TOPICS
TOPICS
Rule could slow Pentagon's revolving door
The revolving door between the Defense Department and private industry could be on the brink of slowing down.
On Thursday, the Pentagon published a final rule in the Federal Register that will require senior department officials to obtain written approval from an agency ethics officer before taking a job with a Defense contractor within two years after leaving government service.
The final rule, which stems from a provision in the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill, is unchanged from the Jan. 15 interim notice. The new policy went into place immediately.
The regulation prohibits Defense officials who have "participated personally and substantially in an acquisition exceeding $10 million or who [have] held a key acquisition position" from accepting a job with a defense contractor without first obtaining a written opinion from an ethics counselor. The counselor will determine which, if any, activities the official can perform on behalf of the contractor for the first two years after the official leaves government.
The rule bans the contractor from providing any salary to the official until the post-employment ethics opinion is completed. Contractors who break the rule could lose existing contracts or face suspension or debarment.
The previous law restricted former Pentagon acquisition officials from working for defense contractors during a one-year cooling off period after leaving government. Very senior employees had been subject to a two-year restriction in the past. Former federal officials are barred permanently from representing contractors on issues, such as a specific contract, they worked on while in government.
In 2006, 52 major defense contractors employed more than 86,000 former military and civilian personnel who had left Defense since 2001, according to a 2008 Government Accountability Office report. That figure included 2,435 former Defense officials who were hired between 2004 and 2006.
The Project on Government Oversight, a Washington watchdog group, filed the only comment on the new rule. POGO suggested that the central database for ethics opinions should be made public.
But the department rejected the added transparency, arguing that lawmakers did not authorize the database to be accessible to the public.
POGO's general counsel Scott Amey disagreed, noting that Congress did not make a determination either way about making the database public. He added the Obama administration's quest for openness and transparency should have been the deciding factor in the Defense Department's decision.
"Maybe Obama's lofty goals haven't trickled down to all parts of the government, but what's the harm in seeing a list of former government officials who are now working for defense contractors?" Amey said. "We have campaign finance and lobbying disclosure. Why not expose those circulating between the public and private sectors who might be a driving force behind government decisions and policies?"
The department also implemented a final rule, without change, to protect Defense contractor whistleblowers.
Contractors now are prohibited from taking any action, including demotion or termination, against an employee who reports waste, mismanagement or contract violations inside their company to federal officials.
Whistleblowers who believe their company has retaliated against them can file a complaint with the Defense Department's inspector general. The IG then will determine whether the complaint merits further inquiry, including an investigation and a written report.
The rule, mandated by provisions in the fiscal 2008 and 2009 Defense authorization acts, also requires contractors to notify their employees in writing about their whistleblower rights and protections.
COMMENTS
- amazing that the various posters are typical of hiring managers that flaunt the law regarding vet preference. the folks applying for jobs with CS are "entitled" to be selected first since they gave something to this country. Those posting here "just what did you do prior to being employed" let me guess NOTHING. dear Mike the pres fellows program is just another group of perfumed princes that think they accomplished something and deserve an accelerated career. The entire program is contrary to existing law and should be eliminated. I'm glad that MSPS has already ruled that most of the intern careers are against the law and need to end. as for retiring on Friday and be a cs on Monday here here, the gov't has spend lots of money on their experience and should reap the benefits. Too many folks who are CS that they are entitled to the next promotion because they had good attendance dan m ketter Posted November 24, 2009 4:42 PM
- I like the discussion. And let it continue. I'd like to hear from someone, anyone to even attempt to defend the rampant levels of 100% self-financial driven insular inbreeding that occurs day-in-and-day-out within almost every literal corner of the preposterously inbred DOD. Even when DOD hiring 'managers,' almost all of who are DOD one agency careerists to the person, opt to use US taxpayer funds and recruit outside of DOD and the federal workforce in the mid and upper pay ranges in the general and financial management fields, they end up hiring (and yes, hiring is all that really matters) only and MERELY current or prior DOD staff, e.g, GS or mil or contractor, nearly 100% of the ludicrous time. If these purported and self-described 'world class' 'leaders' preposterously perceive that excellence rests only and MERELY within and among current or prior DOD staff, or that even worse that excellence is gained or demonstrated only and MERELY within DOD organizations, then these DOD one agency careerist surmised 'leaders' ought not EVER abuse taxpayer funds abuse US citizen applicants who are not among this 'preferred group' and NEVER AGAIN recruit outside of DOD and stage what are in fact and in deed sham and fraudulent federal-wide and/or DEU recruitments. The blunt truth of the matter is that these men and women are not genuine leaders at all. Regardless of rank or grade, they are dime-a-dozen organizational toadies who gained their positions and DOD one agency careers not on true merit, but rather as a direct and proximate result of being a beneficiary of a DOD hiring culture that places far too much emphasis on personal relationships, a twisted definition of a 'team player,' blatant cronyism, a groupthink mired mindset that is both stepped in and drips of entitlement, as well as 'making friends' in the right places. And yes, this all is regrettable but it is true. /s/ Michael J. Smith, M.P.A., Alumni, Presidential Management Fellowship Program, Class of 1993 @ the NIH Michael J. Smith, MPA Posted November 24, 2009 4:17 PM
- I have always believed that in order to remain in the military you must have had a frontal lobotomy to be effective. This is why THEY feel entitled to go from one suit to a higher level civilian suit. You are not always getting the best and the brightest when you hire a colonel or 07 etc. Sometimes you just get old. Robert Knauer, CPCM CPPO Posted November 24, 2009 3:13 PM
