Friday, June 15, 2012

RELATING TO HAQQ'S CHARGE

Rashid Abdul- Haqq’s complaint that Adrian Mapp was in violation of the Hatch Act when he ran for the 3rd Ward Council seat triggered desire t o find information about the Hatch Act.

The interpretation that any one working for any public agency or authority that received federal funding could also raises the question about the validity of Rev. Brown’s campaign since she is a Commissioner of the PMUA. This might be applicable if the PMUA has received any Federal Grants.

I did find this op-ed article from the NY Times

Op-Ed Contributor

A Law Misused for Political Ends

By CAROLYN N. LERNER

Published: October 30, 2011

Washington

THE federal agency I lead, the United States Office of Special Counsel, enforces a law that is broken and needs to be fixed.

The law, the Hatch Act of 1939, was intended to keep improper politics out of the federal workplace. At its best, it prevents people in political power from abusing their positions. It prohibits coercion by a government supervisor — such as pressuring employees to volunteer for or contribute to a campaign — and shields the civil service and the federal workplace from politicking.

But at its worst, the law prevents would-be candidates in state and local races from running because they are in some way, no matter how trivially, tied to a source of federal funds in their professional lives. Our caseload in these matters quintupled to 526 complaints in the 2010 fiscal year, from 98 in 2000. We advised individuals on this law 4,320 times in 2010.

Matthew P. Arlen is a police officer for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. A Republican, he wanted to run for the school board, but we told him in June he could not because his bomb-sniffing dog is funded through the Department of Homeland Security.

The Port of Albany, in New York, got stimulus funds to rebuild its dock and wharf, so we told Terrence P. Hurley, who is the port’s chief financial officer that he could not run in last month’s Democratic primary for the county legislature.

Increasingly, the act is being used as a political weapon to disqualify otherwise well-qualified candidates, even when there is no indication of wrongdoing. An allegation that a candidate has violated federal law — simply by stepping forward to run — can cast a cloud.

Of course, the would-be candidate could give up his day job. But the day job usually pays the rent, and many of the elective offices being sought pay little or nothing. Forcing people to resign in order to participate in the democratic process is unfair and bad policy.

Sheriffs’ offices are especially affected. Since 9/11, federal grants to state and local law enforcement have soared. Deputies are commonly the most knowledgeable and capable potential candidates, but they are ineligible to succeed their bosses because of the influx of federal money.

Anthony C. Nelson is on next month’s ballot for sheriff in Lowndes County, Miss. He stepped up after the previous Democratic nominee, an acting police chief, left the race over a Hatch Act problem. Then Mr. Nelson, the head of the local juvenile detention center, was himself accused of violating the act. An investigation by our office found that the center got no federal funding, so he remains on the ballot.

I have sent Congress proposed legislation to fix the Hatch Act by removing restrictions on state and local government workers who want to run for elected office. This would not cost taxpayers anything. It would demonstrate respect for the independence of state and local elections, and would allow qualified candidates to serve their communities as elected officials.

Carolyn N. Lerner heads the United States Office of Special Counsel, an independent investigative and prosecutorial agency. “

I did look up the Act itself and the only reference to barring being a candidate is this one:

“SEC. 9A. (1) It shall be unlawful for any person employed in any capacity by any agency of the Federal Government, whose compensation, or any part thereof, is paid from funds authorized or appropriated by any Act of Congress, to have membership in any political party or organization which advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government in the United States.”

Since I do not believe that the Democrat party advocates overthrowal of our government I cannot see how this law is applicable to Councilor Adrian Mapp.

Obviously I am missing something and perhaps Rasheed Abdull-Haqq can clarify the specific section of the Hatch Act that Mapp violates.

13 comments:

  1. A question: Wouldn't the mayor, an employee of Union County College which receives federal funds, be also violating this law?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Olddoc - Correction: It's Rev. Brown not Taylor. I agree that the Hatch Act should apply to Rev. Tracy as well. Haqq is another one of the mayor's robots that she is using for her political gain. Not so fast mayor...what about some of your cronies working for the housing authority running for the Democratic Committee in last year's election. We are watching you!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr. Abdul-Haqq has taken bad council from Mr. Campbell. Plainfield would be better without the Campbells and their dirty politics. Maybe they want to be like a certain Camden County slime ball and cause great harm to Plainfield. People need to be aware of this to fight the devil among us and protect Plainfield from fools like Adbul-Haqq and snakes like Campbell.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Doc,

    This is a case of someone latching onto something he/she heard and not doing the proper investigation. Just the type of person we need on the City Council along with the others who are in the same boat.

    How can one claim to be eligible to serve in an office when one doesn't read the law?

    As an aside: I wonder how many of the Councillors have a copy of the City Charter in their briefcase?

    ReplyDelete
  5. The grease frying Campbells have put Mr. Abdul-Houck up to this mess. This is what the Campbells do at their best hide behind the LIES. Mrs. Campbell and Superintendent John Campbell continue to stay over their and mess up the BOARD OF EDUCATION. You guys have made a mess of things over there. I can not wait until NOVEMBER to VOTE you guys out.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 9:21 AM, Thank you for pointing out my typing error. Unfortunately I have made the same on before anf again missed it pn proof reading.

    12.10 PM instead of waiting; recruit all those you know to vote at elections. I find your adjectives a little strong and will not post them in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Doc I have already started a VOTER'S REGISTRATION DRIVE. I am sorry if I come across a little strong but I am tired of the Campbells. The SCHOOL BOARD have made a mess of things over there. They had a bogus Superintendent search and expected us to just be dumb to the fact that they have already recruited Anaa Belin-Pyles for the JOB. At the Superintendent Forum they informed the public that they would be posting all comments, which they did not. They didn't realize the comments would be so negative. The BOE is a mess and it is headed by the CAMPBELLS.
    November the PEOPLE of PLAINFIELD will show up and show out

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon 12:31PM - Please tell us what you're doing to recruit for your voter registration drive. Some of us might like to help.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have a core group of people targeting all parts of the community. Unfortunately that's all I will say for now.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 12:31 as par usual you are misguided and misinformed. Never was it said ALL Comments would be posted to the district's website. That would not even be possible! They weren't recording the sesssions!!! What was said was that All QUESTIONS asked at the forum would be posted. Let's look for those. And you have got to be kidding if you think the Board wouldn't expect there to be negative comments. Reread these blogs thats all there are on here so it should come as no surprise that people would comment negatively, especially anonymously. What would be interesting is to see if there were positive comments. Now that would set this community ablaze!

    ReplyDelete
  11. 6/17-9:39am: This blog has always posted all comments positive or negative unless they are offensive or border on libel- and we do get some.

    I would suspect that you are a member of the BOE. I must agree with the complaints that the BOE has failed in its promise of transparency.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 12:31 PM. Please let us know where the Questions are posted on the District website.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 8:58 AM, Can't you see them? They are transparent.

    ReplyDelete