Stephen Epstein, Director of the Defense Department's Standards of Conduct Office, maintains the Encyclopedia of Ethical Failures, which catalogues ethical lapses at all federal agencies. Here are the excerpts concerning Social Security employees, although (no offense to the vast majority of honorable Social Security employees) I think there are more that he has not heard about:
At their 1997 trial in Louisiana, a judge ordered the employee to 46 months imprisonment followed by three years probation. The employee's husband received 30 months imprisonment followed by three years probation. They each paid back $23,809.33.
Bribery
A Social Security Administration employee and her husband were convicted for soliciting bribes from individuals seeking Social Security benefits for themselves or family members. The couple approached citizens who were having difficulty qualifying for Supplemental Social Security benefits. They would offer to arrange to have benefits reinstated or to complete paperwork for the individual. Afterwards, they demanded payment for their services.At their 1997 trial in Louisiana, a judge ordered the employee to 46 months imprisonment followed by three years probation. The employee's husband received 30 months imprisonment followed by three years probation. They each paid back $23,809.33.
Conflict Of Interest
The Facts: In the "off-time" from her work with the Social Security Administration, a senior attorney opened her own legal practice and represented clients with claims against that very same Administration. For her double-duty, she was sued by a U.S. Attorney and ended up agreeing to a settlement that required her to pay the United States $113,000 for this and other violations—not a typical attorney's fee!Hatch Act
Two federal employees, one at the Environmental Protection Agency, the other at the Social Security Administration, were disciplined for violations of the Hatch Act. Although federal employees are entitled to support the political candidates of their choice, the Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activity while on duty. ... the SSA employee favored George W. Bush, and while on duty, sent a similar email to 27 of his co-workers and other individuals. It was irrelevant which candidate each employee supported, both were found to have violated the Hatch Act because sending emails in support of any candidate while on duty constitutes prohibited political activity. Disciplinary action for violations of the Hatch Act range from 30-day suspension without pay to termination from federal employment.
Even though it was against the law (now days just about everything you do breaks some law) I don't see a problem with working as someone's attorney in your free time, as long as they aren't saying they are an SSA attorney to pick up business.
ReplyDeleteI find it had to believe there are 27 people at SSA that someone thought might vote for Bush. LOL The stuff I received by e-mail was anti-Bush and I wonder if anything was done about those.