Professional Proselytizing As Political Activity

Here's an interesting political activity situation out of La Crosse County,
Wisconsin. According to <a href="http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/o-malley-asks-f…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the La Crosse <i>Tribune</i> last week</a>, the county
administrator was involved in supporting a referendum to give the
city of La Crosse its own administrator. A city or county manager is
not supposed to be involved in local politics, according to the ethics
code of their own professional association, ICMA. But this issue was not
in the county government, although it was in the county. And the administrator considers his
support "promotion of my profession" rather than political activity.<br>
<br>

How does one determine this difference, or whether it even matters?
A county supervisor drew the line at whether the administrator was
“strategizing” on the issue. The administrator admits that he was
strategizing. It would appear that promoting the profession itself would be enough, without getting more deeply involved in the referendum process. The difference is that promotion involves only speaking out, not advising people involved in a campaign. The difference involves more what is appropriate in professional terms than what is appropriate in government ethcis terms. So let's assume for the sake of the rest of this post that the administrator simply spoke out in favor of his profession.<br>
<br>
<b>Hatch Act Issues</b><br>
Someone who opposed having a city administrator insists that the
county administrator violated the Hatch Act, which says that 
"Employees cannot use official authority or influence to interfere
with or affect the results of an election or nomination." But this
provision involves the election of individuals, not referendums. And even with
respect to elections, employees are only restricted from being
candidates in a partisan election. A referendum is not partisan,
even if the two major parties may line up on opposite sides of the
issue (this can happen in a nonpartisan election, as well).<br>
<br>
It is best to focus on the reasons behind the restrictions. The purposes of the Hatch Act include preventing the
use of federal funds
to affect elections, ending patronage, and avoiding the appearance
of
corruption. There is no issue here of patronage. With respect to the appearance
of corruption, see the following section. As for the use of federal funds, although the county government does get federal
funds, no funds were used by the administrator; his sole use of
county facilities was sending e-mails. He would have used the same
facilities to correspond with other administrators, to answer
questions from area citizens regarding the value of having an
administrator, and other common situations where an administrator
does not do the work of the county, but uses county e-mail for
professional purposes that no one would consider inappropriate.<br>
<br>
<b>Self-Serving Conduct?</b><br>
Is there anything self-serving about a county administrator trying
to get cities in his county to hire their own administrator? It is
possible that the county seat may be able to pay its city
administrator more than the county administrator was paid.
Therefore, the county administrator could be seen as helping create
the next step in his career path. However, this is a pretty indefinite benefit, one that most people wouldn't even think of.<br>
<br>
Would a teacher arguing for the need for more school
administrators be seen as self-serving? The same possibility would
exist there, as well.<br>
<br>
<b>Serving the Profession</b><br>
Otherwise, the administrator would be serving his profession, and
his belief that having a professional manager is better than having
a strong mayor. This belief is a foundation of his profession, and
it would be hard to find any city or county manager who did not
share this belief and who did not try to convert those who were
emotionally involved in the father figure of a strong mayor.
Proselytizing for the council-manager form of government is part of
being a city or county manager.<br>
<br>
That is what is really going on here. What might appear
inappropriate from the outside is conduct that, from the
administrator's point of view, has nothing to do with politics. It
is proselytism pure and simple.<br>
<br>
<b>Time and Facilities</b><br>
Should this be done on county time and with the use of county facilities? Not beyond a
certain point. But when you hire a county manager, you should know
that he will be involved in professional activities and that
proselytism is one of his professional activities. It's not as if a
county manager has a 9 to 5 job, or is going to skip meetings or
fail to write up a budget due to proselytizing activities. It's
important that the manager make it clear that his support for such a
referendum is purely professional. As he educates about forms of
government, he should also educate about his profession, and that
this is part of it. It is a profession inextricably tied to a form
of government.<br>
<br>
The time issue should also be put in perspective. Mayors across the
country support candidates and themselves run for office, their own
as well as state and federal offices. And they do this politically,
on government time, and too often using government facilities and
personnel. In terms of the cost to taxpayers, what the county
administrator did in this case was minor.<br>
<br>
<b>Raising the Issue</b><br>
This issue was raised in the form of an open records request for the
county administrator's e-mail messages relating to the referendum.
The administrator sought the ethics board's opinion because he
considered the request effectively an allegation of ethical
misconduct. He wanted to know how he should conduct himself were the
issue to arise again (the city chose not to change to a
council-manager form of government). This was the responsible thing
to do, at least at this point.<br>
<br>
<b>Political Activity Provisions</b><br>
Political activity provisions in ethics codes should make a clear
distinction between elections on the one hand and referendums and
petitions on the other. The rules might be the same, but this should
be made clear, as well. If employees are prohibited from involvement with
referendums, it would not be inappropriate for a professional
manager to ask for a waiver to argue for his profession. This would have been the most responsible way to deal with the matter.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---