FAQ
An alternative, print-friendly copy of the OCC FAQ is available here.
What is the role of the Office of Congressional Conduct in the House ethics process?
The Office of Congressional Conduct (OCC) was created in March of 2008 as an independent, non-partisan office governed by a Board comprised of private citizens. Before January 3, 2025, the OCC was known as the Office of Congressional Ethics. The OCC reviews allegations of misconduct against Members, officers, and staff of the House and, when appropriate, refers matters to the House Committee on Ethics. The OCC is not authorized to determine if a violation occurred. The OCC is also not authorized to sanction Members, officers, or employees of the House or to recommend any sanctions. The OCC is not able to provide advice or education on the rules and standards of conduct applicable to Members, officers, and employees of the House.
How does the OCC conduct investigations?
The OCC's investigations have two stages: (1) a preliminary review, which is completed in 30 days and (2) a second-phase review, which is completed in 45 days, with the possibility of a 14-day extension.
Preliminary Review
Two Board members (one appointed by the Speaker of the House and one appointed by the Minority Leader) may authorize a preliminary review if all available information provides a reasonable basis to believe that a violation may have occurred.
Second-Phase Review
Three Board members may authorize a second-phase review if all available information provides probable cause to believe a violation may have occurred. At the end of any second-phase review, the Board must recommend to the Committee on Ethics either that the matter requires the Committee's further review or that it should dismiss the matter.
The OCC is a fact-finding office. A recommendation for further review does not constitute a determination that a violation occurred, only that the OCC has a substantial reason to believe a violation occurred. Similarly, a recommendation for dismissal does not constitute a determination that a violation did not occur, only that the OCC does not have substantial reason to believe a violation occurred, which is the standard of proof required for the OCC to refer a matter to the Committee on Ethics for further review.
When it makes its recommendation, the OCC Board may also transmit to the Standards Committee findings that include, among other things, findings of fact and citations to laws, rules or regulations that may have been violated. In all but one set of circumstances, the report and findings of the OCC Board must be publicly released.
A statistical summary of the Board's actions are released on a quarterly basis.
What is the jurisdiction of the OCC?
The OCC has jurisdiction to review allegations of misconduct against Members, officers, and staff of the United States House of Representatives that occurred after March 11, 2008, the date the House adopted the OCC's authorizing resolution.
How do I request the OCC conduct an investigation?
Any member of the public may bring a matter of suspected misconduct involving a Member, officer or staff of the House to the attention of the OCC. Please note that a submission of information does not automatically result in an investigation. The decision to begin a preliminary review lies solely with the Board of the OCC.
The OCC does not have jurisdiction to consider submissions of information concerning the United States Senate, the President of the United States, or the departments of the Executive Branch.
How does the OCC start an investigation?
An OCC investigation begins when at least two members of the OCC Board request, in writing, that the staff look into a matter. Information about alleged violations comes to the Board from multiple sources. OCC Board members and members of the OCC professional staff often bring information to the Board's attention. Outside parties, including the general public, are also potential sources of information.
As a public-facing office, the OCC accepts information from the public, however a submission of information doesn't automatically trigger a review. The decision to launch an investigation lies solely with the Board.
When the OCC receives credible information about an alleged violation, the office staff will ask for authorization from the Board chair and co-chair to conduct a "reasonable initial investigation." The findings of this initial review are submitted to the Board, who has the final say about whether to start an investigation.
For more information on the process, and details on how to make a submission, visit our Make a Submission page.
What is a "reasonable initial investigation"?
When the OCC receives credible information about an alleged violation, the office staff, coordinating with the Board Chair and Co-Chair, conducts a "reasonable initial investigation." This step ensures the accuracy of information the OCC receives and eliminates the possibility of partisan groups trying to influence the investigation. The findings of this initial review are then submitted to the Board. It's then up to them to decide whether to start an investigation, the first step of which is a 30-day preliminary review.
What happens if you find information during your investigation that's exculpatory?
OCE rule 4F deals squarely with the issue of exculpatory information. Under this rule, we turn over any exculpatory information of an alleged violation that the Board is considering when deciding whether to refer a matter for further review or dismissal to the House Ethics Committee.
How does the OCC avoid partisan politics in an election year?
The OCC is a non-partisan, fact-finding office, with the sole purpose of investigating allegations and referring them, when appropriate, to the House Ethics Committee. It's important to note that our staff and Board are impartial and unbiased in all reviews. Accuracy is extremely important in what we do and our investigations are based purely on facts and evidence and never with regard to political party.
What determines the volume of investigations the OCC has reviewed?
Over the last few years, some have observed that the OCC has had a deterrent effect, resulting in fewer allegations of misconduct. In addition, in recent Congresses our investigations have been more complex, evidence-heavy cases that have required more of the OCC's resources.