The Hatch Act guy

[WNYresident]

HamburgVoter
Thomas Quatroche, the Hatch Act guy

Can someone explain to me the Hatch Act. How fine of a line is drawn to when this law is broken or not?

[j.camareri]

Can someone explain to me the Hatch Act. How fine of a line is drawn to when this law is broken or not?

Not exactly sure Res. I think bwilson is well versed in it tho. Just know that working for ECMC and holding public office is a violation of that law, because ECMC is funded by so many public dollars. All I know is when the hammer falls i'll be dancin' in the streets!

[PRR]

Can someone explain to me the Hatch Act. How fine of a line is drawn to when this law is broken or not?

I'm the one who filed the complaint so I guess that makes me the local expert on the Hatch Act. Believe me, I am paying for that filing on a daily basis.

The Hatch Act was set up in order to try to separate politics from the administration of Federal Funds. It basically states that, if you are employed by a Public Benefit organization that receives a "significant" portion ( not half, not 3/4, just significant) of its revenues from Federal funds (grants, reimbursements, loans, etc...) then you may not run for political office.

Period. No fine line, no gray areas.

If you are in office when the organization becomes covered by the act, then you may complete the remainder of your elected term but you may not stand for reelection or allow your name to be placed in nomination.

There is no need for the job held to be funded by Federal Funds. There is no need for the person in question to administer or interact with the funding stream in any way.

ECMC became a fully operational Public Benefit Corporation on January 1, 2005, receiving 85% of its revenues (per Mr Young, the big boss at ECMC) from Federal reimbursements. At that point, Tom Quatroche was allowed by law to complete the remainder of his term - to December 31, 2005. He was not allowed to be nominated, circulate petitions, stand for election or be sworn in to office.

The penalties, in all cases, involve at least the immediate removal from office. Further penalties depend on the ability to prove prior knowledge of the Hatch Act.

[PaulJonson]

[QUOTE=PRR]I'm the one who filed the complaint so I guess that makes me the local expert on the Hatch Act. Believe me, I am paying for that filing on a daily basis.QUOTE]

How are you paying for this every day?

And how is this going?

[BigO]

Can someone explain to me the Hatch Act. How fine of a line is drawn to when this law is broken or not?

The Hatch Act prevents cetain people from running for partisan political office. It doesn't apply to employees of every state or local agency (as opposed to federal)...only executive branch state and local agencies, i.e. those with traditional executive powers (rule making power, executive control, etc.) The state and local judicial and legislative branch employees are exempt. Not sure about ECMCC because it is a PBC and doesn't seem to fall completely under one branch. Also, the person's job duties need to be in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a federal agency. For example, a janitor would probably not be covered. The determination is very fact specific. Finally, the offending employee does not necessarily need to be removed from employment for a violation (it is pretty discretionary).

Hope this answers your question.

[BigO]

Here is a link if you want to read more:

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

[PRR]

[QUOTE=BigO]Also, the person's job duties need to be in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a federal agency. [Quote]

That is 100% incorrect. If you read the various opinions presented on real cases, a persons job DOES NOT need to directly or even indirectly involve Federal Funds. That was done to eliminate technicalities and "fudging" to eliminate any conflict. The only determination is that the organization receive a "substantial amount" of Federal Funds.

A person found guilty does not need to be fired but must leave their elected office immediately.

[PAC police]

may i say it appears this guy is in violation. americorp in w/.s. is federally funded and he's sending e-mails out for paul clark fire him now

[PaulJonson]

Again, is there an update on this "Hatch Act Guy?"

[BigO]

[QUOTE=PRR][QUOTE=BigO]Also, the person's job duties need to be in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a federal agency.

That is 100% incorrect. If you read the various opinions presented on real cases, a persons job DOES NOT need to directly or even indirectly involve Federal Funds. That was done to eliminate technicalities and "fudging" to eliminate any conflict. The only determination is that the organization receive a "substantial amount" of Federal Funds.

A person found guilty does not need to be fired but must leave their elected office immediately.

The only thing that is 100% incorrect is your reading of the Hatch Act as well as the "opinions on real life cases" on the OSC website (apparently you didn't read the one entiled "Duties in Connection with a Federally Funded Program"). The "in connection with" language that I used is taken directly from the statute.

5 U.S.C. 1501:

"'State or local officer or employee' means an individual employed by a State or local agency whose principal employment is in connection with an activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a Federal agency, but does not include - (A) an individual who exercises no functions in connection with that activity;"

"The Hatch Act does not cover state employees whose connection with federally-funded activities is merely casual or an accidental occurrence of employment; such de minimis connection does not justify application of Act." Williams v. U.S. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 55 F.3d 917 (4th Cir. 1995).

I think the federal courts know more than you on this topic.

Also, if a person is found to have committed a violation of the Hatch Act and the MSPB determines that the violation warrants removal, the person does NOT need to leave their elected office. I'm not sure where you are getting that from since the Act says nothing about that. When the Act talks about removal, it speaks to removal from the non-elected position (state agency position). The employing agency must either remove the employee or forfeit a portion of the federal assistance equal to two years salary of the employee.

[PaulJonson]

So who is right?

[PRR]

Since my complaint was accepted, has survived the initial review and currently is under intense investigation (Mr. Quatroche's information on petitions and financials was recently obtained by investigators from the Board of Elctions), I guess I am.

[BigO]

Since my complaint was accepted, has survived the initial review and currently is under intense investigation (Mr. Quatroche's information on petitions and financials was recently obtained by investigators from the Board of Elctions), I guess I am.

If you haven't realized this already, and I am guessing you probably haven't given your response, I'm not attempting to pass on the merits of your complaint.

The fact that OSC accepted your complaint and the matter is currently under "intense investigation" lends absolutely no support for your inaccurate explanation of the principles and standards of the Hatch Act. Actually, it just confirms that my explanation of the Hatch Act is correct.

If the only thing that is taken into account is whether the agency receives substantial federal funds, as you claim, why the need for an "intense investigation" or any investigation for that matter? It would seem to be an open and shut case. However, if there was a need to determine whether the employees duties were "in connection with" those federal funds, as I submitted, then it certainly makes sense that they would need to do a full investigation to determine where the money is coming from and whether this guy has anything to do with that money.

If you disagree with me, come back with some arguments supported by actual authority. Lay your argument out and show us a statute, case law, etc. that supports what you are saying. I've cited the statute and case law. All we've seen from you is speculation, red herrings and straw men.

[crabapples]

This whole Hatch Act thing will become a mute point December 31st. Quatroche isn't seeking re-election and his term will end then. How much money and time is being invested into an investigation that at best will remove him from office and allow the current Town Board to appoint their choice to fill his seat instead of the voters?

[crabapples]

This whole Hatch Act thing will become a mute point December 31st. Quatroche isn't seeking re-election and his term will end then. How much money and time is being invested into an investigation that at best will remove him from office and allow the current Town Board to appoint their choice to fill his seat instead of the voters?

My mistake, that is untrue. I was wrong!