Partisan Federal employees charged with violating Hatch act

[wishlist]

Interesting that the Office of Special Counsel brought charges against 2 federal employees of the Social Security Administration who spread around political emails before the election.

However the Judge has ruled in favor of the employees rights to express their opinions via the emails:

http://federaltimes.com/index2.php?S=813751


Partisan e-mails did not violate Hatch Act, judge rules

By TIM KAUFFMAN

Two Social Security Administration employees who forwarded partisan e-mails to colleagues from their work computers did not violate Hatch Act prohibitions against engaging in political activity while on duty, a judge has ruled.

The Office of Special Counsel, which charged both employees with violating the Hatch Act in January, said it would appeal the judge’s ruling to the full Merit Systems Protection Board.

Both employees, based out of Social Security’s Kansas City, Mo., office, admit to sending the e-mails on Oct. 25. Leslye Sims forwarded an e-mail to 22 people entitled, “Why I am supporting John Kerry for president,” which contained a letter purportedly written by the son of President Eisenhower. One of the recipients of Sims’ e-mail, Michael Davis, subsequently sent an e-mail to about 27 co-workers that criticized Kerry and contained a picture of President Bush in front of an American flag with the statement, “I vote the Bible.”

In an April 14 ruling, MSPB Administrative Law Judge Arthur Amchan said that the e-mails constituted the expression of personal opinions, not political activity, and that the Hatch Act clearly protects employees’ rights to express opinions on political subjects and candidates. Amchan pointed to a May 30, 2002, advisory in which the Office of Special Counsel stated that, depending on their content, e-mail messages — even those sent from employees while on duty — are a form of “‘water-cooler’-type discussions and exchanges of opinion” that are protected under the Hatch Act.

“These e-mails are the functional equivalent of ‘water-cooler’ type discussions or ‘face-to-face expression of personal opinion’ that the special counsel found . . . did not constitute prohibited political activity,” Amchan said.



Article says that Office of Special Counsel will press on with the charges against these employees by filing appeal of the ruling.

[rodeodance]

1. i would think this Fed. office would have better things to do!!-rather

than harassing employees for sending a few emails!! Geech.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

2. The Hatch Act! That's it!!!

That's what I was trying to think of the other day. Could not those State Department employees who were screening out Democratic participants in a telecommunications junket be accused of violating the Hatch Act? What was that if not partisan?

[wishlist]

3. I believe that Homeland Sec Dept and Defense Dept aren't under Hatch

Seems like the Civil Service and Hatch Act nonpartisan rules do not apply anymore to employees in the Dept of Homeland Security and in the Defense Dept and may never have applied to Executive branch employees in the State Dept. I believe I read that Bush Admin is trying to get Congress to pass legislation this year allowing all govt agencies at their own discretion to make similar changes so that employees of many other agencies will no longer serve under the traditional Civil Service rules and will also no longer be protected and represented by unions.