IEC Journal

Opening Arguments in Safavian Retrial

Government Executive has a story about the first day of former GSA contracting official David Safavian's retrial. Here's an excerpt:

Prior to the trip, Safavian solicited the opinion of a GSA ethics officer about the appropriateness of accepting free travel from Abramoff. Safavian told the ethics officer that Abramoff "did not have business with GSA" and that he worked only on Capitol Hill.

The ethics officer wrote that Safavian could accept the trip for free. Nonetheless, before the trip began, Safavian wrote Abramoff a check for $3,100, a figure Abramoff allegedly suggested would cover Safavian's portion of the costs.

"Safavian was the only person who wanted to pay his fair share," Sauber said.

Prosecutors, however, argued that Safavian knew $3,100 would not cover his portion of the excursion, which ultimately cost a combined $150,000.

Edmonds added that Abramoff's "lobbying" of Safavian for the two GSA properties was tantamount to doing business with the agency. That information, he said, should have been passed along to the ethics officer before the trip.

"The evidence will confirm the simplicity of this case," Edmonds said. "It's about a public official lying about what's going on."

The information Safavian shared with Abramoff was not secret, nor was it valuable, defense attorneys said. The post office was not up for bids and the White Oak land was highly contaminated and was not suitable for a school, they noted.

Safavian's attorneys maintained that Abramoff did not have business with the GSA because the lobbyist did not have a contract with the agency. Sauber plans to call government witnesses who will corroborate Safavian's interpretation of "doing business."

OGE issue Guide on Reporting Select Financial Instruments

The Office of Government Ethics issues "Public Financial Disclosure: A Guide to reporting Selcted Financial Instruments."

OGE Guidance on Reviewing Final PAS Financial Disclosure

In anticipation of the upcoming change in administrations, OGE has issued new guidance on review and certification of mandatory public financial disclosure termination reports (SF 278s).

New OGE Crossword Puzzle Available

The newest OGE training crossword puzzle is on the subject of SF 278 Financial Disclosure. The DAEOgram announcing it has information on system requirements.

Reminder: Public Financial Disclosure Reports Due Friday

Unless you have received an extension, Friday, August 1 is the deadline to forward Public Financial Disclosure reports of PAS, DAEO, and other persons whose Public Financial Disclosure reports are required to be forwarded to OGE for review and certification. The 2008 OGE Calendar lists this and other deadlines.

Key May Due Date Reminders

May 15 is the filing deadline for certain SF 278s that are sent to OGE for final review and certification. DAEOgram DO-08-018 has details. Extensions are possible.

May 27 is the deadline to submit comments on the FAR Council's proposal on addressing service contractor employees' personal conflicts of interest in light of the concerns raised by OGE, the findings of a GAO report, the recommendations of the Services Acquisition Reform Act panel, two recent FAR cases (2006-07 and 2007-06), and some agency approaches to the issue. under 31 U.S.C. § 1353. DAEOgram DO-08-017 has more information.

Templates for Financial Disclosure Review

Thanks to Wayne Johnson for sharing two spreadsheet templates he designed to assist in reviewing SF 278 and SF-450 filings:

Download sf_278_spread_sheet_generic.xls
Download oge_450_generic_spread_sheet.xls

Wayne notes that the "comments" column can be used for following outside activities, as potential conflicts may be noted even in agencies that don't require prior review.

We dislike reinventing the wheel, and strongly encourage others with useful templates to make them available to the broader community.

More on Hill Financial Disclosure Controversy

The Washington Post has a story about the Capitol Hill controversy reported here Wednesday. The personal information in question has been available for years, but it looks like Internet disclosure was the flash point:

For several years, LegiStorm has published salary and expenditure reports that are released regularly by the House and Senate. The reports, released quarterly by the House and semiannually by the Senate, provide detailed information on how much each lawmaker spends, along with the names, titles and salaries of every employee.

In late February, however, LegiStorm expanded the data it provides by putting the staffers' personal financial disclosure forms online. Those documents, which must be filed by senior aides, contain explicit detail on aides' finances -- including bank accounts and investment portfolios -- as well as some home addresses and signatures.  ...

"Who knew it was going to get posted on the Web? It's shocking," said one House Democratic chief of staff, who requested anonymity to discuss her personal finances. "Now that anybody can look it up on the Web, I don't know if I like it anymore." ...

Limiting Unnecessary Risk Exposure

A transparency-oriented watchdog-type web site recently created controversy by exposing personal information from Congressional financial disclosure forms that could arguably be used in identity theft.

An alert reader suggests that this controversy illustrates the desirability of reminding SF-278 filers that their children's names and the filer's personal home addresses do not need to be listed on the SF-278 report. OGE allows filers to identify assets belonging to a filer's child as belonging to a "dependent child" (without referencing the child's age, gender or name).  This fully complies with the disclosure rules while preserving the children's personal privacy. Thanks for the timely tip!

OGE Updates Reporting Thresholds

Thanks to Mark Stone for the alert that OGE has published a Federal Register posting changing the reporting thresholds for gifts, reimbursements and travel expenses on the SF 278 and OGE Form 450, and the ceiling on non-sponsor gifts under the widely attended gathering rule (from $305 to $335). Mark notes the need to keep track of these changes, since the financial disclosure forms will not reflect these new dollar amounts until they are updated.