A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
Not surprising...but not a good conversation to have with ASF....
-
Inline-Images: image001.png It was worth a try... Best, Tara A. Schwetz, PhD Associate Deputy Director, NIH A: P: I M: cidimage001.png@01D639B9.FBF9
-
My apologies; I thought you were copied on Randy's note to Larry. Please see below. I am forwarding the string that went. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Gretchen Gretchen H. Weaver, J.D. Supervisory/Senior NIH Ethics Counsel DHHS/OGC/Ethics Division phone: fax: NOTICE: THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), ETHICS DIVISION IS INTENDED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE RECIPIENT(S) NAMES ABOVE AND MAY CONTAIN PROTECTED, PRIVILEGED, OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT SHOULD NOT BE TRANSMITTED TO UNAUTHORIZED ADDRESSEES. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. EMPLOYEE RECIPIENTS ARE COUNSELED THAT DISCIPLINARY ACTION FOR VIOLATING FEDERAL ETHICS REGULATIONS MAY NOT BE TAKEN AGAINST ANY EMPLOYEE WHO HAS ENGAGED IN CONDUCT IN GOOD FAITH RELIANCE UPON THE PRIOR ADVICE OF ANY AGENCY ETHICS OFFICIAL, PROVIDED THAT THE EMPLOYEE HAS MADE FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES. IF EMPLOYEE CONDUCT IS POTENTIALLY SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL SANCTIONS UNDER CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND RELATED STATUTES, RELIANCE OF THE ADVICE OF AN AGENCY ETHICS OFFICIAL IN INTERPRETING THE SCOPE OF SUCH STATUTES IS A FACTOR THAT MAY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN EXERCISING PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION. EMPLOYEES ARE CAUTIONED THAT DISCLOSURES TO AN OGC ATTORNEY ARE NOT PROTTECTED WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. ALL EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING AGENCY ATTORNEYS, ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS TO THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
-
Gretchen shared that OGE disagreed with our argument, and upheld OGC's determination that Tony cannot receive the cash prize associated with NAM award. Do you want me to draft an email to Tony for you?
-
2021-02-22 15:57
Lawrence A. Tabak
Yes please. Have we received any good news to temper this with?
-
I asked before I wrote you. No good news, but no bad news either. Gretchen reviewed the Dan David package and has some follow up questions about the events surrounding the prize, i.e., award ceremony and symposia. If they are the same as in past years (likely yes except this year's events will be virtual), then approval should be forthcoming.
-
Had you sent Tony a copy of the request to OGE? If not, do you think it is worth sharing it with him now? While it wasn't successful, it was a big and difficult effort. Perhaps he'll appreciate it. I suggested language with and without forwarding your email to Randy. Tony, I write to inform you of the final decision regarding the cash prize associated with NAM's Lienhard Award. Unfortunately, we were not successful in our appeal. While you can accept the honor of being named the 2020 Lienhard awardee, you may not receive the cash. 1) For you information, below is the lengthy and detailed argument . . . or 2) We presented a lengthy and detailed argument first to HHS's Office of the General Counsel (OGC) and then to the independent US Office of Government Ethics (OGE) to persuade them that NAM's relationship with Government agencies is unique, and thus, an award from NAM should be viewed differently than one bestowed by other non-profit corporations. However, neither OGC nor OGE felt it was necessary to change their previous determination regarding NAM so that you would be permitted to accept the cash prize under the applicable regulations. I'm disappointed that we did not get a different decision. You are deserving of the additional recognition. LAT