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 was a program manager for a State agency grant program. Grant applicants were assessed by a third party. Requestor received these assessments, compiled and averaged grant applicant scores and ranked each applicant for funding in accordance with the scores. He then forwarded the rankings to the agency director who made final decisions with respect to awarding grants.
Eleven months after Requestor’s termination from State service, he contracted with a grant recipient to do limited consulting work. The grant recipient had received a grant in excess of $25,000 within one year of Requestor’s termination of State service. The agency Ethics Officer confirmed that the grantee’s request was approved through the typical process used for all other grant applications during that funding cycle.
The Commission considered whether Requestor participated personally and substantially in the decision to award a grant in excess of $25,000 within one year of his termination of State employment.
Requestor insists and the Ethics Officer confirms that Requestor had no discretion in the decision to award grants. Commission staff interviewed the Ethics Officer concerning Requestor’s authority and discretion. The Ethics Officer explained that other agency programs do permit the program managers to exercise some discretion in the decision to award a grant and in the amount of the award. In Requestor’s program, however, Requestor exercised no such discretion. His involvement in the decision to award the grant and the amount of the grant was merely clerical or ministerial in nature.
The Commission found that Requestor’s conduct did not constitute personal and substantial participation in the decision to award a contract to his potential employer. Therefore, a waiver of the revolving door prohibition was not required under the provisions of the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act.
Requestor sought to accept an early retirement offer made by the State of Illinois and begin a position with a private employer. In her capacity as a State employee Requestor made two recommendations with respect to two contracts the State agency had with her prospective employer.
The first recommendation did not have the effect of increasing the amount of money under the contract. Instead, it permitted the contractor to shift money already in the contract to be used for different purposes. Requestor’s recommendation had not been acted upon by the Department by the time the Commission reviewed Requestor’s petition for a waiver.
The second recommendation made by Requestor with respect to her prospective employer’s contracts concerns the contract renewal date. To allow the contractor to engage in responsible planning for the following year, Requestor suggested that the contract be renewed at an earlier date. This recommendation also had not been acted upon by the Department by the time the Commission reviewed Requestor’s petition for a waiver. The second recommendation also would not have increased the amount of money under the contract.
Since the contracts in question were in place before Requestor began employment with the State and the amount of the contracts could not be increased due to Requestor’s recommendations, the Commission found that Requestor’s conduct did not constitute personal and substantial participation in the decision to award contracts in excess of $25,000 to her prospective employer. Therefore, Requestor’s petition was dismissed.
Requestor investigated license applications and recommended action for approval or denial of initial licensure and renewals. Acting within this responsibility, Requestor recommended approval of her prospective employer’s license application less than one year prior to her termination of State employment.
The revolving door prohibition applies to State employees and officers with regulatory or licensing authority who, within one year of their termination of State employment, made a regulatory or licensing decision that directly applied to his or her prospective employer or its parent or subsidiary (5 ILCS 430/5-45(a)).
Requestor demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence, however, that her prospective employment did not affect the decisions she made with respect to the licensure. Requestor’s licensure recommendation was made months prior to her discussions of employment with the licensee and months prior to the State offering an attractive early retirement option.
Also, the Ethics Officer conducted an inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding Requestor’s petition and concluded that prospective employer’s license was issued in accordance with the policies in effect at that time and that no special treatment was provided to the prospective employer.
For these reasons, the Commission granted Requestor’s waiver petition.
Requestor sought to accept employment with a subcontractor to a State contractor upon his termination of State service.
Though Requestor’s prospective employer had no contract with the State, it did serve as a subcontractor on a State contract with which Requestor may have had some involvement. In the year prior to Requestor intending to terminate State service, Requestor’s prospective employer and the contractor sought to reallocate $35,000 under an existing contract to the prospective employer.
The Commission sought to determine whether Requestor participated personally and substantially in the decision to reallocate money under the contracts within one year of his termination of State employment.
Although Requestor’s responsibilities at the State were such that he could have been in a position to influence the decision to reallocate money to his future employer, the Commission concluded that he did not do so. Requestor demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that he had no personal or substantial involvement in this decision. The Commission’s conclusion is based upon the verified petition and letters of support as well as additional information concerning the reallocation approval process. Commission staff contacted key employees who confirmed the petition and letters of support
Because the Commission determined that Requestor was not personally and substantially involved in the decision to reallocate money under the contract, no waiver of the revolving door prohibition was required and the petition was dismissed.
Requestor was a former State employee who, as part of his duties as a State employee, had some involvement in licensing or regulation related to his prospective employer. He sought to begin employment with his prospective employer within one year of terminating State service.
Requestor asserted, and his ethics officer confirmed after reviewing meeting agendas, that his last licensing or regulatory involvement with respect to his prospective employer was more than 14 months before his termination of State service.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Commission found that Requestor made no regulatory or licensing decisions that directly applied to his prospective employer in the year prior to his separation of State service. Therefore, a waiver of the revolving door prohibition was not required under the provisions of the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act.
Because the Commission determined that Requestor requires no waiver of the revolving door prohibition, this petition was dismissed.