Hoffman is in Direct Violation of Hatch Act

[Unregistered]

• Florida's resign-to-run law is entirely separate from the federal “Hatch Act.” (5 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1508).
  .
• The federal Hatch Act applies to executive branch state and local employees who are principally employed in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a federal agency. The Act prohibits a state, county, or municipal employee from being a candidate for public office in a partisan election if the employee’s salary is completely funded with federal dollars. It is only when the covered employee’s entire salary is paid from federal funds that the employee would have to resign under the Hatch Act before becoming a candidate for partisan office. See 5 U.S.C. § 1502 (Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012 (eff. 1.27.2013).

Florida Division of Elections:

< snip >

It is only when the covered employee’s entire salary is paid from federal funds that the employee would have to resign under the Hatch Act before becoming a candidate for partisan office.

Look at pages 3 and 4:

https://soe.dos.state.fl.us/pdf/DE-G...unLawFinal.pdf

[Unregistered]

Florida Division of Elections:

< snip >

It is only when the covered employee’s entire salary is paid from federal funds that the employee would have to resign under the Hatch Act before becoming a candidate for partisan office.

Look at pages 3 and 4:

https://soe.dos.state.fl.us/pdf/DE-G...unLawFinal.pdf

This question is for whoever started this thread. After reading the above, taken directly from Florida's Division of Elections website, what is your current opinion?

[Unregistered]

This question is for whoever started this thread. After reading the above, taken directly from Florida's Division of Elections website, what is your current opinion?

That information is from “resign to run” which is different than Hatch Act. He is in violation of Hatch Act.

[Unregistered]

That information is from “resign to run” which is different than Hatch Act. He is in violation of Hatch Act.

Hummmmm okay, thank you sir for the update. It looks like attorney's are going to have to sort this one out, if there are disagreements.

[Unregistered]

Florida Division of Elections:

< snip >

It is only when the covered employee’s entire salary is paid from federal funds that the employee would have to resign under the Hatch Act before becoming a candidate for partisan office.

Look at pages 3 and 4:

https://soe.dos.state.fl.us/pdf/DE-G...unLawFinal.pdf

That information is from “resign to run” which is different than Hatch Act. He is in violation of Hatch Act.

Please provide the exact FSS or USC that you believe Hoffman is violating.

[Unregistered]

Please provide the exact FSS or USC that you believe Hoffman is violating.

It is impermissible to:
• Allow one’s name or likeness to be used in campaign literature in the police officer’s professional capacity;
• Host a fundraiser for a political candidate and recruit attendees using the officer’s official title (however, a spouse who is not covered under this Act may host such a fundraiser and the officer may attend, but may not personally solicit contributions to the fundraiser);
• Allow the officer’s name to appear on an invitation to a fundraiser as a sponsor of the fundraiser or as a point of contact for the fundraiser;
• Engage in campaigning during working hours;
• Use any official authority for influence for political purposes, including using the officer’s
official title or authority to coerce individuals to participate in political activity;
• Run for any elected partisan office;
• Solicit, accept, or receive uncompensated individual volunteer services from a subordinate for
any political purpose.
The Act prohibits a public employee from running for any elected partisan office. Specifically, the entire election must be nonpartisan. Just because the employee may run unaffiliated with any party, he or she would still violate the terms of the Hatch Act if any of the other candidates are running on a partisan ticket.
In addition, simply putting a state or local governmental employee on unpaid administrative leave will not cure any violations of the Hatch Act. “Covered” employees are “subject to the prohibitions of the Hatch Act regardless of leave status, such that a covered employee on leave without pay to run for political office is subject to the prohibitions of the Act.”
Repercussions for Violating the Hatch Act
When an officer violates the Hatch Act, an employer may use the Act as a basis for terminating the officer. Any time a federal agency learns that a state or local officer or employee may be violating the Act, it is required to report the matter to Special Counsel for the Merit Systems Protection Board.
This is only an overview. We strongly urge you to seek advice from your local lodge attorney regarding specific questions or concerns.

https://fop.net/CmsDocument/Doc/hatchact.pdf

[Unregistered]

The complaint contended that Thompson, as chief deputy and candidate for elected office, was head of the sheriff's office Enforcement Division, which may have received federal funding.

The letter from the OSC states Thompson directly supervised now-Chief Deputy Klint Anderson, who was responsible for several federally funded programs.

Anderson oversaw the sheriff's office's participation in the Youth Alcohol and Drug Enforcement Task Force funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, the letter says. Thompson said it's his understanding the program was funded by a state grant and he was unaware of federal funds being used.

In addition, Anderson approved schedules as part of a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Forest Service to patrol the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, the letter says. The sheriff's office served the Forest Service under a contract with the federal government and not through a grant, said Thompson.

The OSC concluded that Thompson had duties associated with federally financed activities when he became a candidate for sheriff.

"We acknowledge that as chief deputy, he had no ability to control how federal funding was spent and did not directly participate (in federally funded programs)," the letter from Martorana says. "However, coverage under the Hatch Act is not dependent on an employee having these kinds of responsibilities. Rather ... his (Thompson's) managerial role with respect to the entire Enforcement Division as well as his supervisory relationship with ... Anderson rendered him subject to the restrictions of the Hatch Act."

Thompson is the second area law enforcement officer found by the OSC to be in violation of the Hatch Act. Jon Greiner was fired as Ogden police chief last month by city officials after exhausting appeals of a ruling that he violated the Hatch Act.

The federal government determined Greiner violated the Hatch Act because he signed off on a half-dozen federal grants worth more than $1 million that were in place during his successful 2006 campaign for the state Senate.

More Online: latest from WCF

[Media]

OGDEN, UTAH -- The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) determined that Terry Thompson, when he was chief deputy, violated the Hatch Act in his successful 2010 bid for Weber County Sheriff, but the office won't take action against him. OSC spokesperson Ann O'Hanlon said the OSC often issues a warning letter instead of taking enforcement action, if a Hatch Act violation is discovered after an individual has been elected to a partisan office.

The Hatch Act includes political activities of state and local government workers if they are employed by an agency that has programs financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants. The complaint contended that Thompson, as chief deputy and candidate for elected office, was head of the sheriff's office Enforcement Division, which received federal funding. The OSC letter states Thompson directly supervised now-Chief Deputy Klint Anderson, who was responsible for several federally funded programs. The OSC concluded that Thompson did have duties associated with federally financed activities when he became a candidate for sheriff.

OSC Attorney Carolyn S. Martorana said Thompson was warned in a letter against future participation in prohibited political activity while employed in a Hatch Act-covered position: "OSC would consider such conduct a knowing and willful violation of the law that could result in his being prosecuted." Thompson confirmed he received the letter, but said he didn't violate the Hatch Act because the act's provisions are overly broad, adding it can be used in elections to keep law officers with supervisory experience from running for sheriff. He said, "Unfortunately, it becomes a political tool."

Full story:
https://www.standard.net/news/local/...a9f7dddf1.html

[Unregistered]

After reading the above article, yes, it appears that a Hatch Act violation is in-progress.

Will the government proceed forward with an alleged violation -- and without a complainant? Or does there have to be a complainant for an investigation? Who will step forward as a complainant?

Someone has to notify the feds that a Hatch Act violation occurred. When was that notification made? This thread was just created a couple of days ago. More questions than answers.

[Unregistered]

OGDEN, UTAH -- The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) determined that Terry Thompson, when he was chief deputy, violated the Hatch Act in his successful 2010 bid for Weber County Sheriff, but the office won't take action against him. OSC spokesperson Ann O'Hanlon said the OSC often issues a warning letter instead of taking enforcement action, if a Hatch Act violation is discovered after an individual has been elected to a partisan office.

The Hatch Act includes political activities of state and local government workers if they are employed by an agency that has programs financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants. The complaint contended that Thompson, as chief deputy and candidate for elected office, was head of the sheriff's office Enforcement Division, which received federal funding. The OSC letter states Thompson directly supervised now-Chief Deputy Klint Anderson, who was responsible for several federally funded programs. The OSC concluded that Thompson did have duties associated with federally financed activities when he became a candidate for sheriff.

OSC Attorney Carolyn S. Martorana said Thompson was warned in a letter against future participation in prohibited political activity while employed in a Hatch Act-covered position: "OSC would consider such conduct a knowing and willful violation of the law that could result in his being prosecuted." Thompson confirmed he received the letter, but said he didn't violate the Hatch Act because the act's provisions are overly broad, adding it can be used in elections to keep law officers with supervisory experience from running for sheriff. He said, "Unfortunately, it becomes a political tool."

Full story:
https://www.standard.net/news/local/...a9f7dddf1.html

If this legal case is invoked in Sarasota County, then Kurt Hoffman will invariably state that he is not in violation of the Hatch Act, but conversely, as an attorney, Hoffman should have based his present electoral decision, based on past legal precedence, such as is described in the article above. A good attorney makes himself aware of past legal precedence before making a legal decision.