Hatch Act Time Machine
The mounting furor over potential violations of the Hatch Act by one of Karl Rove's deputies and the head of the agency that does the federal government's buying (GSA) reminds me of a controversy that erupted at USDA during the Clinton administration--and which was aggressively pursued both by the Justice Department and the Republican Congress.
The question is, will Republicans be as diligent in ferreting out potential Hatch Act violations in the Bush administration as they were when Clinton was in the White House?
And one wonders if any of the government employees attending GSA chief Lurita Doan's "team building" lunch at the GSA subsequently received on the job favors after the brown bag discussion of the House and Senate seats Karl Rove has targeted to take back Congress.
From Think Progress.
In January, General Services Administration chief Lurita Doan and Karl Rove deputy Scott Jennings held a video conference with top GSA political appointees, “who discussed ways to help Republican candidates.”During a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing today, Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA) questioned Doan about the contents of Rove’s PowerPoint presentation. Doan repeatedly claimed ignorance of the contents of the slides and the verbal presentation that Jennings made. So Braley reminded her with some examples from this “nonpartisan” briefing...
From the LA Times of May 2, 1995:
The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into allegations that senior Agriculture Department employees illegally raised campaign funds from co-workers to support candidate Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential bid and that donors were subsequently rewarded with more desirable jobs.In addition, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) has informed Justice officials that he plans oversight hearings this summer to explore whether the fund raising violated federal laws and whether any employment moves under the Democratic Administration were linked to the contributions.
The proceedings on both fronts could pose a new ethical embarrassment for an Administration that already faces investigations by three court-appointed independent counsels.
As part of the inquiry, FBI agents are questioning Agriculture Department officials about fund raising for the Farmers & Ranchers '92 PAC, which spent much of its money on behalf of Clinton's campaign, and about personnel moves that may be related. A total of 38 high-ranking Civil Service employees in the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, then the nation's major domestic farm aid program, made donations. Most ranged from $50 to $500.
Ultimately three USDA employees plead guilty to soliciting and accepting Clinton campaign contributions from fellow employees.
More from that LA Times story below the fold.
Twenty-one of the career employees who contributed to the PAC were promoted or given more desirable temporary or permanent positions under the new Administration, according to records and interviews. Then-Rep. Mike Espy (D-Miss.), whom Clinton named as his first agriculture secretary, had been a national co-chairman of the PAC, and Grant B. Buntrock, a Democratic farm activist who was later appointed to run the conservation service, had raised money in Washington for the Farmers & Ranchers PAC.At issue is whether the conservation service, which since has become part of a new Consolidated Farm Service Agency, violated the Hatch Act, government Merit System principles or federal election laws. The events at the USDA are considered unusual in a Civil Service system that is supposed to be based on merit, not political fealty.
Under the Hatch Act and other federal statutes, government workers may donate to political campaigns. But most solicitation or collection of campaign funds by civil servants is prohibited, particularly at federal workplaces. The offenses are more serious if a boss solicits a subordinate or if employment prospects are linked to a contribution decision.
The restrictions are intended to protect the professionalism of career employees and ensure the nonpartisan delivery of federally funded public services.
The Times, which first disclosed the allegations in November, reported that some of those who contributed to the Farmers & Ranchers PAC said they were solicited by colleagues and gave their checks to co-workers. Several said they were approached in their federal offices.
In a March 31 letter to Roberts, Acting Assistant Atty. Gen. Kent Markus said that the Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section, in conjunction with the FBI, "is conducting an investigation into the allegations concerning the Farmers & Ranchers PAC." He urged Roberts to coordinate his plans for House hearings with the inquiry, in part, because of "the effect any grants of immunity would have on the conduct of our investigation."
Espy resigned from the Agriculture Department on Oct. 3 amid an independent counsel inquiry into allegations that he accepted illegal gratuities from agribusinesses. Espy called his PAC post purely honorary and said that there was no connection between the campaign donations and any later job changes at the Agriculture Department.
In recent weeks, Roberts and the FBI received a seven-page memo dated Feb. 10, 1993 -- shortly after the Administration was inaugurated -- that lists various career employees of the Conservation Service under partisan categories. Two employees said they were told in 1993 that their jobs were precarious because they were cited as Republicans on such a list.
The memo is unsigned but includes a fax number indicating that it was sent from the Conservation and Environmental Protection Division of the Conservation Service.
Among the categories: "Reliable and Competent Democrats in ASCS," "ASCS Senior Executive Service: Party Affiliation Unknown -- but Probably Republican" and "People in ASCS That Should Be Removed From Current Position as Soon as Possible."
Seven of the 13 employees identified as Democrats contributed to Farmers & Ranchers and subsequently got better permanent or temporary jobs. Eleven of the 18 listed as "should be removed" were ultimately assigned to posts considered less desirable.
Roberts said that the memo "appears to be reliable," although he acknowledged that he was unable to verify its authenticity. He said that he expects the FBI to make such a determination.
If the document proves valid, Roberts said, "it's rather appalling. . . . The merit system process in regards to the promotion of employees in the Civil Service system took a back seat to patronage and politics when the Clinton Administration took over."
Agriculture officials said that there is no readily available way for them to authenticate the document and noted that some of those listed as "probably Republican" had advanced under Espy.
A spokesman for new Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman declined to comment on the Justice inquiry. But spokesman Tom Amontree said: "The secretary takes seriously allegations of retaliation based on political affiliation, and it should be stressed to all USDA employees that this type of behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated."
Times staff writer Ronald J. Ostrow contributed to this story.
Comments
As I recall (I worked at the agency), the issue on which guilty pleas were obtained was approaching employees for contributions during work hours in the South Ag building. But ASCS had long been political--when Nixon came in there was a reorganization which moved the senior Democrat career officials into a "turkey farm" (responsible for defense and disaster preparedness) to make room for Republican appointees. The Democrats did something similar under Carter (although the Civil Service Commission said they didn't give the GS-15's enough responsibility to justify their grades.)
Posted by: Bill Harshaw | March 29, 2007 1:52 PM