I recently wrote about National Ground Intelligence Center executive director William S. Rich Jr. quitting his job at NGIC to work for scandal-laden contractor MZM. I wrote that “there’s nothing inherently inappropriate about that.” In the comments, Annie Mauss disagrees:
Well, yes there is something inherently improper about it. 18 USC § 207 (c) places a one-year prohibition on former senior employees on communicating with their former department or agency. The legal language goes something like this: “For 1 year after serving in such a position, former senior employees are prohibited by virture of § 207 (c) from knowingly making, with intent to influence, any communication to, or appearance before, an employee of the department, agency or designated component in which they served during their last year of Government service, if that communication or appearance is made on behalf of any other person seeking official action on a matter.”
This 1-year “cooling off” period is to allow for a period of adjustment to new roles for former senior employee and the agency he served and to diminish any appearances that Government decisions might be affected by the improper use by an individual of his former senior position.
In his Post article from last Saturday, Walter Pincus wrote that “In September 2003, Rich retired from the NGIC and thereafter went to work as senior executive vice president for strategic intelligence for MZM, according to former NGIC colleagues and Pentagon documents.” How soon thereafter? The Post article seems to indicate pretty much immediately, which would have been a violation of the 1 year cooling off period mandated by law. Moreover, his MZM position as “senior executive vice president for strategic intelligence” was surely as a result of his former NGIC position and no doubt would have brought him back into contact with his former agency during that same period. Surely Mr. Rich, as a member of the Federal Senior Executive Service would have been aware of this particular legal prohibition?
It all certainly gives the appearance of both impropriety and illegality to me, but being from a bygone era myself, perhaps I just can’t see the finer nuances of how all this could be even remotely proper.
I’m no attorney, certainly, but Ms. Mauss’ comments and my reading of 18 USC § 207 (c) seem to indicate that Mr. Rich is in violation of federal law.