DOJ Ethics Congressional Oversight

Congressional Oversight and DOJ Ethics

Part I: Congress and the Executive branch

1. What powers does Congress have over agencies in the executive branch? Where can one find these authorized powers?

The U.S. Constitution does not establish executive agencies nor provides guidelines for how they can be created. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that Congress has implied authority to establish and manage executive agencies. The most felt and often practices power the Congress has over administrative agencies is an oversight. Congressional oversight by the U.S. Congress over administrative agencies and the administrative branch, in general, includes the monitoring, review, and supervision of these agencies (Garvey & Sheffner, 2018). Congressional oversight is largely exercised through the congressional committee system through legislative hearings. Oversight can also be through various activities and contexts undertaken by Congress, including appropriations, authorization, investigation, and studies and reviews done by congressional staff and support agencies.

The powers to oversight executive agencies are derived from its implied powers from the U.S. Constitution, the House and Senate Rules, and public laws. In particular, the Congress may utilize Article I lawmaking power (Garvey & Sheffner, 2018) to establish executive agencies and specific offices within those agencies, design the basic structures and operations of those agencies, and assign how holders of those offices are appointed and removed in line with specific constitutional limitations (Feinstein, 2017).

2. If Congress feels that an executive branch federal agency has failed to comply with policies, procedures, and standards, what can they do about this situation?

Once Congress has concerns about the operations of any executive agency, there are various ways to go about conducting oversight. In the case Congress has concerns that an executive agency, e.g., the leadership of the Federal Department of Justice, has possibly engaged in inappropriate communications with a foreign power in violation of departmental policy, the initial step is to determine three crucial questions; which issues warrant oversight, how to get the desired information, and what is to be done with the acquired information (Congressional Research Service, 2021). The process of determining these three questions would involve the relevant congressional committee; in this case, the issues fall under both the Judiciary committee as well as the foreign affairs committee; thus, it is suggested that the hearing committee would be made up of a combination of the two standing committees (Oleszek et al., 2016). The role of the committee would be investigative. The committee would hear from the leadership of the DOJ through the various tools at the disposal of the committee, including deposition and subpoena. The information gathered would subsequently be used to determine the policy infringements and the relevant punitive measures to undertake, including censure or impeachment of the DOJ leadership (Oleszek et al., 2016).

Part II: Simulation: Ethics in the DOJ

1. Read through the “Ethics Handbook for On and Off Duty Conduct” from the DOJ and the DOJ Ethics Scenario, located in the Resources. As an employee of the DOJ, are you able to accept any gifts or compensation for any services rendered to various individuals or groups? Explain.

As an employee of the DOJ, the general principle is not to accept any gift(s) resulting from the employee’s professional services rendered to the source, various individuals, or groups unless prior approval for such gift or compensation has been received. According to the “Ethics Handbook for On and Off Duty Conduct” for the DOJ (2016), no employee is allowed to solicit or accept a gift given based on the employee’s position or from a source prohibited. Prohibited sources are those that; seek official action or business with the DOJ, and thus, the gift amounts to a bride, are regulated by the department, would present a conflict of interest, and an organization made up of persons described above. However, an employee can accept a gift if it is clear it is based on a personal relationship. The motivation is to official position, the gift value per occasion is less than $20, and gifts from the source do not exceed $50 per year, if the gift is offered to a broad class of government employees, and if the gift is a genuine award or honorary degree based on public service and prior approval has been given. Based on this understanding and the case presented, it would be ethical to accept the free entry to the evening’s dance performance and the $150 honorarium (assuming that this had prior approval and because it doesn’t exceed $350).

2. Why do you think the DOJ has implemented such policies? Are those policies in keeping with the policies, procedures, and standards that were authorized by the enabling legislation of Congress? Explain. (comp. 3.2)

The DOJ policies on gifts have been implemented, with the primary objective being to avoid any potential conflicts of interest. The policies help DOJ employees to avoid situations where their official actions and services would affect or appear to affect their private interests, non-financial or financial. The policies also help to do away with potential bribery for services offered by the DOJ and thus promote the impartiality standard (DOJ, 2016).

The policies on accepting gifts are more of an ethics issue, and for the U.S. government, ethics are specific departments. The U.S. Congress also has its specific policies on acceptance of gifts for Members of the Congress as contained in the Congressional Gifts Reform Act (GovTrack.us., 2021). The U.S. Code § 3113 touches on accepting gifts, however, this is from the perspective of acceptance of gifts for the U.S. government by Cabinet Secretaries under the law of property but not from an employee ethics perspective. Therefore, it is argued that, within the context of this paper, there is not specific standards, procedures, and policies that would be considered as being the legislation of Congress on acceptance of gifts. However, by comparing DOJ ethics and the Congressional Gifts Reform Act, it is obvious that there are numerous similarities in the general provisions. However, for this paper, it is determined that without an applicable legislation of Congress, it is impossible to determine whether the DOJ policies in the immediate above paragraph are in keeping with the policies, procedures and standards.

3. Do you think it is a good idea to attempt to keep activities of public servants from even the appearance of impropriety (see “General Principles of Ethical Conduct,” number 14)? Explain.

Yes, it is argued that it is good to keep public servants’ activities from even the appearance of impropriety as contained in General Principles of Ethical Conduct no. 14 (DPJ, 2016). From a moral philosophical viewpoint, the attempt to adhere to the set code of ethics by DOJ employees is critical in determining adherence under Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development (Banks, 2020). For public servants of which DOF employees are, the laid down code of ethics is founded on caring for others, which is different from the traditional ethics. The ethics of care are completely detached from the idea of depending on rules solely to determine morality by regarding them as the guidelines for determining what’s right and what’s wrong. Therefore, by appearing to attempt to adhere to the laid down ethics by making a visible attempt to avoid any appearance of impropriety gives the appearance of a principle, stating, as it does, that an employee ought to enhance the notion of ethical behavior (Banks, 2020). Therefore, the theory of moral development and the notion of care is at the core of understanding legal and public virtues and the personal and private virtues, and more specifically, it should form the foundation of legal justice. The ethics of care as a moral philosophy in the legal and justice system bring about fairness, justice, care, and compassion, which are essential for the success of the DOJ (Banks, 2020). More importantly, the appearance to avoid any impropriety creates a good and favorable image for the DOJ and the FBI, which promotes acceptance among the citizenry, trust in its investigative results, and faith when cooperating with agents.

4. Would participating in trainings with other law enforcement organizations be in keeping with the original purpose of the FBI? Explain.

The federal government created the Bureau to investigate criminals who evaded prosecution by passing over state lines. To effectively deliver on its mandate, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) needed to cooperate with other law enforcement agencies, the secret service, private detectives, marshals, and state police. In 2002, the Bureau established the Office of Law Enforcement Coordination (currently known as the Office of Partner Engagement) to build bridges, creating new partnerships, and strengthening and supporting relationships with other federal agencies, state, local, tribal, and campus law enforcement, and national and international law enforcement associations (“About,” 2021). The creation of bridges involves training with or training other agencies to help in combating the evolving threats and keeping the American population safe. The FBI training division instructs many and diverse law enforcement officers, including special agents, intelligence analysts, professional staff, law enforcement officers, private sector, and foreign partners. Moreover, the FBO academy offers numerous training programs.