GovernmentExecutive.com

As a retired combined Federal / Postal employee of 38-years, I agree with those posters who posit that the Hatch Act needs serious amendment, especially as it relates to postal employees.
It never ceases to baffle me that the US Postal Service, while claiming to be a quasi-governmental corporation operating on a contemporary business model, self-sustaining and supporting, and not using significant tax dollars should be covered by the Hatch Act. Postal Service management forever plows both sides of the field as may be convenient stating on the one hand that it is a "federal agency" and then when another situation arises claims that it is uniquely distinct and separate and that its employees are 'not' considered federal employees. Clearly postal employees remain confused as to their status.
Moreover, postal management at all levels does an extremely poor job at keeping its employees well informed in respect to most codified federal statutes - the Hatch Act notwithstanding.

Bob Patterson  | Tuesday, August 12, 2008 |  10:55 AM

---

My dear JH & Informed,
-.
I appreciate what you’re saying, however, the Hatch Act was passed in 1939 and there has since been another act passed by Congress and signed by the President called the IG Act of 1978. The IG act has given enormous authority to a select set of employees whose sole function is to oversee the work of a department’s or agency’s employees – to include the head of the organization. JH: As a retired federal LEO myself, I appreciate your concern. It tells me that you were (are) a pretty darn good LEO. However, you’ve overlooked the IG’s role of oversight, not to mention all the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) that are in place to assist the assurance of fair and open competition for contracting in the federal government. There are far more safeguards in place now than were in effect during the days of Tammany Hall and FDR.
-.
It seems that you’re both viewing that all executive branch employees as corrupt individuals. I understand wanting to remove any possibility of corruption, however, federal employees are also those individuals who work for the legislative branch (Architect of the Capitol (includes Capitol Police), Library of Congress, et. al.) as well as the judiciary branch. Hatch applies only to the executive branch. Is it safe assumption to say that only those in the executive branch are corrupt?
-.
Federal employees are knowledgeable of the workings of government, and if they seek offices at the local level (partisan or not) not only are they interested in governing and bettering their communities, they can add a wealth of knowledge and experience to a more often than not barren landscape. Lawyers don’t necessarily make good legislators.
.-
Congress came to the realization that they were punishing retired military officers who were hired into the federal civil service by requiring forfeiture of a portion of their retention (retirement) pay. 10-12 years ago, Congress eliminated the punitive law and has found that many of the officers are bringing their knowledge and skills – many which have been gained at the government’s expense – to the federal government. So instead of paying contractors to provide these services, the services are provided by a duly sworn civil service workforce.
.-
Hatch’s time also has come. It is time to remove the barrier to local, partisan elections, allowing federal executive branch employees to participate in their communities as political leaders.
-.

JJ  | Sunday, August 10, 2008 |  07:06 PM

---

Brian, I like your line of thinking.

Socrates was a man, Socrates was mortal.
All men are mortal. Therefore all men are Socrates.

That's Right Brian  | Friday, August 08, 2008 |  11:44 AM

---

The Hatch act does not prohibit federal employees from participating in local government, just in "partisan elections".
Federal and Postal employees can hold appointed or volunteer positions. They just can't be "elected" to those positions.

The Postal Service does advise their employees of these requirements. In this case either the employees didn't comprehend the regulations or their local managers failed to pass the information along.

PM18  | Friday, August 08, 2008 |  09:47 AM

---

Leave it as it is. The law was put into effect for a very good reason and therefore needs to stay.

Informed  | Thursday, August 07, 2008 |  10:41 PM

---

Dear JJ:
Though well intentioned, your idea is not a
good one. There is a reason for the Hatch
Act and if you look back at what led up to
the legislation you will see it's purpose.
Unless, of course, you favor the abuses
that elected officials and government
employees that were hired or appointed by
those elected officials.
DISCLOSURE:
I am a recently retired Federal Employee...with a law enforcement background.

JH  | Thursday, August 07, 2008 |  03:28 PM

---

Sounds like a management problem to me. Ever federal employee I know has had it drummed into their head about the Hatch Act. Of course that is DoD, so maybe were are more cognizant of these things. The Post Office really needs to get its' act together!

Suzanne  | Thursday, August 07, 2008 |  08:04 AM

---

The Hatch Act needs to be amended to allow federal employees to serve in local government offices. Federal employees bring a breadth of experience and knowledge to the table, and would be beneficial to the conduct of business within local communities. Federal employees should be allowed to participate in partisan, local elections (nothing higher than mayor, or country supervisor).

Prohibitions against participation at the state or national level should remain intact. Failure to allow these employees to contribute to their communities is negligent and should be corrected immediately after the Congress passes the off-shore drilling authorization.

JJ  | Thursday, August 07, 2008 |  08:01 AM

---

proves that people in government don't know government.

brian  | Thursday, August 07, 2008 |  06:59 AM

---