GovernmentExecutive.com

A federal labor union is going to bat for two employees charged by the Office of Special Counsel with violating the Hatch Act by sending politically partisan e-mails from their government accounts.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, the National Treasury Employees Union argues that the Merit Systems Protection Board should uphold the dismissal of a complaint against the employees, saying that preventing any political discussions conducted via e-mail would have "sweeping impact governmentwide."

OSC, which has jurisdiction over Hatch Act enforcement, ruled in January that the two employees--Michael Davis and Leslye Sims of the Social Security Administration's Kansas City, Mo., regional office--had violated the Hatch Act by sending partisan political e-mails to a select group of friends and coworkers a week before the 2004 presidential election. OSC sought their removal for the alleged violation.

In April, an MSPB administrative law judge ruled that the employees had not violated the law.

OSC has appealed the administrative judge's decision to the full MSPB. OSC chief Scott Bloch said in a statement that "the e-mails were clearly a violation of the act and amounted to political leafleting in the workplace. You can't do through e-mail what you are prohibited from doing door to door in federal offices ... I'm confident that the MSBP will set the record straight on this issue."

NTEU's brief--which was signed by the union's chief counsel, Gregory O'Duden, and three others, including former OSC chief Elaine Kaplan--criticizes the OSC position that any e-mail sent from a government computer advocating a particular political position or candidate violates the Hatch Act.

"The Sims and Davis e-mails bear all of the hallmarks of the classic 'water-cooler' conversation," the brief states. "They amount to an exchange of views among personal friends and relatives, many of whom were colleagues accustomed to exchanging opinion on a variety of topics at the workplace."

COMMENTS

• Democrats pushed for and got an easing of the Hatch act restrictions on employees. Republicans now try to fire employees for exercising free speech. Not for sending hundreds or thousands of junk email like thier campigns do, but for circulating to a group of less than 10 fellow employees critiques of why they felt they could support one side or the other. And not just a reprimand, but they want them fired. Is there any question which side of this equation stands for individual freedom, liberty, and free speech? I know how I will vote from now on. Jim Posted August 7, 2005 8:51 AM
• Sounds more like someone said something that a "higher-up" didn't like and that's the reason for this case being pushed so hard. Thing is, if the HA is supposed to be what it is, to prevent government employees from partisan political talk, then why was Bush allowed to require that a bunch of lies about how well the VA was doing be sent to all VA employees while he was campaigning for the presidency? Isn't that illegal according to the HA? It's really all in who you know (and are) and are sucking up to at the time...isn't it?? VA counselor Posted August 7, 2005 5:46 PM
• Can someone please explain why only government employees have this restriction and also why our government feels that it is significant enough to impose the HA against? Isn't this a conflict of freedom of speech? Except for the HA in my mine it's probably more of a issue of misuse of property. I say eliminate or clarify the HA to allow sharing of information as long as one doesn't use Government property or accomplish during duty hours. An interesting point is there are many requirements of ethics by government employees which aren't enforced yet officials see the HA as enforceable. Why one and not the others? And where does this put the legalities of enforceability? GovExec.com reader Posted August 5, 2005 7:49 AM