Conquer Club

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... 07544.html


In a speech at North Carolina in February, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius violated the Hatch Act by publicly advocating for the re-election of Barack Obama. The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from swaying an election while acting within their official position.

How was she punished?
Surely, the government would be keen to punish federal employees when they use their political/bureaucratic positions in order to sway an election. The government internally must remain impartial.


1. "She wouldn't be penalized."
2. The Democratic National Committee "reimbursed taxpayers for the $2,515 cost of [her] trip," thus effectively subsidizing her speech.
3. "Ms. Sebelius 'has met with ethics experts.'"


Questions
(A) Should she have been punished?
(B) Was the "punishment" sufficient?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and call the punishment sufficient. It may have been appropriate to remove or demote her, but I'm not sure I would call that necessary.

What are the charges and penalties for violating the Hatch Act?

Did you say "Sibelius"?

GabonX wrote:I'm gonna go out on a limb and call the punishment sufficient. It may have been appropriate to remove or demote her, but I'm not sure I would call that necessary.

What are the charges and penalties for violating the Hatch Act?

Apparently, a slap on the wrist.

If we want a society within which the individuals should treat each other fairly, should we impose harsh punishments (years of jail time, probation, and fines)?
In order to promote fairness and just treatment, why not impose such harsh punishments on federal employees and officials?

BigBallinStalin wrote:If we want a society within which the individuals should treat each other fairly, should we impose harsh punishments (years of jail time, probation, and fines)?
In order to promote fairness and just treatment, why not impose such harsh punishments on federal employees and officials?

Meh, it's almost a free speech issue. I get the difference but I really don't think an isolated incident like this is that big a deal. If she had a record of being partial to a given party it would be different but I don't see much harm in this incident if it stands alone.

I would like to know what punishments or course of actions the Hatch Act outlines for those that violate the law as that would influence my thoughts greatly as to what should have happened..

You could probably google that law, but I don't really care what the divine legislators have crafted for themselves. What matters to me are the informal laws by which the governed expect their rulers to abide.

It is a free speech issue, but as a bureaucrat, one must maintain the impartiality of the government; otherwise, if the bureaucrats can be used as means for propping support for a political party, this then provides an additional incentive for politicians to stack all levels of bureaucracies with their own people, thus subsidizing their own costs of campaigning. The abuse of directly government-funded campaigns through bureaucrats would be atrocious. The bureaucracies should not be used as a subsidy for politicians in this explicit sense.


Again, what bothers me is that the government is very lenient on conducting its own employees, who have one of the highest responsibilities in governing people. This responsibility of impartiality to me is comparable to enforcing people to behave a certain way under the legislated criminal law and all those regulations over our economic decision-making.

The enforcement is inconsistent since the governed tend to be punished harsher than the government's own. What I want us to realize is that politicians and bureaucrats face different incentives when it comes to punishing their own versus punishing non-government individuals.

GabonX wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:If we want a society within which the individuals should treat each other fairly, should we impose harsh punishments (years of jail time, probation, and fines)?
In order to promote fairness and just treatment, why not impose such harsh punishments on federal employees and officials?

Meh, it's almost a free speech issue. I get the difference but I really don't think an isolated incident like this is that big a deal. If she had a record of being partial to a given party it would be different but I don't see much harm in this incident if it stands alone.

I would like to know what punishments or course of actions the Hatch Act outlines for those that violate the law as that would influence my thoughts greatly as to what should have happened..

I think most of the info on it is here:

http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm

Penalties

An employee who violates the Hatch Act shall be removed from their position, and funds appropriated for the position from which removed thereafter may not be used to pay the employee or individual. However, if the Merit Systems Protection Board finds by unanimous vote that the violation does not warrant removal, a penalty of not less than a 30-day suspension without pay shall be imposed by direction of the Board.
http://www.osc.gov/haFederalPenalties.htm

BigBallinStalin wrote:You could probably google that law, but I don't really care what the divine legislators have crafted for themselves. What matters to me are the informal laws by which the governed expect their rulers to abide.

It is a free speech issue, but as a bureaucrat, one must maintain the impartiality of the government; otherwise, if the bureaucrats can be used as means for propping support for a political party, this then provides an additional incentive for politicians to stack all levels of bureaucracies with their own people, thus subsidizing their own costs of campaigning. The abuse of directly government-funded campaigns through bureaucrats would be atrocious. The bureaucracies should not be used as a subsidy for politicians in this explicit sense.


Again, what bothers me is that the government is very lenient on conducting its own employees, who have one of the highest responsibilities in governing people. This responsibility of impartiality to me is comparable to enforcing people to behave a certain way under the legislated criminal law and all those regulations over our economic decision-making.

The enforcement is inconsistent since the governed tend to be punished harsher than the government's own. What I want us to realize is that politicians and bureaucrats face different incentives when it comes to punishing their own versus punishing non-government individuals.

I mean I get the difference between someone speaking in an official capacity and someone speaking at a rally or something. I just don't see that much harm in this as it stands. Sure it's wrong, but it's not as big a deal as embezzlement, selective enforcement, etc. That said I'm a reasonable guy, and since you seem to feel so strongly about this I'd be willing to support her being sentenced to 50 lashes which could be recorded and uploaded to YouTube as a warning to other potentially outspoken Bureaucrats.

GabonX wrote:Penalties

An employee who violates the Hatch Act shall be removed from their position, and funds appropriated for the position from which removed thereafter may not be used to pay the employee or individual. However, if the Merit Systems Protection Board finds by unanimous vote that the violation does not warrant removal, a penalty of not less than a 30-day suspension without pay shall be imposed by direction of the Board.
http://www.osc.gov/haFederalPenalties.htm

Indeed, and it looks like they didn't find the need to make a decision.

http://www.mspb.gov/decisions/decisions.htm

At least, I can't find her on the site.

If the merit board didn't specifically vote not to remove her it actually reinforces Stalin's point... Angry mob anyone?

So really at minimum she should have been subjected to 30 days suspension without pay...

It looks like the OSC said she broke the law without the people who actually judge if Hatch has been violated making a ruling.

BigBallinStalin wrote:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443696604577647952738407544.html


In a speech at North Carolina in February, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius violated the Hatch Act by publicly advocating for the re-election of Barack Obama. The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from swaying an election while acting within their official position.

How was she punished?
Surely, the government would be keen to punish federal employees when they use their political/bureaucratic positions in order to sway an election. The government internally must remain impartial.


1. "She wouldn't be penalized."
2. The Democratic National Committee "reimbursed taxpayers for the $2,515 cost of [her] trip," thus effectively subsidizing her speech.
3. "Ms. Sebelius 'has met with ethics experts.'"


Questions
(A) Should she have been punished?
(B) Was the "punishment" sufficient?

I am not going to talk about her specific case, because I don't have the time right now to read up on it.


HOWEVER, I can say that the Hatch act is meant to protect employees, because prior to its enactment, it was not unknown for some employees to be "encouraged' to support the positions of their superiors, or find that their jobs might not be as secure as they might wish.


In truth, it has been implemented sporadically and the interpretations of how it should be implemented have varied and shifted quite a lot. For example, individuals may help with political party activities, may express personal opinions. They generally can solicit signatures on petitions. Wether they can do so at work is sometimes a question, but tends to be tied to other types of solicitations. (candy for the local school, etc.)

Whether what she did was a violation depends entirely on the context. If she were truly working in her official capacity, say made the statement as part of an official speech, then she might be reprimanded. IF, however, she were, say answering a question from someone (even if in her official capacity) and made clear this was her personal opinion OR if she were simply promoting Obama, but not when paid and not during working hours, etc.. then it would likely be OK.

What makes me think there is more to this is simply that it has already gone through an ethics review.

I read (on a partisan website) that the Bush administration took pains not to use government offices, phones, computers, etc. for political bidness.

thegreekdog wrote:I read (on a partisan website) that the Bush administration took pains not to use government offices, phones, computers, etc. for political bidness.

and because you read it on the internet, it must be true... you even admit it's a partisan website!

fadedpsychosis wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I read (on a partisan website) that the Bush administration took pains not to use government offices, phones, computers, etc. for political bidness.

and because you read it on the internet, it must be true... you even admit it's a partisan website!

What? Was there something wrong with my post? I made a statement and qualified it. Is that a problem for you? Would you prefer that I make blanket statements and/or assertions? I can do that if you want.

thegreekdog wrote:

fadedpsychosis wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I read (on a partisan website) that the Bush administration took pains not to use government offices, phones, computers, etc. for political bidness.

and because you read it on the internet, it must be true... you even admit it's a partisan website!

What? Was there something wrong with my post? I made a statement and qualified it. Is that a problem for you? Would you prefer that I make blanket statements and/or assertions? I can do that if you want.

the question is why post it in the first place? as for blanket assertions... what do you think it is? throwing in subtext just means you know the information is biased (read: likely inaccurate).

fadedpsychosis wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

fadedpsychosis wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I read (on a partisan website) that the Bush administration took pains not to use government offices, phones, computers, etc. for political bidness.

and because you read it on the internet, it must be true... you even admit it's a partisan website!

What? Was there something wrong with my post? I made a statement and qualified it. Is that a problem for you? Would you prefer that I make blanket statements and/or assertions? I can do that if you want.

the question is why post it in the first place? as for blanket assertions... what do you think it is? throwing in subtext just means you know the information is biased (read: likely inaccurate).

I thought it was relevant to the discussion that certain politicians allegedly thought separating politics from government was important. You clearly have strong feelings on this, which I find rather troubling since you're posting on a website and, I can only assume, read things on the internet. Why do you have such strong feelings? Did you make a statement that relied upon a website that was later proven false? Is that where your strong feelings are coming from?

thegreekdog wrote:

fadedpsychosis wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

fadedpsychosis wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I read (on a partisan website) that the Bush administration took pains not to use government offices, phones, computers, etc. for political bidness.

and because you read it on the internet, it must be true... you even admit it's a partisan website!

What? Was there something wrong with my post? I made a statement and qualified it. Is that a problem for you? Would you prefer that I make blanket statements and/or assertions? I can do that if you want.

the question is why post it in the first place? as for blanket assertions... what do you think it is? throwing in subtext just means you know the information is biased (read: likely inaccurate).

I thought it was relevant to the discussion that certain politicians allegedly thought separating politics from government was important. You clearly have strong feelings on this, which I find rather troubling since you're posting on a website and, I can only assume, read things on the internet. Why do you have such strong feelings? Did you make a statement that relied upon a website that was later proven false? Is that where your strong feelings are coming from?

not at all... my strong feelings come from the fact that I've known too many lawyers, and have little tolerance for sophistry. I can however agree that there is a need to keep actual governance separate from the politics which put people in those places... but see little hope in its actual accomplishment

Was there sophistry in what I posted? I wasn't purposefully making a misleading argument.