Shows & Panels
Shows & Panels
- The 2014 Big Picture on Cyber Security
- AFCEA Answers
- American Readiness: Renewable Power and Efficiency Technologies
- Ask the CIO
- Building the Hybrid Cloud
- Connected Government: How to Build and Procure Network Services for the Future
- Continuing Diagnostics and Mitigation: Discussion of Progress and Next Steps
- Federal Executive Forum
- Federal News Radio's National Cyber Security Awareness Month Special Panel Discussion
- Federal Tech Talk
- The Future of Government Data Centers
- The Future of IT: How CIOs Can Enable the Service-Oriented Enterprise
- Government Perspectives on Mobility and the Cloud
- The Intersection: Where Technology Meets Transformation
- Maximizing ROI Through Data Center Consolidation
- Mitigating Insider Threats in Virtual & Cloud Environments
- Modern Mission Critical Series
- The New Generation of Database
- Reimagining the Next Generation of Government
- Targeting Advanced Threats: Proven Methods from Detection through Remediation
- Transformative Technology: Desktop Virtualization in Government
- The Truth About IT Opex and Software Defined Networking
- Air Traffic Management Transformation Report
- Cloud First Report
- General Dynamics IT Enterprise Center
- Gov Cloud Minute
- Government in Technology Series
- Homeland Security Cybersecurity Market Report
- National Cybersecurity Awareness Month
- Technology Insights
- The Cyber Security Report
- The Next Generation Cyber Security Experts
Shows & Panels
Are you violating the Hatch Act and you don't even know it?
Tuesday - 5/20/2014, 4:23pm EDT
In the run-up to the 2012 presidential election, two employees at the Internal Revenue Service thought it was OK to offer their political opinions while on the job.
One customer service representative answered the phone with a chant urging callers to support President Barack Obama.
Another IRS employee employee, a tax-advisory specialist in Kentucky, told a taxpayer she supported Democrats and that "Republicans already [sic] trying to cap my pension and ... they're going to take women back 40 years."
In both cases, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) investigated complaints against the IRS employees for violating the Hatch Act. Under the statute, federal employees face a number of restrictions when it comes to political activity.
"It's intended to protect federal employees from political coercion at work," Ana Galindo-Marrone, chief of OSC's Hatch Act unit, tells Federal News Radio as part of our special report, Trust Redefined: Reconnecting Government and Its Employees. "It's a safeguard to the merit system by ensuring that career advancement for federal employees is based on merit and not political affiliation. One of the other goals, which is tied to the two previous ones, is that it fosters public trust by requiring that federal programs, federal institutions be administered in a non-partisan fashion."
A number of agencies and positions are further restricted under the law, including the Federal Election Commission, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Galindo- Marrone's office.
"There are five critical prohibitions that apply to all federal employees," she said. "But if a federal employee is employed in one of the listed agencies or holds one of the specific positions identified in the statute, then in addition to the five prohibitions that apply to everyone, there are additional restrictions."
For example, employees at OSC and other restricted agencies cannot actively participate in political management or campaigning.
Before the Hatch Act was amended in 1993, all federal employees were subject to further restrictions.
"Now, most federal employees are permitted to engage in political management and political campaigning if they make sure their activities occur off duty and while away from the workplace," Galindo-Marrone. "Those of us who are further restricted can't offer or volunteer services to a campaign, even if those services were to be performed after hours."
Federal employees are only permitted to run for non-partisan offices.
"One of those absolute prohibitions that everyone is subject to, whether they're further restricted or they're not, is candidacy," Galindo-Marrone said. "We're seeing an uptick in the number of federal employees that are becoming candidates in partisan elections."
The Hatch Act was amended again in 2012 to provide agencies with a range of penalties for employees caught violating the law, including suspensions, fines and grade reductions. Previously, an agency's only recourse for violations of the law — even relatively minor ones — was to fire the employee.
Many federal employees are on-board with the changes to the law, according to an exclusive Federal News Radio survey. More than 62 percent of respondents said they agreed with the recent Hatch Act reforms.
"Firing should be the last resort," one respondent said. "I believe everyone deserves a second chance, and many times, employees learn their lesson aft their first punishment."
Another respondent agreed: "They fired a long-time employee for showing up at a political rally in a shirt with a government logo on it. Worth punishing — but ending a career for a stupid mistake? A little discretion makes sense — punishment but measured."
OSC: Hatch Act meant to protect employees
According to Galindo-Marrone, one of the things feds seem not to understand about the Hatch Act is that it's actually meant to help employees.
"Looking at it very broadly, I think that some federal employees sort of don't understand that the law is intended to protect them from political coercion, that they're not going to be required as part of their job, they're not going to have to perform political chores," she said. "The law's not just merely intended to be an unfair restriction preventing them from engaging in political activity."
Another area of confusion is when it comes to understanding the scope of the law's prohibitions.
"As applied, I think that there are some prohibitions that federal employees are confused about and don't realize that the prohibitions are absolute, meaning that even when they are away from the workplace and not on duty, those prohibitions continue to apply," Galindo-Marrone said.