GovernmentExecutive.com

The Office of Special Counsel filed a complaint with the Merit Systems Protection Board on Sept. 15 against a former New Jersey state employee, alleging she violated a federal law prohibiting government employees from running for office in a partisan election.

In 2003, Felicta Cox ran unsuccessfully for a position on the Board of Freeholders in Cumberland County, N.J., earning 2 percent of the vote. At the time, she was employed by the Vineland Developmental Center, a resident facility for developmentally disabled women operated through New Jersey's Department of Human Services.

According to OSC, the facility receives federal money, making Cox's position subject to the 1939 Hatch Act, which restricts the political activities of government employees whose agencies receive federal money.

The complaint alleges that Cox, who is making another bid for the county supervisor position in next month's elections, knew before entering the race that her candidacy would violate Hatch Act rules.

OSC also noted a Dec. 19, 2003, letter to the editor of the Bridgeton News, in which Cox wrote, "I don't give a damn about the Hatch Act and I will be running for freeholder in the upcoming election. I'm here to tell you to bring it on, because you or the Hatch Act are not going to stop me from running for freeholder, because when it comes to me doing something I want to do, the hell with that state job and the Hatch Act."

According to the Bridgeton News, Cox was fired on Sept. 23.

An employee charged with a Hatch Act violation can lose their job and be banned from government work for 18 months, or the agency can be ordered to return two years of the employee's salary to the federal government.

An OSC spokeswoman said Cox has until Oct. 15 to respond to the complaint, and declined to comment further on the case.

Planting Evidence

A top dog handler was sentenced Tuesday to 21 months in prison and ordered to pay more than $14,500 in restitution after admitting that she planted evidence in multiple investigations while working for various law enforcement agencies in Michigan and Ohio.

Sandra Marie Anderson was seen placing a bone in Michigan's Huron National Forest during an April 2002 FBI search for a suspected murder victim. A federal investigation involving more than a dozen local law enforcement agencies revealed that Anderson had repeatedly planted human remains, fibers and items stained with her own blood during searches and then later claimed it was evidence discovered by her dog.

Lawyers for the Justice Department see the case as precedent-setting. It was prosecuted by the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Michigan.

"Manufacturing evidence is reprehensive behavior that threatens the integrity of our criminal justice system," said R. Alexander Acosta, assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division. "Today's sentencing sends the message that individuals who tarnish the service of their fellow public servants will be held accountable."

According to the March 10 plea agreement, Anderson placed carpet fiber in the national forest that matches the carpet in her home. She also placed a toe she received from a fire department captain she called a "close friend," along a creek in Delta, Ohio, which she later claimed she found during a search for a body.

The body was later found with boots on and all toes attached. The DNA of the toe Anderson planted matched a dissected foot found in a freezer at the fire department captain's home.

In January 2000, Anderson placed a saw blade with her blood on it behind a basement dryer in Plymouth, Mich., allowing police to think it was evidence in a crime scene, despite the fact the DNA did not match that of the victim.

USA v. Sandra Marie Anderson, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, March 10, 2004.

Post a Comment

To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.