Don't take gifts. Don't accept favors. Don't play favorites. Don't be unethical. Don't appear unethical.
The opposite of a government that does things "by the book" has a name: Corruption.
There is a silver lining to our complaints about stickler bureaucrats in the federal civil service. We don't have a culture of bribery, favor-granting, and self-dealing among career federal employees. But there is a growing divide between the rules for the civil service and the norms projected by people at the very top in the Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court. They are setting a bad example.
Jennifer Angelo understands the rules about ethics in government. As a federal employee, she lived under them. As a government lawyer she enforced them. She has now retired. She lives in Washington, D.C. She shared a comment.
Guest Post by Jennifer Angelo
Peter’s April 14 piece about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was right on the money. It’s not just important for public officials to follow the letter of the law when it comes to ethics, they should avoid even the appearance that they’re violating ethical principles. Public service is just that. For most people it’s easy to stay on the right side of the line.
As a former federal employee, I find it ironic that Thomas is held to a lower standard than I or any of my colleagues were. Federal Agencies go to great lengths to make sure employees comply with ethics laws and regulations, which are detailed and specific.If you’re interested, here is the starting point from the Office of Government Ethics. These rules cover reporting requirements, conflicts of interest, acceptance of gifts, and a host of other ethical issues. In addition to these rules, each agency has additional standards that cover situations specific to their mission. Much time is spent reviewing financial disclosures and advising employees on how to comply with the law.
I wore many hats as an attorney at the U.S. Postal Service, one of which was ethics advisor. I got calls daily from Postmasters who were offered meals or refreshments at meetings with big mailers, rounds of golf at events with vendors or personal hospitality at the home of a business associate who had become a friend. Most employees were scrupulous about following the rules, if only to keep from stepping over a line and getting into trouble. I gave dozens of ethics training classes, and I can assure you that every federal employee understands that “personal hospitality” includes such things as dinner or drinks at someone’s home, not lavish vacations on private jets to exotic locations. Gifts were limited to $20 per occasion totaling no more than $50 a year. I once returned a book sent to me by an expert witness because I was told, even though it was worth only $15, it might create an appearance of impropriety if I wanted to use that witness again.
Despite best efforts, ethical slip-ups happen. In the 1990s, Postmaster General Marvin Runyon, one of those Agency heads who comes in and shakes up the whole organization, found out the hard way that conflicts of interest are taken seriously at federal agencies. He came to USPS out of a lucrative career in private industry and owned lots of Coca Cola stock. One of the money-making ideas his marketing people came up with was putting Coke machines in Post Office lobbies. Runyon participated in meetings to discuss the idea, which never came to fruition.
Those discussions were enough to trigger the criminal conflict of interest law – a strict liability statute that doesn’t require criminal intent – and an investigation by the Department of Justice. It went on for more than a year; ultimately Runyon was not criminally charged but paid $27,550 to settle a civil case once the investigation was over. If you Google Marvin Runyon and Coke, you will see the stories in major news outlets. The Coca Cola incident also appears in every obituary of Runyon, who died in 2004. Not the kind of legacy anyone hopes for.
What Clarence Thomas has done is orders of magnitude worse than anything the typical ethics advisor sees over their entire career. He accepted – and didn’t report - gifts of lavish vacations, private jet trips and yacht voyages from Harlan Crow, a conservative activist, claiming someone had told them they qualified as “personal hospitality” from a friend. This is ludicrous and speaks very ill of his ability to research an uncomplicated legal issue. As if that weren’t enough, Crow bought the house Thomas grew up in, which his mother still lives in. Crow renovated the property and apparently is now Mrs. Thomas’s landlord. Thomas didn’t disclose any of that, and there is no ambiguity in the rules that required him to do so. Who knows what else Thomas is hiding?
Will Clarence Thomas be treated like any other public servant in this situation? Apparently not, because even though he violated the disclosure rules that every federal employee must comply with, there appears to be no one willing to enforce the rules when the violator is at the top of the judicial food chain. Right now, my only consolation is that when Clarence Thomas dies, this scandal will be featured in every one of his obituaries. It’s not much, but at least his legacy will be tarnished, even if he faces no consequences in the meantime.
Apparently the Department of Justice doesn’t have time to charge Thomas with criminal conflict of interest because they are too busy not indicting Trump.