Political Activity on the Job
The ethics provision that is probably most consistently violated is the
one about political activity in city or county hall.<br>
<br>
The <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/mc/full#TOC40" target="”_blank”">City Ethics Model Code
Project version</a> reads as follows:<br>
<ul>
An official, employee, or municipal
candidate may not knowingly request, or authorize anyone else to
request, that any subordinate or potential future subordinate
participate in an election campaign or
make a political contribution. Nor may he or she engage in any
political activity while on duty for the city, with the use of city
funds, supplies, vehicles, or facilities, or during any period of time
during which he or she is normally expected to perform services for the
city, for which compensation is paid.<br>
</ul>
This is really two provisions, dealing with the same topic, but coming
from very different places. The first sentence involves misuse of
office to coerce subordinates, one of the worst things a government
official can do (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/530">an
earlier blog entry</a> on such coercion). Most ethics scandals involve
misuse of office for financial gain, but money means little compared to
creating a fearful environment and requiring others to act unethically.<br>
<br>
Any involvement of a subordinate in a campaign does not mean that there
was coercion. But it is impossible to know which instances do and
which do not. Political machines are essentially local governments
where employees are expected to participate in campaigns. It is
effectively part of their job description. Political
activity rules are intended primarily to prevent this.<br>
<br>
The second sentence of the code provision involves a specific form of
misuse of local government property as well as misuse of government
time for personal endeavors. This is a far less serious offense, but a
constant problem.<br>
<br>
In this context, the federal <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/409" target="”_blank”">Hatch Act </a>should be
mentioned, because it too places limitations on political activity in
local government, wherever there is federal funding. Its three
principal rules are as follows:<br>
<ul>
Employees cannot be a candidate for
public office in a partisan election
(nonpartisan elections are okay, which is good for most municipalities,
but not most counties)<br>
<br>
Employees cannot use official authority or influence to interfere with
or affect the results of an election or nomination<br>
<br>
Employees cannot directly or indirectly coerce contributions from
subordinates in support of a political party or candidate<br>
</ul>
According to <a href="http://www.kingofprussiacourier.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/SingleWeekly;…; target="”_blank”">a
recent article </a>in the King of Prussia (PA) <span>Courier,</span> the Montgomery County
commission is considering changes to its rule on political activity.
The current ethics code (which I could not find on<a href="http://www2.montcopa.org/montco/site/default.asp" target="”_blank”"> the county
website</a>) bans “political activity” in county offices, including
soliciting
for campaign funds, circulating nominating petitions, and registering
voters. However, the pre-Internet code does not ban the use of e-mail
to communicate about politics
at work and other activities. One of the three commissioners
(representing the minority party) wants to change this.<br>
<br>
The commissioner is also charging that one of the other commissioners,
a former county district attorney, had “directed” a former assistant
district attorney to do campaign work during office
hours when the DA was running for lieutenant governor.<br>
<br>
The third commissioner, the chair, raised First Amendment concerns. The
Hatch Act has twice survived constitutional suits, so it is clear that
there is no First Amendment right to coerce subordinates to use their
First Amendment rights in a political campaign. And working on a
campaign is no different than any other non-government work, which
should not be done from a government office, with government resources,
or on government time. This is not about using one's freedom of speech,
but when and where it is appropriate.<br>
<br>
However, political activity on the job is done all the time. It is the
rare campaign that does not make use of local government employees.
They're close at hand, they're known quantities, they're loyal, and the
candidate or an associate controls their time. It's very hard to turn
your back on such perfect campaign workers. And since almost everyone
in power uses them, it is rare for anyone seeking power to complain
about it. Citizens usually don't know about the rule or the practice,
and when they do, they just consider it the way campaigns are run.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>