|
|
Dear Ethics Counselors and BEGA Friends, welcome to the fall season.
We've been diligently preparing for Ethics Week 2025 - Keeping Government Transparent and Ethical - and have found several ways to achieve this goal.
|
Studies show that key factors include attending ethics trainings and seminars, proactively seeking advice, reporting violations, sharing ethics information, and disclosing financial interests. We have built a symposium to address these practices. I hope to see you there! |
|
 Ethics Week 2025 is here
Ethics Week 2025: Keeping Government Transparent and Ethical will be held next week, October 14-17. Join us for a mix of in-person and virtual courses. The course schedule and sign-up information is available on the Ethics Week 2025 page on BEGA’s website.
New Outside Employment and Lobbying Training
OGE has added new courses to our Learning Management System on the rules governing Outside Employment and Lobbying in the District. You can check out the new courses here.
Acting General Counsel Asia Stewart-Mitchell
OGE Supervisory Attorney Asia Stewart-Mitchell has been appointed to serve as BEGA's Acting General Counsel.
|
|
|
27-0007-F In re M. Davis
The Board approved a negotiated disposition with Respondent, a Metropolitan Police Officer, for three counts of using government time and resources for other than official business or government approved or sponsored activities in violation of DPM § 1807.1(b). Respondent worked at Giant Food Store during the same time he reported working for MPD on 193 occasions between August 2021 and June 2023, posted an Instagram video of himself in a move theater at a time he was scheduled to work overtime for MPD, and used a MPD vehicle to transport himself to and from his outside employment at Giant. Respondent agreed to pay a $10,500 civil penalty and attend ethics training.
25-0008-F In re M. Stinson
The Board approved a negotiated disposition with
|
|
Respondent, a former Instructional
Superintendent with DC Public Schools for four violations of the Code of Conduct: (1) Respondent used her position to influence a subordinate principal to fund business between the principal’s school and a company that employed Respondent in violation of D.C. Official Code § 1-1162.23(a): (2) Respondent misrepresented the income from her outside employment in 2021 and 2022 on her Financial Disclosure Statement in violation of D.C. Official Code § 1-1162.24(a)(1); Respondent reported working a full day for the District or taking sick leave when she was engaged in her outside employment in violation of DPM § 1807.1(b)’ and (4) Respondent used her District government email to send and receive correspondent regarding her outside consulting business in violation of DPM § 1808. Respondent
|
|
agreed to pay a $15,000 civil penalty.
24-0134-P In re C Jones
The Director of Government Ethics imposed a $500 ministerial fine against Respondent, a former employee of the Department of Employment Services (DOES) for failure to file a full and complete financial disclosure statement in violation of D.C. Official Code § 1-1162.24(a)(1). Respondent failed to disclose a property management company that he owned with his spouse on his public financial disclosure statements in 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022.
25-0064-P In re M. Whittier
The Director of Government Ethics issued a public reprimand to Respondent, an employee with DOES, for violating DPM § 1807.1(b) by engaging in outside employment during her District tour of duty.
|
|
Retired four-star general Robert Burke, was sentenced to six years in prison for attempting to direct millions of dollars in federal contracts to a company in exchange for a job with the company. Admiral Burke was convicted of four felony counts, including bribery and conspiracy, in connection with a scheme to direct a subordinate to award a contract to a company that offered him a position after his retirement. Read more about the case here.
The federal Office of Government Ethics has highlighted guidance on the application of the ethics rules in light of the lapse in appropriations. The guidance previously issued by OGE in liked below:
|
|
|
A recent ProPublica review of hundreds of proposed ethics changes across the country found lawmakers in multiple states sought to block reforms intended to increase public trust in government. These include laws to increase gifts limits, strengthen conflict of interest provisions, and expand financial disclosure reporting requirements. The ProPublica article highlighted a law passed in Louisiana which makes it harder for the Louisiana Board of Ethics to launch investigations as well as a pending South Carolina bill that would exempt government appointees from filing financial disclosure reports. The report also noted failed efforts in Virginia to require disclosure of digital assets, in North Dakota to give more power and resources to the state’s ethics commission, as well as unsuccessful proposals to increase lobbying and campaign finance disclosures in New Mexico and expanded conflict of interest rules in Connecticut. Read more here.
One of states flagged in the ProPublica report, Louisiana, reached an agreement with Governor Jeff Landry to resolve violations of the state’s gift rules. Governor Landry agreed to pay a $900 fine and disclose gifts of travel stemming from an investigation into Landry’s acceptance of travel on a political donor’s private plane when he was the state’s attorney general. The governor disclosed 19 occasions when he accepted and did not report free travel and accommodations dating back to 2021, valued at an estimated $13,540. Read more about the reported gifts here.
The Texas Ethics Commission fined a former state representative, Chris Paddie, $105,000 for violating the state’s revolving door law. Paddie was the author of the 2019 revolving door law which prohibited state legislators from becoming lobbyists within two years of donating campaign funds to other politicians. The $100,000 fine against Paddie is the highest imposed the by the commission since 2010, when the commission imposed a $100,000 fine against a Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judge for failing to disclose income and property on her annual financial disclosure reports. Read more here.
|
|
Question: I recently joined the District government as a Program Specialist with the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (“DYRS”). As part of my onboarding, I attended an ethics training facilitated by BEGA. During the training, the facilitator explained that District government employees are prohibited from giving, accepting, or soliciting monetary gifts from prohibited sources, unless the gift undergoes the proper donations process with Serve DC.
This rule seemed straightforward until a co-worker sent a mass email to the entire agency soliciting donations for various charitable organizations across the District of Columbia. The subject line of the email was: “Give a Little Hope: The DC One Fund Campaign Kick–Off Starts Today!”
Could you please clarify whether it is permissible to donate through the DC One Fund, or whether the mass email solicitation I received raises an ethics concern that should be formally reported to BEGA?
Answer: As you noted, some ethics regulations restrict the giving, accepting, and soliciting of gifts—both monetary and non-monetary. Specifically, the District Personnel Manual (“DPM”), Chapter 18, Sections 1803 and 1804, provides rules regarding gifts from outside sources and gifts between employees.
You stated that an employee from your agency sent an email for the purpose of soliciting donations for the DC One Fund Campaign. Under normal circumstances, such solicitation would violate the DPM rules that govern prohibited gifts; however, the DC One Fund is excluded from this restriction because it is the District government’s official workplace giving program.
Specifically, the DC One Fund is managed by the Office of the Secretary of the District of Columbia. The program was established to provide DC government employees with the opportunity to contribute to charitable organizations within their community and is the only authorized on-the-job charitable solicitation among DC government employees. Its purpose is to ensure an effective, efficient, and unified campaign that supports worthy charitable causes while minimizing workplace disruption.
Furthermore, District employees who administer and participate in the program must follow specific rules and guidelines to ensure ethical compliance. . For further details, we encourage you to reach out to our office with specific questions and review the resources linked below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
