The Mixed Messages Service? A Look at the Ethics Guidance Provided to MMS Employees

One way to determine whether a problem at an agency is a systemic policy problem or the result of a few bad actors is to look at what kind of guidance its employees received. When the Department of the Interior inspector general (IG) found that Minerals Management Service (MMS) employees in the Lake Charles district accepted football tickets and travel reimbursements, we largely thought that this reflected business as usual at an agency that is overly close to industry. The IG pointed out that accepting these gifts violated the provisions that Gulf employees should have known from annual ethics training:

Federal regulations and agency ethics rules prohibit employees from directly or indirectly soliciting or accepting gifts, including meals, over $20 at one time and $50 per year from a prohibited source. Federal employees are also prohibited from accepting gifts given in association with their official position. They are required to declare gifts and travel reimbursements aggregating over $335 during the reporting period, from any one source, as well as the identity of the source, in an annual financial disclosure report. For travel-related gifts in association with their official position, employees must document the travel itinerary, including dates, and the nature of the expenses.

Only one MMS inspector disclosed receiving gifts and reimbursement. But reviewing Interior's ethics manual, one can almost understand how the MMS employees may not have known that receiving the tickets was wrong. According to the January 2009 version of the Ethics Guide for DOI Employees:

If someone other than the sponsor of the event invited you and is paying for your attendance (such as if a corporation or friends group invited you to sit at their table), you may accept free attendance only if more than 100 persons are expected to attend, the gift of your attendance has a market value of $335 or less, and your attendance is approved as being in the interest of DOI. The allowance may be changed periodically by the Office of Government Ethics.

In this case, the companies weren't sponsoring the event, the tickets were only worth $70, and more than 100 people attended the Peach Bowl.

There is also language in the guide requiring prior approval from Interior, but "widely attended gathering" exceptions to ethics rules seem to make enforcement and self-policing more complicated without giving a discernible benefit to the public.

As a final note, going to MMS's old website, the posted ethics guide is the 2008 updated version (and dated 2007), which means it doesn't incorporate President Obama's ethics order, nor does it include Secretary Salazar's ethics memo to employees or any lessons learned from a review by the ethics officials of Interior-specific regulations.

It's hard to be convinced by MMS's commitment to improving ethics when the manuals they operated from, and posted, were out of date.

-- Mandy Smithberger

Comments

[Phil Donohoe]

You wrote, "one can almost understand how the MMS employees may not have known that receiving the [Peach Bowl] tickets was wrong." As an appointed Ethics Counselor for a federal agency, I can tell you your analysis of the Widely-Attended Gathering (WAG) exception to the gift prohibitions (applied to free tickets to the Peach Bowl) glosses over the exception's element, "your attendance is approved as being in the interest of DOI." The exception only comes into play when/if the substance of the event, its subject matter, its purpose, and its actual content is related to the official interests or the official mission of the agency, here, DOI. That point raises the question, "What possible interest could DOI have in a DOI employee's attendance at the Peach Bowl?" None. Or, "in what fashion is the Peach Bowl even remotely related to DOI's mission or its interests?" None. Or, "how could a DOI employee's attendance at a college football game possibly further by even a millimeter DOI's mission or DOI's agency interests?" Not at all. That's the point your analysis misses when it seeks to use the WAG exception to suggest free Peach Bowl tickets could plausibly come within the WAG exception. The exception, quite simply, cannot apply to an agency employee's mere attendance at (free tickets to) a sporting event, paid for by any entity regulated by the agency. That's the point that was totally missed. Moreover, the WAG exception requires acceptance be "approved", which means, "by the Agency Ethics Counselor." Even a novice Ethics Counselor could not honestly or reasonably conclude the WAG exception applies to free tickets offered for an agency employee to sit in a seat and watch a football game live. How could that possibly further DOI's interests at all? The suggestion is laughable (or, the conclusion is reached in obvious bad faith, merely to provide "cover" to the employee offered free tickets to the Peach Bowl.)