SUMMARIES OF ETHICS ADVICE GIVEN AT THE USITC

We advised an employee, after consulting with the Office of Government Ethics, that a sunset review of an investigation under Title VII is the same particular matter as the underlying investigation. Thus, under 18 U.S.C. 207, after leaving the government, the employee could not represent anyone other than the United States in a sunset review investigation if he participated personally and substantially in the underlying antidumping or countervailing duty investigation.

We advised a former Commissioner who was not subject to President Clinton's ethics pledge that, after one year of his departure from the Commission, he could represent a foreign government before the Federal government.

We advised a Commission employee who had accepted future employment with a law firm that he could participate "behind the scenes" in matters in which he had participated personally and substantially while at the Commission; he must file a request to represent clients before the Commission pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 201.15 for any matters that had been pending at the Commission but in which he had not participated personally and substantially while an employee; and he could not represent a client before the government in the sunset review of a Title VII investigation in which he had participated personally and substantially while an employee at the Commission.

We advised an employee that he could attend a party at the home of a person he met through his involvement in an outside professional organization. That person works for an embassy and the Commission employee was concerned about a possible conflict because of his work on an investigation of a product that is worldwide in scope. Since the embassy employee (and not the embassy) is paying for the party, the invitation to the party is personal in nature and can be accepted under an exception to the gift acceptance prohibition. 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(b).

We advised a new employee that he could participate in an investigation involving a country that was a client in his previous employment. Several years earlier , in his previous employment, the country had been a client on matters not related to the Commission's work. We suggested he confirm that there were no Bar problems created by this.

We advised a new employee that his concern about the appearance of a loss of impartiality was valid. 5 C.F.R. § 2635.500 et.seq. While employed at another government agency, the employee had participated substantially in a matter related to a Commission investigation and had access to information not available to the Commission in its investigation. We concurred with the employee that it was likely that a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would be likely to question the employee's impartiality if he participated in the Commission investigation. We advised that absent authorization by the Chairman to participate in the investigation, the employee should not work on the matter.

We advised a former government employee that he should seek Commission approval to appear in a final antidumping investigation, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. §201.15. The preliminary investigation had been pending while he was a Commission employee. The approval is required even though he did not work on the investigation.

We advised several Commission employees that, for appearance reasons , they should not accept an invitation to attend an event at an embassy. These employees had worked on an investigation which involved a product from that country and the investigation, which was particularly sensitive, had not yet been completed.

We advised a prospective new employee that it was unlikely that his membership on the boards of three nonprofit organizations , which were unrelated in their mission to the business of the Commission, would create a conflict of interest with his work at the Commission.

We advised a former summer intern who had worked in a Commissioner's office that his work on an investigation was not "substantial. " He had done no research and written no memos. He had written questions for the Commissioner to use in a hearing but had been closely supervised. The questions were reviewed by two full time professional employees in the Commissioner's office. The summer intern's involvement was "peripheral" rather than "significant." 5 C.F.R. § 2637.201(d).

We advised an employee's supervisor that use of the E-mail by the employee to promote a commercial business is a violation of the Standards of Conduct. 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702(a)- (d).

We advised an employee not to participate in a Commission sunset investigation for appearance reasons. He had been a private practice attorney of record during the original Title VII investigation.

We advised a former employee that he could represent a party in a sunset review of a product from several countries although he had participated in an original Title VII investigation on the same product but from a different country. We advised that those investigations were not the same particular matter.

We advised a former employee that he could not represent a client in a sunset review which included several separate original investigations that had been joined together for the review. The former employee was barred from representation because he had participated personally and substantially in one of the original investigations.

We advised two employees that they could write letters of recommendation using official stationary and their official titles for two law clerks with whom they had worked in their government capacity. One law clerk had worked for the Commission employee at the Commission. The other law clerk, seeking government employment, had worked for the Commission employee at the Commission employee's former agency. 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702(b).

We advised a former employee that he could not represent a client in an appeal of an investigation. He had participated personally and substantially in the investigation while an employee with the Commission, and the appeal is the same particular matter as the investigation.

We advised a former employee that we would not support a request filed pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 201.15 for permission to appear before the Commission to represent a private party in a Commission investigation in which he participated as a member of the professional Commission staff and was identified on public documents pertaining to the investigation. Although there was some question raised by the employee as to the substantiality of his participation, the answer was not clear and the fact that he had been known by the public to have participated as a professional in the investigation while employed by the Commission left a serious appearance concern for the agency if he were permitted to appear.

We advised an employee that distributing a flyer at the Commission that offered a discount to government employees for the purchase of digital phones violated ethics regulations and GSA building regulations. Because the flyer had "International Trade Commission" printed at the top, it appeared that the Commission was involved in the offer even though it was not. The flyer also indicated that the digital phone company representative would be available to sell the phones in a Commission office. This type of soliciting is not authorized in government buildings. Although the flyer as it was presented was in violation of regulations, it is permissible for employees to take advantage of the discount offer because it is available to all government employees.

We advised an employee that agency employees could not accept prizes greater than $20 from a raffle contest sponsored by a company with whom the Commission had a contract if the contest was open only to employees of the agencies with whom the company had contracts. The prizes would be considered gifts under the Standards of Conduct and they could not accept a prize unless it was valued at $20 or less. 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(a).

We advised an employee that agency employees could accept prizes from the same raffle contest beyond the $20 exception if the contest was open to the general public. In that case the prize would not be considered a gift under the Standards of Conduct. 5 C.F.R. § 2635.203(b)(5).

We advised an employee that once a "headhunter" informed him that a firm involved in one of his assignments had received his resume, he must immediately stop working on the assignment and either send a letter withdrawing his resume or inform his supervisor he can no longer work on the assignment. He could resume working on the assignment if he sends a letter immediately withdrawing his resume, the law firm informs him he is no longer being considered for a position, or two months pass after the law firm received his resume and there has been no response. 5 C.F.R. § 2635.601, et. seq.

We advised an employee to file a gift acceptance request to attend a luncheon meeting where the cost was greater than $20. He was accompanying another employee who did not need to file a gift acceptance request because he was attending as a speaker. 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g).

We advised an employee that he could accept an honorarium for reviewing a paper written for a publication of an international financial institution. The employee was asked to review the paper because of his previous experience and not because of his position at the Commission and the topic of the paper had no relation to the mission of the Commission. The employee was further advised that, if the honorarium meets the threshold amount, he must include it on his financial disclosure report.

We advised an employee he could work on an investigation involving a firm from whom three years prior he had received a job offer. He had declined the offer at that time. We advised an employee that an appearance problem would be created if four Commission employees participated in a panel discussion concerning the Sunset procedures at a single law firm to which only employees at that firm were invited.

We advised an employee who was invited to speak at a brown bag lunch by his former employer that he could better avoid appearance concerns if he attended when the former employer was not participating in Commission matters.

We advised all employees that acceptance of a $150 honorarium to participate in a focus group on foreign policy, international affairs, and commerce could violate the Standards of Conduct rule concerning use of public office for private gain and prohibition against receipt of compensation for teaching, speaking or writing. The invitations to participate were given under circumstances that demonstrated that the employees were invited because of their positions with the Commission. The offer included lunch, and if the employees chose to participate gratis, they could accept the lunch if its value was $20.00 or less.

We advised a Commission employee that he could participate in a Commission investigation involving an economic consulting firm with which he had interviewed three years earlier. The employment negotiations had terminated long before and the firm had elected not to fill the position.