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 division chief for a State agency. His division was responsible for awarding certain grants to different entities, including his prospective employer. Based upon statements from the Requestor and his ethics officer, the Commission determined that Requestor was not personally and substantially involved in the actual decision to award the grants. Furthermore, the amount of the grants the division made was determined by a formula set out in administrative rules.
The Commission also examined whether Requestor made licensing or regulatory decisions that could directly affect his prospective employer in the year prior to his leaving state government.
The level of Requestor’s involvement and the decisions he made appeared to be routine and minor. Requestor’s ethics officer completed an extensive review of the facts surrounding his involvement in these decisions and found no reason that the Commission should not grant the waiver.
Based upon the statements of the Requestor, and letters from the ethics officer and prospective employer, the Commission concluded that there was no evidence that Requestor’s future employment affected any regulatory or licensing decision made in the year prior to leaving State service and waived the revolving door prohibition.
Requestor was employed by a State entity that reviewed and recommended appointees to serve on various State boards and commissions.
Based upon her statements and those of her Ethics Officer, Requestor appeared to have had no involvement in decisions to award contracts to her future employer. The Commission asked for further information about any involvement Requestor may have had in appointing employees or officers of her prospective employer to State boards or commissions.
The Ethics Officer reviewed a list of employees and officers from the prospective employer’s web site and determined that none of the officers or employees were contained in the State entity’s database. The Commission concluded that Requestor did not make any licensing or regulatory decisions that would directly or indirectly affect her future employer
For these reasons, the Commission concluded that Requestor did not require a waiver of the revolving door prohibition and dismissed her petition.
Requestor was the head of a State agency that awarded two contracts to his prospective employer eight to eleven months prior to his termination of State service. As head of the agency, Requestor gave final signature approval of the award of these contracts.
The Commission determined that Requestor’s involvement in the decision to award these contracts was personal and substantial, even though Requestor was following recommendations made by two agency contract committees.
Based upon the attestations of the Requestor and the Ethics Officer, the Commission determined that Requestor established by a preponderance of the evidence that his prospective employment did not affect the decisions he made with respect to the two contracts. Requestor had not overruled a recommendation of the contract committees in the four years that he served as agency head and there is no evidence that Requestor influenced the decision of the contract committees. Also, Requestor recused himself in writing from signing any contract with his prospective employer once he began discussing possible employment. Furthermore, the prospective employer had performed 112 projects for the agency since 1970.
For these reasons, the Commission granted Requestor’s petition to waive the revolving door prohibition
Requestor exercised contract oversight concerning contracts his State agency had with his prospective employer. This oversight granted him the discretion to override (or not override) certain decisions that the prospective employer made concerning medical treatment.
From the initial documents, the Commission was unable to determine whether Requestor might have used this discretion to refuse to override inappropriate decisions by the prospective employer and thereby save his prospective employer a substantial amount of money.
Additional information from the Requestor and the agency Ethics Officer strongly suggested that Requestor did not abuse his discretion to favor his prospective employer. The Ethics Officer stated that Requestor would override the prospective employer’s medical treatment decisions about 90% of the time. Also, Requestor created policies that provide more transparency and opportunity to override the prospective employer’s decisions.
For these reasons, the Commission granted Requestor’s petition to waive the revolving door prohibition.
Requestor sought employment with an entity that had a contract to provide services with the State of Illinois. Requestor and his Ethics Officer asserted that Requestor was not involved in the decision to award the contract, which was with another State agency.
The Commission contacted the other State agency that had the contract with Requestor’s prospective employer. Officials with the other State agency confirmed that Requestor had no involvement in the decision to award the contract with Requestor’s prospective employer.
For these reasons, the Commission determined that no waiver of the revolving door prohibition was necessary and dismissed Requestor’s petition.