Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
OGE training walks ethics officials through new 18 U.S.C. 208(a) job aid
Loading...
Summary
The Office of Government Ethics held a live training demonstrating a step‑by‑step job aid for 18 U.S.C. 208(a) analyses, concluding two sample scenarios did not trigger the statute and flagging follow-up questions in a third case for further fact‑gathering.
Margaret Dylas Huykins, an attorney in the Office of Government Ethics’ ethics law branch, led a live training session on using a new job aid for conducting 18 U.S.C. 208(a) conflict-of-interest analyses. The session reviewed the job aid’s purpose, the six sequential elements of a 208(a) inquiry, and three sample fact patterns to show how the checklist and supporting resources are applied.
The job aid, Huykins said, is intended to (1) assist ethics officials in analyzing 18 U.S.C. 208(a) questions, (2) teach them to evaluate elements in order, and (3) direct users to relevant resources such as regulations, Office of Legal Counsel opinions, legal advisories, trainings, case law, and OGE guidance. She urged attendees not to skip elements and to use the job aid to preserve their analytic process.
In the first sample, Huykins considered a volunteer intern at the Department of Energy who was assigned to research oil refinery practices while the intern’s spouse owned substantial Chevron and Exxon stock. Citing an OGE legal advisory on interns and the appointment authority 5 U.S.C. 311, she concluded the volunteer intern “does not qualify as an employee” for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 208(a), and therefore the 208(a) analysis need not continue for that scenario.
In the second sample, an HHS attorney working on a draft memo for broad health care reform had a dependent child with investments tied to the health sector. Huykins walked through the participation and particular-matter elements and relied on the regulatory definition and examples distinguishing discrete, identifiable matters from broad policy options. She concluded a legislative proposal for broad health care reform is not a ‘‘particular matter’’ under the regulations, and that 18 U.S.C. 208 would not apply in that hypothetical.
The third sample involved a Department of Veterans Affairs contract administrator who volunteers for and was appointed to the board of a local blood bank. Huykins identified multiple open questions — including which contracts the administrator handles, the nature of the administrator’s participation, and whether any particular matters she works on would be directly and predictably affected by the board appointment — and recorded these as items requiring follow-up information before concluding whether 18 U.S.C. 208(a) applied.
Huykins closed by underscoring the job aid’s practical role: to identify missing facts, guide sequential legal analysis, and help practitioners document their reasoning. She also acknowledged the complexity of the statute, saying plainly, “18 USC 208 is hard.” The session materials and checklist are available on the course page for attendees’ review and evaluation.
The training did not include formal votes or policy actions; it focused on interpretation and application of 208(a) and directing staff to follow up on outstanding factual questions where the elements could not be resolved.
