Incumbent City Councilman and State House Representative candidate charges "dirty politics"
Fascinating article in this morning's Standard-Examiner, reporting that "somebody" has dropped the "Hatch Act" dime on democratic House Legislative District 9 candidate and current Emerald City Councilman Jesse Garcia. It's deja vu all over again in Emerald City. The situation is reminiscent of the 2006 general election campaign, when Ogden Police Chief Jon Greiner nearly dropped out of the State Senate District 18 race, under similar Hatch Act violation accusations. Of course we all remember what happened in the case of Greiner. He ultimately lawyered-up and fired right back at the meddling attorneys from the US Office of Special Counsel, employing the same successful legal strategy previously perfected by Assemblyman Richard Perkins of Nevada. As a result, and as reported in this morning's Ace Reporter Schwebke story, Greiner just now completed his second State Senate session, and hasn't heard word one from federal attorneys in almost two years.
According to this morning's article however, Garcia's problem is more complicated than that of Greiner. Garcia is not only running for a State House of Representatives seat, but has already served as an elected Ogden City Councilman for fifteen years. Moreover, his main employment is with Weber County Human Services, a recipient of federal grants, from which Garcia's salary is probably at least partly derived, thus arguably bringing him within Hatch Act jurisdiction.
From the tone of today's article, it appears that Garcia is prepared to cut and run. Although he's talking about consulting with legal counsel, he's also making noise about abandoning his State House race -- and resigning his City Council seat. That he would consider such a course of action is understandable. It goes without saying that he lacks the considerable financial resources of a Jon Greiner, who was evidently able to successfully stand toe-to-toe with federal lawyers in 2006.
As an aside, Ace Reporter Schwebke begins the pursuit of what we believe to be an interesting story angle this morning -- and he gets off to a fair start with the query: Who, exactly, dropped the dime on Councilman Garcia? Good question, we believe.
In a somewhat perfunctory manner, we think, Mr. Schwebke reports on the responses of all candidates in the Legislative 9 race. Neil Hansen denies any involvement. He says he prefers to play within the system. GOP challenger Jeremy Peterson also issues his own denial. Frankly we believe both of them. Hansen is the hands-down favorite to win the 2008 Democratic Party nomination. His re-nomination will likely be a Weber County Democratic Convention cake-walk. Why would he bring such unnecessary complications into his race? As for GOP challenger Peterson, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that he'd prefer to face Garcia in November, rather than Hansen, a five term incumbent, who's basically owned Ogden's House District 9 for the past ten years.
Following up on Mr. Schwebke's question, ask yourselves, gentle readers... who stands to gain the most if Councilman Garcia is forced to resign his city council seat? Somebody with an office on the ninth floor of the municipal building? Some "visionary" who'd like nothing more than to break the opposition lag-jam in the city council/RDA? Somebody who'd like to take a crack at the appointment of a new city councilman who, unlike Garcia, hasn't been a burr under the administration saddle since he took the mayoral oath of office in 2000? Somebody with a seemingly pathological obsession for GONDOLAS, perhaps, hmmm? So many questrions... so few answers.
Jesse Garcia attributes this latest development to "dirty politics;" and we think he's absolutely right. The trouble is, we believe he's obviously pointing his finger at the wrong suspects.
We sit perched on the edge of our seat awaiting our gentle readers' comments re this.
The floor is now open for further discussion of what we deem to be a VERY meaty topic.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
10 comments:
Lemme guess, Godfrey and minions.
Ahah! Means + Motive + Opportunity = GODFREY!
Isn't funny that when someone is caught breaking the hatch act that all of a sudden that this is dirty politics. Why doesn't the person that is being looked at come out and say I will be in compliant with the law and no one is to blame until we get to the facts of the hatch act. So lets not point fingers and lets wait and see what happens.
BTW. What was the ruling on the Grenier case. Wouldn't it be nice if the good Senator would release the findings on his race. Or if the mayor is not involved maybe he could go on record just what is happening in the city with both cases.
Maybe this will wake up the US Office of Special Counsel,and finally make him resign one of his positions, if Griener can get away with this then Jesse should have the same standard of law. I do hope he fights this and puts up a fight. Declining to identify the complaitant sounds like more dirty election tricks from the Mayors supporters. Doesn't the police force of Ogden recieve Federal funds? FOIA may help him find out who is behind this.
Caught You Red:
Good points. It is no more "dirty politics" for someone to raise the question about whether Garcia comes under the Hatch act than it is to raise the question about Greiner. If city council members cannot hold public area jobs for agencies that receive federal funds, then that is something that needs to be known. And if it's not clear, then it needs to be made clear, one way or the other. And the answers to those questions will be the same regardless of who filed the complaint. Who did really doesn't matter.
If the Hatch act is interpreted that tightly, though, I imagine city council members and state legislators nationwide are going to have to reside in droves. Let's say a city council member worked for a company that received federal contracts... would he have to resign? Or a state legislator, let's say, who worked for a company that received federal contracts. Would he have to go too?
Given the fact that the Justice Department has been looking at the Greiner situation for over a year now, and has, so far as I know, come to no decision, or at least announced none, it would seem indisputable that what the Hatch act forbids and what it permits with respect to local and state officeholding needs some clarification. Pronto.
What it will cost us:
You wrote: Declining to identify the complainant sounds like more dirty election tricks from the Mayors supporters.
I disagree. Who filed the complaint is entirely irrelevant to question of whether the complaint has merit or not. And beyond that, this is one of the instances in which I think the complainant should be permitted to remain unknown, or it will become very unlikely that public employees [possibly working for someone in violation of the Hatch Act] will ever file complaints like this.
And you're assuming the situations of Greiner and Garcia are identical with respect to what the Hatch Act demands. Maybe they are, but maybe they aren't. Recall Greiner claimed that the police department's involvement with fedfunds was so incidental, and so intermittent that the Hatch Act did not apply in this instance to him. If Mr. Garcia's agency is more heavily involved with fedfunds and more consistently, it's arguable at least that the Act might apply to him but not to Greiner.
These are exactly the kind of questions that the Justice Department should have addressed some time ago. What level of fedfunds involvement in a state or local agencey make employees of that agency ineligible for election to public office? Where is the line drawn between "too incidental to matter" and "serious enough to trigger the Hatch Act provisions"? I have no idea. Apparently, the Justice Department hasn't either, since so far as we know it has not issued a ruling on the Greiner matter.
Now, if the Republican-led US Justice Department fed-exs a decision in re: Democrat Garcia to the state by Friday afternoon, while continuing to dither on the complaint lodged against Republican Greiner, your charge of "dirty politics" will have a lot more evidence to back it up.
How about teachers in the legislature, isnt a large portion of schools funding provided by the feds?
Good For:
Interesting question. Or say a University professor stood for election, and won, and it turns out he applied for and got federal grant money for his research.... would he have to resign his seat or his grant, one or the other?
Did I miss something on this article, or was Greiner suppose to with draw from the race. So what is the truth on this matter and why is Greiner is the senate if he was to with draw?
Standard Examiner.......
The Office of Special Counsel letter says the Hatch Act violation involving Greiner has occurred because as police chief he performs duties in connection with four federal grants, including:
• A COPS Technology Grant of $458,425, of which $343,818 is in federal funding. The grant is used to create a system to allow effective communications among dispatchers, responders and commanders “from various jurisdictions.”
• A Justice Assistance Grant for $78,809 awarded to Ogden and Roy police departments and the Weber County Sheriff’s Office. Ogden Police applied for and administer the grant, according to the letter.
• A second Justice Assistance Grant for $142,489, also shared with Roy and the sheriff’s office and applied for by Ogden Police.
Among activities that Ogden helps fund with the federal grant money are operational and employee costs of the Weber-Morgan Strike Force, gang enforcement activities and a ticket/citation program.
• A Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant, with $18,235 available to purchase the protective vests for officers. That figure does not include a pending request for reimbursement.
Greiner must provide the Office of Special Counsel with evidence he has resigned as police chief or withdrawn from the Senate race by Oct. 31.
I "googled" the Hatch Act and found some information on county employees the Hatch Act applies to. It basically said they can hold a non-partisan municipal elected position, but not run for or hold a partisan position.
I can't speak to how the Chief can hold his position in the legislature unless someone made the determination his job doesn't fall under the Hatch Act.
The reality is that if Councilman Garcia's day job falls under the Hatch Act and he's running for a partisan legislative seat, he's in violation of the act.
I hope Councilman Garcia will stay on with the City Council. We need all the help we can get.
Post a Comment