation in non-Federal organizations? Well folks, if you�ve followed the story of NIH over the past year, you know that the optics have changed. Congressional leaders and the government ethics community have placed Federal scientists under the microscope. There are a variety of reasons for that, the most obvious of which is that your research has the ability to affect the financial interest of non-Federal organizations. And, the idea that an NIH researcher is making a half a million dollars for consulting about activities that are related to official duties is egregious to the general public, and it�s absurd that these interests were never formally disclosed to the NIH ethics office. Consequently, not only are the outside activities of employees getting the royal treatment, all activities with non-Federal organizations are also being treated. Let me clarify � on the personal side of things, the worry is that you could take an official action on behalf of a non-Federal organization that could have a direct and predictable effect on your personal financial interests. On the flip side, if you are engaging a non-Federal organization on official time, there is a concern that official dollars could be spent on activities that facilitate a non-Federal organization, even without personal financial interest, via marketing, endorsement, etc. In order to respond to these criticisms, it is an inevitable consequence that burdens are filtered down to scientific experts and leaders, since the individuals that best understand the work that is being done, will best understand aspects of impropriety.

8. GOVERNMENT ETHICS AT ARS What do the New �Optics� Mean for Agency Leaders? You lead strategic business interactions You mentor new SY�s You approve/deny all activities with industry related non-Federal organizations Consequently, you must know what constitutes official vs. personal involvement with non-Federal organizations; know how to justify it, and defend it Ethics Officials? Provide clear guidance on the permissibility of activities Offer efficient solutions to bureaucratic hurdles But what do the new optics really mean for you? Well, as a research leader, you are at the forefront of strategic business interactions. Appointments as ADODR put you on the hook for federal ethics laws and regulations, since being an ADODR constitutes personal participation in matters affecting an outside entities financial interests. You also mentor new SY�s, many of whom come from University or private sector, with different goals and freedoms. Most importantly, you actually approve activities with non-Federal organizations � actually send people to conduct activities officially and personally. Therefore, you need to be able to clearly recognize what activities can be done in an official capacity, and what activities must be performed personally because of fiduciary involvement. Changed optics for ethics officials mean that we need to provide clear guidance on permissible activities; and offer efficient bureaucratic solutions to administrative hurdles - The REE-102 is an example of that. But what do the new optics really mean for you? Well, as a research leader, you are at the forefront of strategic business interactions. Appointments as ADODR put you on the hook for federal ethics laws and regulations, since being an ADODR constitutes personal participation in matters affecting an outside entities financial interests. You also mentor new SY�s, many of whom come from University or private sector, with different goals and freedoms. Most importantly, you actually approve activities with non-Federal organizations � actually send people to conduct activities officially and personally. Therefore, you need to be able to clearly recognize what activities can be done in an official capacity, and what activities must be performed personally because of fiduciary involvement. Changed optics for ethics officials mean that we need to provide clear guidance on permissible activities; and offer efficient bureaucratic solutions to administrative hurdles - The REE-102 is an example of that.

9. ETHICS ISSUES IN YOUR DOMAIN Acceptance of awards/travel from non-Federal sources Adjunct professorship Gifts from outside sources Impartiality in the performance of official duties Lobbying in an official capacity Misuse of position Outside activities Participation in non-Federal organizations Teaching, speaking & writing Technology transfer Seeking employment & post employment Let�s now look at the specific issues in your domain as Federal scientists. I will discuss Adjunct professor issues and participation in non-Fed organizations more specifically. There is a conflict of interest analysis that goes into acceptance of awards and travel from non-Federal sources. With respect to awards; employees must show�t that the awards is from a legitimate source, with a substantive review process�it can�t just be a gi I�ve already mentioned travel under 31 U.S.C. 1353. As well as Gifts from outside sources; this is an issue when University partners offer up bowl game tickets, etc. Impartiality in the performance of official duties is important with respect to �official consulting� � we don�t want anyone to be able to question which organizations have our favor. Misuse of Position can come into play when you request something of an outside organization Outside Activities Participation in non-Federal Organizations Teaching, Speaking, and Writing � These regulations, section 807 of the Standards, detail best to what extent public service is a sacrifice for you. That is because to receive compensation for an outside teaching, speaking, writing, or consulting gig you have to show that the activity is �related� to your official duties. The problem is that the ethics regulations cash out �related� in the following way: Was the activity extended to you based on your official duties or position? Was the activity extended to you by someone who could be impacted by the performance or non-performance of your official duties? Does the activity involve the use of non-public information? Does the activity deal with any ongoing announced policy, program, or operation of the Agency? These are important criteria that I suggest you look at very carefully if you think you have a $$$ consulting gig. Tech transfer is of course mixed in here with impartiality in the performance of official duties. Seeking employment & post employment is also something that comes up, since often private corporations or collaborators want to bring you on board for you scientific expertise. Let�s now look at the specific issues in your domain as Federal scientists. I will discuss Adjunct professor issues and participation in non-Fed organizations more specifically. There is a conflict of interest analysis that goes into acceptance of awards and travel from non-Federal sources. With respect to awards; employees must show�t that the awards is from a legitimate source, with a substantive review process�it can�t just be a gi I�ve already mentioned travel under 31 U.S.C. 1353. As well as Gifts from outside sources; this is an issue when University partners offer up bowl game tickets, etc. Impartiality in the performance of official duties is important with respect to �official consulting� � we don�t want anyone to be able to question which organizations have our favor. Misuse of Position can come into play when you request something of an outside organization Outside Activities Participation in non-Federal Organizations Teaching, Speaking, and Writing � These regulations, section 807 of the Standards, detail best to what extent public service is a sacrifice for you. That is because to receive compensation for an outside teaching, speaking, writing, or consulting gig you have to show that the activity is �related� to your official duties. The problem is that the ethics regulations cash out �related� in the following way: Was the activity extended to you based on your official duties or position? Was the activity extended to you by someone who could be impacted by the performance or non-performance of your official duties? Does the activity involve the use of non-public information? Does the activity deal with any ongoing announced policy, program, or operation of the Agency? These are important criteria that I suggest you look at very carefully if you think you have a $$$ consulting gig. Tech transfer is of course mixed in here with impartiality in the performance of official duties. Seeking employment & post employment is also something that comes up, since often private corporations or collaborators want to bring you on board for you scientific expertise.

10. UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS Observed Condition Serve as University department�s student advisor Make tenure recommendations/serve on tenure committee Teach a course at the University Accept free tuition assistance for self & family Diagnosis: �Identity Crisis� Federal Employee/University Professor Let us now turn our attention to University partnerships. Even though this is an old topic, at least where the adjunct professor issuance is concerned. These relationships still need to be nurtured, because they are extremely important, and we have to make sure that that our interaction is legitimate. We also have room to explore new options. We cannot break the law, but the scientific roundtable has been set up to explore bureaucratic solutions to special problems. Let me start by sharing some of the actions we observe, or, questions that come to the ethics office. Some employees have asked to serve as a department�s student advisor in some form or another; this is quite common. Others have asked whether they can teach as professors at the University. Some have framed it that they are being pressured to teach at the University, at meetings, etc. Other employees have sought advice on whether making a tenure recommendation is appropriate � even more important, they have been asked to serve and vote on tenure committees. Finally, some employees have asked whether they can accept free tuition assistance for themselves or their family members by nature of their Adjunct status. Diagnosis: Identity Crises � Our employees are getting pulled in two directions; allegiance is being tested, and they are the first one�s to hear complaints from the University about restrictions on interactions. Because I�m sure the University would be please if we helped them run their departments, or would they? And what�s standing in the way, ethics regulations? Yes. But what about what this Agency wants. I ask you to consider this as you think abou these issues. The experience is much like that of procurement officials and contractors in the workplace. At least with respect to gift acceptance, social interaction, etc., but the difference between University partners and most contractors is that the University partners want more out of us. Let us now turn our attention to University partnerships. Even though this is an old topic, at least where the adjunct professor issuance is concerned. These relationships still need to be nurtured, because they are extremely important, and we have to make sure that that our interaction is legitimate. We also have room to explore new options. We cannot break the law, but the scientific roundtable has been set up to explore bureaucratic solutions to special problems. Let me start by sharing some of the actions we observe, or, questions that come to the ethics office. Some employees have asked to serve as a department�s student advisor in some form or another; this is quite common. Others have asked whether they can teach as professors at the University. Some have framed it that they are being pressured to teach at the University, at meetings, etc. Other employees have sought advice on whether making a tenure recommendation is appropriate � even more important, they have been asked to serve and vote on tenure committees. Finally, some employees have asked whether they can accept free tuition assistance for themselves or their family members by nature of their Adjunct status. Diagnosis: Identity Crises � Our employees are getting pulled in two directions; allegiance is being tested, and they are the first one�s to hear complaints from the University about restrictions on interactions. Because I�m sure the University would be please if we helped them run their departments, or would they? And what�s standing in the way, ethics regulations? Yes. But what about what this Agency wants. I ask you to consider this as you think abou these issues. The experience is much like that of procurement officials and contractors in the workplace. At least with respect to gift acceptance, social interaction, etc., but the difference between University partners and most contractors is that the University partners want more out of us.

11. UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS Recommendation Revisit the purpose of co-location Entertain an external perspective Treatment Officially, employees cannot engage in University admin. Recommend service as co-advisor on committee Allow letters of reference for tenure without endorsement Allow guest lectures officially Bona fide professorship, if no official dealings, permitted So, what do we recommend for employees facing this situation. First, revisit the reason and purpose of co-location. We are involved in collaborative research primarily, to meet mission goals. It is presumed that everything you do at the University is on behalf of the Agency. Second, entertain an external perspective. What might University competitors think of your activities, or what might the general public think of your activity. How do we treat these issues form the previous slide? We start with the general premise that employees cannot engage in fiduciary or administrative matters solely internal to the University. How did we get there? Well it�s because you�ve been placed there officially. Now the problem is determining which activities are administrative versus activities that are merely technical and facilitate the development of our employees. With respect to serving as student advisors or on graduate student dissertation committees, we allow employees to serve as technical members of the committee but not as the committee chair, and we allow you to discuss courses with students, but not hold office hours to advise students on course curriculum, ect. As for tenure committees, we cannot allow employees to engage in the employment processes of the University. Therefore, serving on tenure selection committees is out of the questions. Letters, as long as they do not endorse the candidate, but rather speak to the individuals ability can be written. Now for teaching, many of you probably already have conducted guest lectures officially. Not a problem here since there is no employment relationship established. I anticipate questions on this, so while there is still plenty of time let me move on to participation in non-Federal organizations more generally. But, only in rare cases can teaching be approved in a personal capacity for employees that are co-located. The reason that if you act as a legitimate professor, and are subject to the dean and state law, you have established a professional relationship that imputes the financial interests of the university to you and therefore you cannot take an official action that can have a direct and predictable effect on your personal financial interests. Now, if you want to teach a general course unrelated to official duties at a community college where you have no official dealings that so be it. So, what do we recommend for employees facing this situation. First, revisit the reason and purpose of co-location. We are involved in collaborative research primarily, to meet mission goals. It is presumed that everything you do at the University is on behalf of the Agency. Second, entertain an external perspective. What might University competitors think of your activities, or what might the general public think of your activity. How do we treat these issues form the previous slide? We start with the general premise that employees cannot engage in fiduciary or administrative matters solely internal to the University. How did we get there? Well it�s because you�ve been placed there officially. Now the problem is determining which activities are administrative versus activities that are merely technical and facilitate the development of our employees. With respect to serving as student advisors or on graduate student dissertation committees, we allow employees to serve as technical members of the committee but not as the committee chair, and we allow you to discuss courses with students, but not hold office hours to advise students on course curriculum, ect. As for tenure committees, we cannot allow employees to engage in the employment processes of the University. Therefore, serving on tenure selection committees is out of the questions. Letters, as long as they do not endorse the candidate, but rather speak to the individuals ability can be written. Now for teaching, many of you probably already have conducted guest lectures officially. Not a problem here since there is no employment relationship established. I anticipate questions on this, so while there is still plenty of time let me move on to participation in non-Federal organizations more generally. But, only in rare cases can teaching be approved in a personal capacity for employees that are co-located. The reason that if you act as a legitimate professor, and are subject to the dean and state law, you have established a professional relationship that imputes the financial interests of the university to you and therefore you cannot take an official action that can have a direct and predictable effect on your personal financial interests. Now, if you want to teach a general course unrelated to official duties at a community college where you have no official dealings that so be it.

12. PARTICIPATION WITH NON-FEDERAL ORGANIZATIONS Observed Condition Service as an officer in an official capacity Journals supplement ARS budget for Editor in Chief Exclusive presentations of technology to private corps Diagnosis: Crawling through cobwebs in tight crawl spaces Now, University partnerships counts under this heading as well, but here I have in mind primarily industry groups, private corporations, professional associations and scientific socieities. Here are some of the more interesting or problematic questions that come up. First, individuals still what to serve as officers in an official capacity. And prior to 1995 this wasn�t really an issue. It was the Department of Justice that cracked down on this and formulated the language for interpreting these issues. Second item, some employees have become editors in chief for journals � but not knowing whether they should do the activity personally or officially or accept compensation or not, decided to take the money offered by the journal and supplement there budget, or at least tried to supplement their budget. Third item, individuals have been invited to deal with corporations exclusively. One example, starbucks wanted one of our flavor quality experts in peanuts to give a presentation to food scientists there. The Diagnosis here folks � is crawling through cobwebs in tight crawl spaces. Because without proper guidance, there is little room for error. And, some of these ethics rules really are like cobwebs; you simply navigate your way around focusing on your science, and just like the hallway, you run smack dab into a cobweb, and now you�re in a sticky situation. Situations though that can normally be diffused.Now, University partnerships counts under this heading as well, but here I have in mind primarily industry groups, private corporations, professional associations and scientific socieities. Here are some of the more interesting or problematic questions that come up. First, individuals still what to serve as officers in an official capacity. And prior to 1995 this wasn�t really an issue. It was the Department of Justice that cracked down on this and formulated the language for interpreting these issues. Second item, some employees have become editors in chief for journals � but not knowing whether they should do the activity personally or officially or accept compensation or not, decided to take the money offered by the journal and supplement there budget, or at least tried to supplement their budget. Third item, individuals have been invited to deal with corporations exclusively. One example, starbucks wanted one of our flavor quality experts in peanuts to give a presentation to food scientists there. The Diagnosis here folks � is crawling through cobwebs in tight crawl spaces. Because without proper guidance, there is little room for error. And, some of these ethics rules really are like cobwebs; you simply navigate your way around focusing on your science, and just like the hallway, you run smack dab into a cobweb, and now you�re in a sticky situation. Situations though that can normally be diffused.

13. PARTICIPATION IN NON-FEDERAL ORGANIZATIONS Recommendation Evaluate what you need/want out of society membership Distinguish technical from fiduciary/administrative involvement Treatment Agency allows a broad spectrum of official involvement �Switching sides� from official to personal is not an ethics problem Use standard presentations to avoid impartiality concerns Here�s a couple of general things we recommend. Evaluate what you really need or what out of society membership. Are you just attending conferences to present research or listen to papers and presentations in your field, or are you an active member on committees and interested in working on behalf of the organization in a more substantial role, such as officer, etc. Then, once you�ve done that, distinguish those roles in the society that are purely technical versus those that have fiduciary responsibilities. And distinguish what the Agency needs out of your participation, what they can facilitate, and what things are generally outside the scope of what the Agency interests are concerned with. I recommend these things to you because this Agency has a long history of allowing a broad spectrum of activities in an official capacity. From simply presenting papers, to actually serving as Agency liaison�s to the board of directors of some organizations. The Agency liaison is there representing the interests of ARS, not necessarily the interests of the organization. We have a very simple document for that; it protects both the employee and the Agency. When an employee wants to serve on the board of directors, as an officer, we allow them to do so in a personal capacity even though they have engaged the organization officially. Personal pariticpation is not a problem. The problem with participating officially is that the financial interests of the organiztion are imputed to you and therefore andy offical act by you on the board would be an offical act of the federal government. You basically cannot run the financial interests of outside organizations. We also allow individuals to swith sides with respect to editing activies. Fianally, with respect to official consulting � the Office Technology transfer has recommend the use of standard presentations to avoid impartiality or endorsement concerns when it comes to confidentiality agreements. Here�s a couple of general things we recommend. Evaluate what you really need or what out of society membership. Are you just attending conferences to present research or listen to papers and presentations in your field, or are you an active member on committees and interested in working on behalf of the organization in a more substantial role, such as officer, etc. Then, once you�ve done that, distinguish those roles in the society that are purely technical versus those that have fiduciary responsibilities. And distinguish what the Agency needs out of your participation, what they can facilitate, and what things are generally outside the scope of what the Agency interests are concerned with. I recommend these things to you because this Agency has a long history of allowing a broad spectrum of activities in an official capacity. From simply presenting papers, to actually serving as Agency liaison�s to the board of directors of some organizations. The Agency liaison is there representing the interests of ARS, not necessarily the interests of the organization. We have a very simple document for that; it protects both the employee and the Agency. When an employee wants to serve on the board of directors, as an officer, we allow them to do so in a personal capacity even though they have engaged the organization officially. Personal pariticpation is not a problem. The problem with participating officially is that the financial interests of the organiztion are imputed to you and therefore andy offical act by you on the board would be an offical act of the federal government. You basically cannot run the financial interests of outside organizations. We also allow individuals to swith sides with respect to editing activies. Fianally, with respect to official consulting � the Office Technology transfer has recommend the use of standard presentations to avoid impartiality or endorsement concerns when it comes to confidentiality agreements.

14. CUSTOMER SERVICE �The shoulder that I leaned on was carved out of stone� Appearances Employees shall endeavor to avoid even the appearance of a conflict under Federal Ethics laws and regulations Washington Post Test Safe Harbor Good faith reliance on ethics advice provides immunity against disciplinary actions for violation of Federal Ethics regulations