Political Activity on the Job
Robert Wechsler
The ethics provision that is probably most consistently violated is the
one about political activity in city or county hall.
The City Ethics Model Code Project version reads as follows:
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.
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.
In this context, the federal Hatch Act 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:
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.
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.
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.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
The City Ethics Model Code Project version reads as follows:
-
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.
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.
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.
In this context, the federal Hatch Act 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:
-
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)
Employees cannot use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination
Employees cannot directly or indirectly coerce contributions from subordinates in support of a political party or candidate
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.
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.
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.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---