Hello, and welcome to another discussion of the ethics rules.
I’m your host, Ryan Segrist, and this series is brought to you by the USDA Office of Ethics.
Where we’re going to be happy to answer any questions you may have after you've watched this video.
Today, we’ll be discussing the Impartiality Rules, designed to help you carry out your
Federal work with integrity.
With me now is my Office of Ethics colleague Erin , who’s here to explain the basics to us.
Thanks Ryan; happy to be here.
As you said, there’s a distinct relationship between the Impartiality Rules and our integrity.
OK, so let’s start at the beginning: What is this rule, and how is it supposed to help us?
The impartiality rule was written to ensure we capture certain categories of interactions
and flag them as potentially problematic.
Federal law prohibits us from participating in federal work that affects the financial
interests of our spouse, minor child, general partner, organizations where we serve in a
leadership position, and organizations that we’re either negotiating with or have an
arrangement for future employment.
Wait, that’s the Conflict of Interest statute.
What does that have to do with impartiality?
Well the Impartiality Rules can be thought of as an extension of the Conflict of Interest statute.
Some of the analysis is similar, and we address and remedy issues in the same way.
So what kind of government work is affected by these rules?
The impartiality rules cover “particular matters involving specific parties”.
This basically means government work that has specifically named people or entities involved.
For example, a contract has two named parties, and thus is a particular matter involving
specific parties, and is covered by the impartiality rules.
Other examples include inspections, litigation, licensures, and so on.
In addition, the idea of impartiality is found in the 14 Principles of Ethical Conduct for
Federal Employees.
In fact, impartiality is a foundational theme in the Code of Ethics.
That’s right. Principle number 14 requires us to not only avoid conflicts of interest, but to avoid
even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Exactly.
And the idea is expressed in further detail in the Code of Federal Regulations.
It’s known as the Impartiality Rule, although it’s interesting because it’s really two
rules rolled into one.
Sorry; what do you mean by two rules in one?
OK, the first rule covers the people you live with.
This includes members of your household..
Roommates, live-in parents, and others could be part of this group as members of the household.
What we need to avoid is participating in any government matters that could affect the
financial interest of a member of our households.
This subset of relationships is slightly broader than those covered in the criminal statute.
Okay, and what's the second part of the rule?
The second rule addresses business and other relationships.
This part covers a wide range of people and entities that could be involved in a government
matter, whether they have a financial interest or not.
This includes persons with whom employees have specific relationships who are parties
or represent parties in a government matter.
This would include, for example, matters involving recent employers, employers of spouses or
minor children, employers of parents, or anyone with whom the employees have or seek a business,
contractual or financial relationship.
It also includes organizations in which employees serve as active participants.
These are called covered relationships.
I’m sorry, what do you mean by an active participant?
An active participant in an organization is not in a leadership position, but still exerts
influence there, such as fundraising, developing policy, and does anything more than just paying
dues or receiving emails.
So what do we need to do when we run into a situation involving either the groups we
just described, the members of our household or those of whom we have a covered relationship?
The important thing is that we recuse or disqualify ourselves from participating in the particular
matter that could either affect the financial interest of members of our households, or
involves in some way someone with whom we have a covered relationship.
The reason we must not participate is to avoid the situation where it looks like we have
lost our impartiality in the matter.
The standard is whether a reasonable person with access to relevant facts would question
your participation.
So, what is a reasonable person?
Ah, that’s very tricky, because there’s no legal definition in ethics of a reasonable person.
As such, we need to be even more careful about the matters we participate in that may involve
those people we’ve been discussing.
The bottom line is that if you have a situation that may look bad, you need to ask yourself
whether your participation may cause someone to question your impartiality.
But what if I’m not sure?
What if I need help deciding?
If you’re not sure, or if you need help, simply call your ethics official.
We specialize in understanding and applying these rules.
We can help you determine if your involvement is either problematic or innocuous.
So as we wrap up, what’s the most important thing for our viewers to remember
from this presentation?
Two things: First, if something seems fishy, or doesn’t feel quite right, then DO NOT
PARTICIPATE.
Recuse BEFORE you take any action.
And second: Call the ethics office for advice before you take any action.
We’re here to support you.
Erin, thanks again for being with us.
Stay tuned for more interesting and relevant USDA ethics training in the near future.
In the meantime, You can share this presentation and others on AgLearn and on the OE website.
Thanks for watching and have a great and productive day.