HHS OGC Ethics Q&As

Uncompensated activities involving speaking with or being interviewed by press or news media do not require prior approval. Please keep in mind that, if necessary to avoid confusion, you must clarify that you are speaking in your personal capacity only. You may not reference your official title or position or disclose nonpublic information. In this context, nonpublic information is information that you’ve gained by reason of your HHS employment and know or reasonably should know has not been made available to the general public.

The answer depends on whether you are speaking in your official or personal capacity. If speaking in your official capacity, you may not accept an honorarium, which would be a prohibited supplementation of your federal salary. If speaking personally, you have a limited ability to receive compensation. Specifically, you may not receive compensation, which includes any income or other consideration, from any source other than the government for speaking that relates to your official duties.

The term “relates to official duties” includes situations where:

• The circumstances indicate the invitation was extended primarily because of your official position rather than your expertise in a particular subject matter;
• The invitation was extended by someone whose interests may be affected substantially by performance or nonperformance of your official duties;
• he speech draws substantially on ideas/official data that are nonpublic;
• You will be speaking on a matter presently assigned to you or assigned in the past year;
• The speech pertains to an ongoing or announced policy, program or operation of the agency; or
• For noncareer employees, the speech includes the general subject matter area, industry, or economic sector primarily affected by HHS programs and operations.

Please follow up with your ethics official as soon as possible to determine any necessary steps.

In this instance, you should contact your component’s ethics official as soon as possible to share this new information. For speaking engagements in an official capacity, your HHS component’s ethics official must conduct a case-by-case sponsored travel analysis before you may accept payment for your hotel room from the event organizer, who may well be a non-federal source. The sponsored travel analysis will include a conflict of interest analysis as well as a determination to assure there is no appearance of impropriety. A sponsored travel analysis typically must be conducted in advance of travel other than exceptional circumstances.

You should refrain from providing legal advice until you seek and receive approval for providing professional services. HHS requires that employees obtain prior approval before engaging in certain outside activities that have a higher likelihood of creating conflicts with their official duties. Prior approval is required for providing consultative or professional services, meaning that you are providing advice, consultation or other services using the skills of a profession requiring specialized knowledge. If you wish to engage in an outside activity that requires prior approval, you must complete and submit the Form HHS-520 Request for Approval of Outside Activity. You will send this form to your supervisor for review, and if your supervisor agrees that this activity will not conflict with your official duties, your supervisor will recommend approval and forward the form to your ethics officials.

Employees should complete the form using the Outside Activity Reporting System (OARS) or, for employees at NIH, CDC, CMS, or ACF, an approved electronic filing system to ensure that the form is completed correctly, routed to the proper ethics officials, and reviewed efficiently. If you are unable to access OARS or your Division's electronic filing system, you may need to complete an accessible, fillable PDF Form HHS-520.

There are some restrictions on outside law practice for attorneys in the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) and the Office of Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG). If you are an OGC or OCIG attorney, you may not engage in outside law practice that would require you to assert a legal position that conflicts with the Department’s interests or to interpret any statutes, regulations, or rules under the Department’s jurisdiction.

If you respond with anything other than a clear “no,” you will be subject to the ethics rules on “seeking employment,” which the rules define broadly. In most cases, you will be considered to be seeking employment before you are engaged in actual job negotiations. For example, sending a resume or having preliminary contacts about possible employment, whether initiated by you or a prospective employer, may be considered seeking employment.

Once you have begun seeking or negotiating for subsequent non-federal employment, you must immediately recuse from/cease all participation in any official matter that involves your prospective employer as an identified party, such as a grant, contract, application, audit, investigation, lawsuit, etc. These are examples of “specific party matters.” You must also immediately recuse from/cease all participation in certain “particular matters of general applicability.” These matters affect the discrete/identifiable industry, economic sector, or other defined class of organizations in which your prospective employer operates. They include a legislative initiative, regulatory proposal, or policy determination that has an impact on your prospective employer as a member of such class.

If you are not interested in the potential employment opportunity, an example of a clear “no” might be “All my time and attention right now are devoted to my government job, and I am not in a position to discuss employment.” However, merely deferring the discussion until the foreseeable future does NOT constitute rejection.

Yes, gifts offered because of a spouse’s employment are acceptable, as long as the gift was not given or enhanced because of your official position.

It depends. You may be able to accept a lunch valued at $20 or less (as long as you do not accept more than $50 worth of gifts from that source in the calendar year). It is always permissible to go and pay for your own meal.

Yes, you may attend this free icebreaker event. Although attendance is optional, the icebreaker event is offered as an additional part of the conference. Since your office has paid for your attendance at the conference, and the icebreaker is offered to all attendees by the conference sponsor, this is excluded from the definition of a gift under the Standards of Ethical Conduct rules for federal employee because HHS has paid for you to attend the conference, and the icebreaker is a part of the conference.

Yes, you can likely accept as a gift based on a close personal relationship. However, you should check with your ethics official before participating in any matter related to your neighbor’s employer.

Yes, you may accept an invitation provided by a former employer to attend a reception or similar event when other former employees have been invited to attend, the invitation and benefits are based on the former employment relationship, and it is clear that such benefits have not been offered or enhanced because of your official position.

Yes, employees of Members of Congress are not prohibited sources. Additionally, if the friend was a prohibited source, the gift could likely be accepted under the close personal relationship exception. Note that if you are a financial disclosure filer, the gift may need to be reported on your annual report. 

Yes, you can likely accept this prize as long as you chose to enter the raffle. If you are attending in your official capacity and entering into the raffle is a required part of your service that day, then you may not accept. Additionally, you should not accept an otherwise permissible prize if you believe that a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would question your impartiality as a result of accepting it.

It depends on the price of the drink. On an occasional basis, your supervisor may accept a gift valued at $10 or less from you, so if the drink costs less than that, your supervisor could accept it.

In order to avoid international incident, you can always accept in the moment. Afterwards, you should check with your ethics official to see whether you can accept the gift personally, or whether it will be considered a gift to the agency. 

Yes, if this type of gift is customarily provided by the prospective employer in connection with bona fide employment discussions, you can accept it. If the prospective employer has interests that could be affected by performance or nonperformance of your duties, you must disqualify yourself from working on any matters affecting the employer.

Yes, you may accept the government rate at a hotel, even when traveling in your personal capacity.

Yes, opportunities available to the public are not considered gifts under the ethics rules, and therefore, can be accepted.

Yes. An employee who is serving or affiliated with an outside organization in a personal capacity may not permit the organization to reference the employee’s official title, position, agency, or government affiliation, if the context is such that the reference could reasonably be construed to imply that his agency or the government either sanctions or endorses the personal activity. This is a fact-specific determination that the employee and their ethics official will undertake. If the board wants to include a picture of the employee along with the blurb, an official government headshot should not be used. 

Generally, you cannot use or permit use of your government position, title, or any authority associated with your public office in a manner that could reasonably be construed to imply that Government sanctions or endorses the activity of a private organization or cause, no matter how worthy.

No. To remain in compliance with the HHS Rules of Behavior, you may not allow unauthorized use or access to HHS information and information systems. Others may not use government furnished equipment and/or other HHS information resources provided to you to perform official work duties and tasks.

No. Though limited personal use of IT resources is allowed, the time and resources required to write a novel on government furnished equipment would surpass what is considered to be limited use. If the novel is to be published, this would violate the HHS Rules of Behavior, as the use of government furnished equipment for commercial or for-profit activity is expressly prohibited .              

No, you should not show an officer your government ID in connection with an infraction or violation, as this would constitute misuse of your public office for private gain. You may not use or permit the use of your government position, title, or authority in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise.

The supervisor’s actions likely constitute misuse of public office for private gain. They may not use or permit the use of their authority associated with their public office in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person, including a subordinate, to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise. You should speak to office leadership and your ethics office for assistance in addressing this issue. 

No. This is another example of misuse of public office for private gain. It may also be viewed as the misuse of government authority in a way that could be construed as a government sanction of the local business. The improper use of HHS letterhead may also be considered misuse of government property, as it is an inappropriate use of a government furnished resource.

It depends. You could enter the raffle with your HHS business card and accept the free lunch prize if you are accepting it in your personal capacity. If the free lunch is being offered to your office, then you should be wary of conditions that come with acceptance. For example, if the lunch is to be accompanied by a sales pitch, then it should not be accepted as this could constitute use of official position for the private gain of another. 

Official title and or stationery may only be used to respond to a request from an individual who seeks a recommendation or character reference if the HHS employee has personal knowledge of the ability or character of the individual making the request, AND

• The individual being recommended is seeking federal employment, OR
• The HHS employee has dealt with the individual being recommended in the course of federal employment.

In the case of a personal friend, you likely could not use your official title or stationery in writing the reference, as you would not have dealt with them in the course of your federal employment. Notwithstanding, you could make reference to your HHS experience in the body of the letter. 

No. This would constitute disclosure of nonpublic information. HHS employees may not allow the improper use of nonpublic information to further their own private interest or that of another, whether through advice or recommendation, or by knowing unauthorized disclosure. Even if the upcoming request for proposal is widely known about in the employee’s office, this information cannot be shared with a friend as it has not been announced to the general public. The friend’s company could use this information as an unfair advantage in preparing a bid to submit in response to the request. 

The Hatch Act restricts federal employee participation in partisan political activities at the national, state, or local levels that are aimed at supporting or defeating political candidates for public elective office or directed to the success or failure of a political party, candidate, or partisan political group. Click here to find out more about political activities.

Federal employees may express their opinions about a partisan group or candidate in a partisan race (e.g., post, repost, "like," "share,"), but there are a few limitations such as:

• Engaging in any political activity via social media while on duty or in the workplace.
• Referring to their official titles or positions while engaged in political activity at any time (note that inclusion of an employee's official title or position on one's social media profile, without more, is not an improper use of official authority); and
• Suggesting or asking anyone to make political contributions at any time. Thus, they should neither provide links to the political contribution page of any partisan group or candidate in a partisan race nor "like," "share," or "repost" a solicitation from one of those entities, including an invitation to a political fundraising event. An employee, however, may accept an invitation to a political fundraising event from such entities via Facebook or X.

Click here to find out more about social media and the Hatch Act

If you are requesting a status update only on your own behalf, that would be permissible. However, if your status update request is on behalf of someone else (for instance, your new employer), you should be very careful that you do not cross the line by communicating to/appearing before your former colleague with any questions or statements that could be interpreted as an intent to influence, because that would be a violation of a criminal statute.                                                                                                                         

There is a criminal conflict of interest statute that prohibits you from knowingly, with the intent to influence, making any communication to or appearance before an employee of the United States on behalf of any other person in connection with a particular matter involving a specific party or parties, in which you participated personally and substantially as an employee, and in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. 

Certain communications to and appearances before employees of the United States are not made with the intent to influence, including, but not limited to, communications and appearances with the sole purpose of making a routine request not involving a potential controversy, such as an inquiry as to the status of a matter. 

You can also always reach out to your former HHS ethics officials for guidance to make sure you are not violating this statute by making your request.

As long as it is not the same matter you worked on at HHS, this is permissible. However, as determining whether something is "the same matter" can be tricky, you should reach out to your former Op/StaffDiv ethics office for help in making that determination. If the new matter you’re inquiring about is a particular matter of general applicability, there are no restrictions on your representation of your new employer back to HHS.  If the new matter is a specific party matter that is only similar to those that you worked on while at HHS, your representation back to HHS would also be permissible. If, however, the new matter is a specific party matter that cannot be differentiated from those that you worked on while at HHS, a criminal statute would prohibit your representation back to HHS.

The criminal conflict of interest statute prohibits you from knowingly, with the intent to influence, making any communication to or appearance before an employee of the United States on behalf of any other person in connection with a particular matter involving a specific party or parties, in which you participated personally and substantially as an employee, and in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest.

A “specific party matter” involves identifiable parties, such as a grant, contract, application, audit, investigation, lawsuit, etc. In contrast, a “particular matter of general applicability” affects the discrete/identifiable industry, economic sector, or other defined class of organizations in which your new employer operates. It includes a legislative initiative, regulatory proposal, policy determination, and similar matters.

You should contact the ethics officials from your former Op/StaffDiv who can help determine whether a matter was under your official responsibility during the final year of your service.  If your former subordinates did not work on the matter at all, there are no restrictions on your representation of your new employer back to HHS.  Likewise, if they worked on the matter prior to your final year at HHS, your representation back to HHS would also be permissible.  If, however, any of your subordinates worked on the matter during your final year, a criminal statute would prohibit your representation back to HHS.

The criminal conflict of interest statute provides that for two years after their government service terminates, no former employee shall knowingly, with the intent to influence, make any communication to or appearance before an employee of the United States on behalf of any other person in connection with a particular matter involving a specific party or parties, in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest, and which such person knows or reasonably should know was actually pending under their official responsibility within the one-year period prior to the termination of their government service.

Certain communications to and appearances before employees of the United States are not made with the intent to influence, including, but not limited to, communications and appearances made solely for the purpose of asking factual questions in a context that does not involve either an appreciable element of dispute or an effort to seek discretionary government action.                   

A contract and contract renewal are specific party matters. It would be a factual question as to whether the contract renewal would be considered the same specific party matter as the original contract or a different specific party matter. If the determination was made that they were two separate contracts, you could work on the renewal. If the contract renewal is the same specific party matter, there is a criminal statute that would prohibit you from representing another back to the government on the renewal. You could, however, work "behind the scenes" on the renewal - performing work that does not include representing your new employer or anyone else to the government on the renewal effort.

The criminal conflict of interest statute prohibits you from knowingly, with the intent to influence, making any communication to or appearance before an employee of the United States on behalf of any other person in connection with a particular matter involving a specific party or parties, in which you participated personally and substantially as an employee, and in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest .

The Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) imposes additional restrictions on your post-government activities if you meet certain criteria. This is the only post-employment scenario where you are prohibited from accepting pay from specific employers once you leave HHS, for a one-year period. 

If you meet the following criteria:

• While at HHS, you worked on a contract valued at more than $10 million;
• You served in one of these positions:
• Contracting officer/member of source selection board/chief of a technical evaluation team/program manager/deputy program manager/administrative contracting officer;
• Or personally made certain decisions, such as approving an award or modification/settling a claim;

Then you may not accept compensation from that contractor for one year.                  

You should reach out to your former ethics office as you may be eligible for a PIA opinion letter, otherwise known as a "safe harbor" letter.     

Yes. Along with the permanent ban on representing back to the government on specific party matters you worked on personally and substantially during your entire government service, and the two-year ban on representing back to the government on specific party matters pending under your official responsibility during the final year of your government service, “senior” employees are subject to another far broader, criminal one-year “cooling-off” period representation ban. In this context, “senior” employees include individuals serving in Executive Level II through V positions, uniformed officers in pay grades O-7 and above, and SES and other employees with an annual rate of 2023 basic pay of $183,467 or above. That level of basic pay tends to increase somewhat at the beginning of each new calendar year.

Under the “cooling off” period representation ban, for one year after completing service in a senior position, you may not knowingly make, with the intent to influence:

•  Any communication to or appearance before
• Any officer or employee of your former agency
• On any matter
•  On behalf of anyone seeking official action

In this context, your “former agency” means either the OpDiv where you worked or, if you worked in a StaffDiv, the entire Office of the Secretary. The one-year ban commences at the end of your senior service.

While employed with the contractor, you would be subject to both the permanent ban on representing back to the government on specific party matters you worked on personally and substantially during your entire government service, and the two-year ban on representing back to the government on specific party matters pending under your official responsibility during the final year of your government service. Because you are not involved in procurement-related activities with your new employer, no Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) restrictions apply to you. For the same reason, you would not be able to benefit from the PIA “safe harbor” letter protections.

The criminal conflict of interest statute described as a “permanent” ban prohibits you from knowingly, with the intent to influence, making any communication to or appearance before an employee of the United States on behalf of any other person in connection with a particular matter involving a specific party or parties, in which you participated personally and substantially as an employee, and in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest.

A “specific party matter” involves identifiable parties, such as a grant, contract, application, audit, investigation, lawsuit, etc.  In contrast, a “particular matter of general applicability” affects the discrete/identifiable industry, economic sector, or other defined class of organizations in which your new employer operates.  It includes a legislative initiative, regulatory proposal, policy determination, and the like.

The criminal conflict of interest statute known as the “two-year” ban provides that for two years after their government service terminates, no former employee shall knowingly, with the intent to influence, make any communication to or appearance before an employee of the United States on behalf of any other person in connection with a particular matter involving a specific party or parties, in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest, and which such person knows or reasonably should know was actually pending under their official responsibility within the one-year period prior to the termination of their government service.  A “specific party matter” has the same definition as with the permanent ban.

Yes. You have no ongoing restrictions regarding gifts. However, if you now work for a prohibited source, your former co-workers may not be able to accept gifts from you unless an exception applies.

You are prohibited from participating personally and substantially in particular matters if the disposition of those matters is likely to have a direct and predictable effect on the employee's financial interests or on financial interests imputed to the employee.  18 U.S.C. § 208(a).  The purpose of this primary conflict of interest law is to prevent financial interests from affecting official government actions.

• Particular matters are focused on the interests of specific named parties (particular matters involving specific parties) or a discrete and identifiable class of persons/entities (particular matters of general applicability).  Particular matters can involve statutes, regulations, policies, contracts, grants, lawsuits, applications, permits, licenses, audits, investigations, and adjudications.
• Personal and substantial participation includes anything more than ministerial work, such as substantive discussions, advice, decisions, or recommendations.  This includes all employees who participate in decision-making, not just those who file financial disclosure reports or are the final decision-makers.
• Direct and predictable effect includes both positive and negative effects on an outside entity or the value of an asset, and the ability and willingness of an organization to continue to pay salary or benefits or maintain an employment relationship, among many other possible effects. This is an evidentiary element for investigations/prosecutors which we do not often rely on when analyzing issues.
• Imputed financial interests include the financial interests of spouses, minor children, general partners, organizations for which the employee serves as an officer, director, or trustee, and organizations for which the employee has or is seeking an ongoing or prospective employment relationship.
  • General Partners:  The financial interests of a general partner with whom you have undertaken an investment venture or a business activity, when known to you, are imputed to you for conflicts purposes.  For example, if you have borrowed funds with your general partner, and he has pledged his stock in Consolidated Edison and Exxon as collateral for the loan, you cannot work on policy matters in the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program because of the policy matters' effect on the utility and energy sectors of the economy.
  • Relationships with Outside Organizations:  The financial interests of any organization in which you serve as an officer, director, trustee, or employee are imputed to you for conflicts purposes.  This rule has a significant impact on your ability to obtain or continue outside employment or to serve in fiduciary roles or similar affiliations with outside organizations.  If you work at FDA, for example, you cannot work after hours managing a retail drug store.  Likewise, if you work at CMS, you probably cannot serve on the board of directors of a nonprofit clinic, inasmuch as charitable organizations may have financial interests in the resolution of many HHS policies and may apply for grants from or seek contracts with HHS.
  • Seeking & Negotiating Employment:  Under the criminal conflict of interest law, you cannot participate in any government matter that will affect the financial interests of any person or organization with which you are negotiating or have a continuing arrangement concerning prospective employment.  A related regulation prohibits an employee from working on a particular matter if the employee is "seeking employment" with a person or organization affected by that matter, even if the employee's job search has not progressed to actual negotiations.  An employee who complies with the disqualification requirements in the regulation will ensure compliance with the conflict of interest statute. 

NIH Employees: Senior employees at NIH, their spouses, or minor children are generally not permitted to have a financial interest in a "substantially affected organization." Substantially effected organizations include: 

1. A biotechnology or pharmaceutical company; a medical device manufacturer; or a corporation, partnership, or other enterprise or entity significantly involved, directly or through subsidiaries, in the research, development, or manufacture of biotechnological, biostatistical, pharmaceutical, or medical devices, equipment, preparations, treatments, or products;
2. Any organization, a majority of whose members are these types of entities; and
3. Any other organization determined by the agency to be substantially affected by the programs, policies, or operations of the NIH.                                                      

FDA Employees: The HHS Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct (Supplemental Standards) specify that FDA employees, along with their spouses or minor children, generally may not have a financial interest in a "significantly regulated organization" (SRO). The HHS Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct formally defines SRO follows:

An organization for which the sales of products regulated by the FDA constitute ten percent or more of annual gross sales in the organization's previous fiscal year. Where an organization does not have a record of sales of FDA-regulated products, it will be deemed to be significantly regulated if its operations are predominately in fields regulated by FDA, or if its research, development, or other business activities are reasonably expected to result in the development of products that are regulated by FDA.

There are several remedies for conflicts of interest, including regulatory exemptions, recusal, waiver, divestiture, and resignation from outside organizations. As soon as you identify a potential conflict of interest, you must recuse yourself from participating in the matter by notifying your supervisor or other appropriate person. You should then contact your ethics official to confirm whether a conflict exists and, if one does, agree on an appropriate remedy.

Regulatory Exemptions: You may qualify for a regulatory exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 208(b)(2). If so, no additional remedy is needed. The regulatory exemptions can be complicated, and you should seek advice from your ethics official before relying on them.

Recusal: You may recuse yourself from participating in particular matters that could impact your financial interests. When you are recused from a matter, you must not have any involvement in the matter whatsoever, including, for example, by choosing who the matter is reassigned to, receiving status updates on the matter, or providing behind-the-scenes advice on the matter. Recusal will not be a good option if that recusal would prevent you from participating in a significant portion of your official duties.
Waivers: You may qualify for a written waiver pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 208(b)(1) or 208(b)(3) if the need for you to participate in the matter is great and the potential for conflict is insubstantial. Waivers are generally disfavored for full-time employees in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.

Divestiture: Where no regulatory exemption applies, a waiver is inappropriate, and recusal from the government matter is impracticable, conflicting assets must be sold. If you are required to sell conflicting assets, you may qualify for a Certificate of Divestiture (CD), which will allow you to reinvest the proceeds from the sales of the conflicting assets into non-conflicting assets and defer the taxes on any capital gains resulting from the sale. The CD must be granted before the sale of the conflicting assets occurs, so if you plan to rely on a CD, do not sell the conflicting assets until you have obtained the CD.

Resignation: Where no regulatory exemption applies, a waiver is inappropriate, and recusal from the government matter is impracticable, you conflicting relationships or affiliations with outside organizations must be terminated.

Yes, because your spouse’s interests are imputed to you, you will not be able to work on certain matters affecting your spouse’s employer or clients. However, no rules will affect the work your spouse is able to do for their employer. 

For one year from the time you stop working for your current employer, you will need to recuse from specific party matters (including grants, contracts, and lawsuits) affecting your current employer. If you continue to work with your current employer while at HHS, you will also need to recuse from particular matters of general applicability (including regulations, standards, and legislation) affecting your current employer until you resign from that position.

The answer depends on the specific facts of the situation. You may be able to continue work on a part-time basis with your previous employer, but formal approval may be required. If you are approved to continue to work for your current employer, there may be some restrictions on your participation so as to avoid conflict with your HHS position. Please get in touch with your prospective office’s ethics officials with further questions.

NIH Employees: NIH employees are generally prohibited from engaging in certain outside activities with substantially affected organizations, supported research institutions, and health care providers or insurers. Substantially effected organizations include: 

1. A biotechnology or pharmaceutical company; a medical device manufacturer; or a corporation, partnership, or other enterprise or entity significantly involved, directly or through subsidiaries, in the research, development, or manufacture of biotechnological, biostatistical, pharmaceutical, or medical devices, equipment, preparations, treatments, or products;
2. Any organization, a majority of whose members are these types of entities; and
3. Any other organization determined by the agency to be substantially affected by the programs, policies, or operations of the NIH.

FDA Employees: FDA employees who file public or confidential disclosure reports are generally prohibited from engaging in outside employment with a "significantly regulated organization" (SRO). The HHS Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct formally defines SRO follows:

An organization for which the sales of products regulated by the FDA constitute ten percent or more of annual gross sales in the organization's previous fiscal year. Where an organization does not have a record of sales of FDA-regulated products, it will be deemed to be significantly regulated if its operations are predominately in fields regulated by FDA, or if its research, development, or other business activities are reasonably expected to result in the development of products that are regulated by FDA. 

Yes, service on a PTA board is permissible and does not require prior approval. This exemption from the prior approval requirement applies to service as an officer, director, board member, or other leadership position of a local PTA that facilitates familial participation in a school attended by child in the employee’s family.

Though the answer depends on the specific facts of the situation, it is unlikely that you would be able to hold your position on the board of a family company that does business with HHS. As a board member, the financial interests of the family company are imputed to you.  Depending on your official role, this could pose a financial conflict of interest and would therefore prevent your continuing participation with the board. Please get in touch with your prospective office’s ethics officials with further questions. 

The answer depends on the specific facts of the situation. You may be able to continue work reviewing articles for a medical journal, but prior approval will likely be required before this work can be continued with the journal once you join the Department. The prior approval requirement applies to teaching, speaking, writing, or editing activities that either relate to official duties, or that are undertaken as a result of an invitation to do so by a prohibited source (i.e., a person or entity with business before HHS). Certain employees must also comply with outside earned income limits.