Three councilors and a bunch of firemen

[sgrizzle]

If they would wear shirts just saying IAFF and their signs just said IAFF then it would be a non-issue. 

As of now, I can see the argument, although not a strong one.

[Wilbur]

From KOTV-6's website... a memo from the Mayor to city employees:

I wanted to clarify what is and is not permitted by city employees in political campaigns as outlined by the "Hatch Act" (5 U.S.C §1502).  According to information on the U.S. Office of Special Counsel website (www.osc.gov/ha_state.htm), to the extent this Act applies to municipal employees the permissible and prohibited activities as specifically outlined in the act, are as follows:

"Permitted Activities

Covered state and local employees may-

    * run for public office in nonpartisan elections
    * campaign for and hold office in political clubs and organizations
    * actively campaign for candidates for public office in partisan and nonpartisan elections
    * contribute money to political organizations and attend political fundraising functions"

Prohibited Activities

Covered state and local employees may not-

    * be candidates for public office in a partisan election
    * use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination
    * directly or indirectly coerce contributions from subordinates in support of a political party or candidate"

Clearly, those employees who are subject to this federal law are not prohibited from exercising one of the most important constitutional rights of our democracy - freedom of speech.

Under any circumstances, personal political activities should only occur when you are on your own time and not dressed in city uniform. Oklahoma Statutes Title 11 O.S. §22-101.1; City of Tulsa Personnel Policies and Procedures, 805.

[swake]

From KOTV-6's website... a memo from the Mayor to city employees:

I wanted to clarify what is and is not permitted by city employees in political campaigns as outlined by the "Hatch Act" (5 U.S.C §1502).  According to information on the U.S. Office of Special Counsel website (www.osc.gov/ha_state.htm), to the extent this Act applies to municipal employees the permissible and prohibited activities as specifically outlined in the act, are as follows:

"Permitted Activities

Covered state and local employees may-

    * run for public office in nonpartisan elections
    * campaign for and hold office in political clubs and organizations
    * actively campaign for candidates for public office in partisan and nonpartisan elections
    * contribute money to political organizations and attend political fundraising functions"

Prohibited Activities

Covered state and local employees may not-

    * be candidates for public office in a partisan election
    * use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination
    * directly or indirectly coerce contributions from subordinates in support of a political party or candidate"

Clearly, those employees who are subject to this federal law are not prohibited from exercising one of the most important constitutional rights of our democracy - freedom of speech.

Under any circumstances, personal political activities should only occur when you are on your own time and not dressed in city uniform. Oklahoma Statutes Title 11 O.S. §22-101.1; City of Tulsa Personnel Policies and Procedures, 805.

I think they are very much running afoul of this one:

  * use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination

[RecycleMichael]

Well, her hubby gave money to Chris Trail.

Again with the innuendo...this story (and this thread) ain't about the Mayor. It is about three council races and firefighters involvement in the campaigns.

So what if her husband gave one of the three candidates a small check? What about the other two challengers? The Mayor's husband ain't the topic and you trying to add him is a desperate red herring.

Maybe he is just a fan of Ike's Chili.

[Conan71]

Again with the innuendo...this story (and this thread) ain't about the Mayor. It is about three council races and firefighters involvement in the campaigns.

So what if her husband gave one of the three candidates a small check? What about the other two challengers? The Mayor's husband ain't the topic and you trying to add him is a desperate red herring.

Maybe he is just a fan of Ike's Chili.

I think I'm going to have to call "feh" on the contribution from Lobeck to Chris Trail also.  There's nothing for Mayor Taylor to "pay back", she's outta the picture after the general election.

[MichaelBates]

Again with the innuendo...this story (and this thread) ain't about the Mayor. It is about three council races and firefighters involvement in the campaigns.

So what if her husband gave one of the three candidates a small check? What about the other two challengers? The Mayor's husband ain't the topic and you trying to add him is a desperate red herring.

Maybe he is just a fan of Ike's Chili.

Small check? It was for $500. I'll bet Scott Grizzle would have been thrilled to get a check like that.

Now Trail had written a small check -- $50 -- to Mayor Taylor's campaign, back on March 4, 2009, when he still claimed a Sand Springs address (or at least an address within the Sand Springs fence line -- hard to tell from the map on geo.ou.edu).

What I don't know is the source of $1,000 shown as "GRAND TOTAL OF CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PREVIOUS REPORT" on his August 31 C-1. The City Clerk's office couldn't locate a previous report nor a campaign committee registration (R-1) form. The date of the R-1 would put a bound on the dates of any previous report since Trail is a first-time candidate. His C-1 had 8-24-09 as the end of the period, but the "beginning of period" space was left blank, so it's unclear when that $1,000 would have been received.

[MDepr2007]

I don't know which side is correct on this argument. I fear that employees campaigning for certain elections could be used against them, but also think they should have some rights to express their wishes. I surmise it will probably be legal. Do a search for firefighters campaigning and you will see examples all over the country where fire unions are actively supporting candidates for all offices.

But where was the outrage from these republican councilors when these same Tulsa Firefighters were campaigning last election for republican Mayor Bill LaFortune? Was it not an issue then because he was a republican or was it because it wasn't against them?

The difference to me with the Lafortune campaign is, they went to forums and public places to show support, they were not knocking doors in neighborhoods in a city they don't live in, let alone now it's even districts they don't live in that they are going door to door.

[shadows]

The interpretations of how and why it was placed into the new charter (as amended) is reoccurring again.   When it was being put together very little  attention was paid by the voting public but is was so written where much is hidden behind a deep smoke screen that can be expanded in enormous directions.   It seems the purpose was to restricting the possibility of the city employees from taking the control of the city government as happened in Kansas City some years ago.   Then also the ballot title contained many subject along with 1/3 more than is allowed under the statutes which caused many citizens to vote without even reading the ballot.

The old dog is coming home now bring another interpretation as what was intended when it was constructed.  There is no question that working for the city does not deprive an employee of free speech.  The problem stems from if they, in exercising this right of free speech, identify themselves as an employee who could have a vested interest other than that as a citizen in the outcome of the election.

There have been several incidents where the city charters have prevailed over the statutes and codes.  In the instant case one would presume that even after the election a suit could bring up enough paper to sustain standing for a suit in the courts.

[sgrizzle]

Small check? It was for $500. I'll bet Scott Grizzle would have been thrilled to get a check like that.

Still would be. If anyone wants to write me a $500 check, I promise an awesome watch party!

[RecycleMichael]

The difference to me with the Lafortune campaign is, they went to forums and public places to show support, they were not knocking doors in neighborhoods in a city they don't live in, let alone now it's even districts they don't live in that they are going door to door.

That is a good point. There is a difference of level of campaign activity and how appropriate it is.

Do you know that as a fact that there were outside of district firefighters walking neighborhoods? I know that many of them don't live in the city limits, but many of them do.

[MDepr2007]

That is a good point. There is a difference of level of campaign activity and how appropriate it is.

Do you know that as a fact that there were outside of district firefighters walking neighborhoods? I know that many of them don't live in the city limits, but many of them do.

No but I'd place money on it if I was on Indian land to legally bet

[Wilbur]

The difference to me with the Lafortune campaign is, they went to forums and public places to show support, they were not knocking doors in neighborhoods in a city they don't live in, let alone now it's even districts they don't live in that they are going door to door.

Are you suggesting some sort of ban on ANYONE who lives outside the city of Tulsa being prohibited regarding any type of involvement in a campaign in Tulsa?  Contributions?  Fund raising?  Yard signs?  Bumper stickers?  Advertising? 

I ride my bike through the neighborhoods of south Tulsa near the boarder with Bixby.  It is amazing how many Bixby residents have Lakin signs in their front yards.  They're in for a rude shock when they go vote.

[pmcalk]

Did Westcott think it was illegal for the firefighters to campaign when he sought out their endorsement?

http://www.kjrh.com/news/local/story/Westcott-sought-unions-endorsement/6GzU6Ct9L065N_uinrwoeA.cspx

[sgrizzle]

Did Westcott think it was illegal for the firefighters to campaign when he sought out their endorsement?

http://www.kjrh.com/news/local/story/Westcott-sought-unions-endorsement/6GzU6Ct9L065N_uinrwoeA.cspx

Did it say Westcott was asking them to walk door to door wearing "tulsa firefighters" shirts or put out yard signs saying "Tulsa firefighters?"

Lots of unions endorse candidates, only one that I know of makes their own signs and walks door to door.

[shadows]

Are you suggesting some sort of ban on ANYONE who lives outside the city of Tulsa being prohibited regarding any type of involvement in a campaign in Tulsa?  Contributions?  Fund raising?  Yard signs?  Bumper stickers?  Advertising?

Your point is well made.   I own three pieces of  property in Tulsa which I pay taxes and fee's on but I am ban from the electoral process when votes to increase taxes are held.