The Commission issues decisions related to disciplinary cases filed by one of the Executive Inspectors General and decisions related to petitions to waive the revolving door prohibition.
The revolving door prohibition provides that State officers and employees who, within the year prior to termination of State service:
may not accept employment or receive compensation from that prospective employer, or its parent or subsidiary for one year following the officer's or employee's termination of State service. Their spouses and immediate family members living at home may not accept such employment or compensation, either. 5 ILCS 430/5-45.
Requestor coordinated the bidding process for two contracts between a State agency and his prospective employer in excess of $25,000. The Commission determined that requestor's involvement in the decision to award these two contracts was personal and substantial, even though requestor did not make the final decision to award the contract. Therefore requestor cannot accept employment from the prospective employer without a waiver of the revolving door prohibition.
In the present case, certain objective facts and circumstances supported the requestor's assertion that his decisions were not affected by the prospect of future employment. First, requestor did not engage in employment discussions with his prospective employer until several months after his involvement in the contract. Second, requestor provided copies of the work he sent to his supervisors related to the contracts in question. The work indicates that the bids provided by the prospective employer were the lowest and that the decision to award these contracts was based upon sound program and financial criteria. Third, subsequent to his involvement in these contracts, requestor was moved to a less desirable position with the agency and the uncertainty of his future with the agency caused him to seek alternative employment.
The Commission determined that requestor demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that neither his prospective employment nor his relationship with the prospective employer affected his decisions with respect to the awarding of the two contracts.
Requestor supervised 60 staff members who reviewed hundreds of loan applications each year. During part of her tenure with the agency, she also was a member of a loan committee that considered recommendations from staff to approve loans to applicants. Her prospective employer received three loans during her tenure at the agency. These loans are in excess of $25,000, which may trigger the revolving door prohibition.
As to the first loan, the loan committee's decision was made more than one year prior to the date that requestor terminated State service. Therefore the revolving door prohibition did not apply regardless of requestor's involvement in the decision to award the loan.
For the second loan, requestor was no longer a member of the loan committee and there is no evidence that she had any involvement in the underwriting of the loan or had any contact with the prospective employer.
For the third loan, requestor's involvement in the underwriting process was limited to policy discussions regarding a legal issue related to the loan. Requestor, who is not an attorney, referred the issue to legal counsel, who determined that the loan was not prohibited. The Commission determined that requestor's involvement in this transaction was neither personal nor substantial.
Since requestor's involvement in the first loan was more than one year prior to her termination of State service and because requestor's involvement in the second and third loans was neither personal nor substantial, the Commission found that requestor was not subject to the revolving door prohibition.
Requestor supervised employees who monitored grants from the agency to private entities, including a grant in excess of $25,000 intended for a sub-grantee. This sub-grantee is also requestor's prospective employer. Requestor had the authority to recommend that grants under his supervision, including the grant in question, not be renewed or that funding to them be stopped.
The Commission found that requestor failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the prospective employment did not affect official decisions in which he personally and substantially participated.
Requestor's petition for a waiver of the revolving door prohibition was denied without prejudice and petitioner was granted leave to file a request to reconsider.
Requestor was a member of a review committee as part of a multi-level approval process within the agency that awarded a contract in excess of $25,000 to requestor's prospective employer.
The Commission found that though requestor did not make the final decision to award the contract, requestor's involvement in the approval process did constitute personal and substantial involvement in the decision to award the contract.
Requestor demonstrated in two ways that his decisions related to the contract were not affected by prospective employment with the grantee. First, requestor asserts that he sought alternative employment only after his involvement in the contract was over. This assertion is further supported by the fact that the State of Illinois offered two early retirement incentives late in 2004. Second, the agency provided copies of the evaluations and rankings of the bidders related to the contract in question. All evaluators on two separate committees ranked the prospective employer highest among the bidders.
For these reasons the Commission granted requestor's petition for a waiver.