Full Forecaste

Past Month's Most Commented Stories

Home > Area News

Johnson says Hatch Act could disqualify McDaniel from commissioner race

Sunday, May 11, 2008 5:42 AM PDT

By Tony Lystra

Font Size:
 
 

County Commissioner Kathleen Johnson is questioning whether Todd McDaniel, one of her opponents in this fall’s election, is eligible to challenge her because of a relatively obscure federal law known as the Hatch Act.

The nearly 70-year-old law blocks certain state and local government employees from running for partisan office or using their authority to sway the results of an election.

The question, Johnson says, is whether McDaniel’s job as a Cowlitz County Sheriff’s deputy makes him ineligible to run in November’s commissioner race.

McDaniel, who also serves on the Kelso City Council, insists the act does not apply to him, and a memo issued late last month by Ron Marshall, the county’s attorney, supports McDaniel’s conclusion.

Marshall cautioned that it’s up the to U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which enforces the Hatch Act, to decide whether a government employee has violated the law. But in this case, he said, it doesn’t appear that the act has any bearing on the candidacy of a local deputy sheriff.

“It’s just not an issue,” Marshall said in an interview late last week.

Several county officials said they’re not aware of anyone raising the question of the Hatch Act during previous races, even as other county employees have launched campaigns for elected positions.

“This is the first rumblings I’ve heard of it,” said Amee Paxton, the county’s chief deputy auditor.

Yet, Johnson said she still isn’t convinced McDaniel is free to try to unseat her.

“It needs to be readdressed,” she said. “I really do think this is still up in the air.”

This week, Johnson said, she may further press the question of the Hatch Act with her fellow commissioners and, if the board is willing, contact the Office of Special Counsel in Washington, D.C., to clear up the issue.

Johnson said she’s not trying to drive her opponent out of the race. Rather, she said, she’s reluctantly caught between two roles: candidate and administrator. She said she simply wants the county to follow the law.

“I didn’t want to do this,” Johnson said. “As a candidate, this is a hot potato for me. But as a commissioner, it’s a concern that we’re doing business correctly. I’m not out to get Todd McDaniel. That’s not my point at all.”

But the issue appears to have been a source of discomfort among county officials.

“That thing came up and I just stayed away from it,” Commissioner George Raiter said last week. “It wasn’t something that I had a direct interest in.”

Commissioner Axel Swanson referred to the situation as a “weird, obscure thing,” and said: “I stayed out of it.”

Raising the question of the Hatch Act, Johnson said, “got a little stir out of young Mr. McDaniel’s camp.” Johnson and McDaniel, both Democrats, said in interviews that they had a heated exchange about the law at the party’s recent convention.

The McDaniel campaign had little to say about the issue last week. John Karnofski, McDaniel’s campaign manager, called it “a case of unfortunate politics.”

“I think it’s pretty clear that the Hatch Act does not apply to Todd,” he said.

Karnofski pointed out that Marshall’s memo cleared McDaniel to run this fall and said, “I don’t think it should still be on the table. I think we should be focusing on the issues and what’s best for Cowlitz County.”

Asked why he thought Johnson was pursuing the issue, McDaniel said, “I don’t want to say why she’s doing what she’s doing. ... I’ve just got to stay focused and keep going.”

In the absence of an investigation, it’s difficult to determine McDaniel’s status under the act because local governments are organized differently throughout the U.S., said Jim Mitchell, the communications director for the Office of Special Counsel.

“There’s so many variables across counties and townships that somebody has to look into the individual’s job and determine whether there’s a Hatch Act conflict,” he said.

Mitchell said his agency will get about 3,000 requests this year for advisories about the act. “We want people to come to us,” he said. “It doesn’t take long to get the advice. And then they know.”

Johnson, who is expected to face McDaniel and Cougar resident Steve Madsen in August’s Democratic primary, said she first became suspicious of McDaniel’s candidacy after her daughter forwarded her an e-mail about the act.

When she raised the issue with her supporters, Johnson said, they worried that questioning the legitimacy of McDaniel’s campaign could be construed as dirty politics. They said, “This is going to come back and bite you,” Johnson recalled.

But Johnson said she feared the county could face federal sanctions for violating the act and eventually decided to speak up. Future employees, she said, should also know their rights and obligations under the law.

Johnson said she brought the question to commissioners Raiter and Swanson several weeks ago.

The commissioners took the issue to finance director Claire Hauge, who in turn forwarded it to Marshall.

Hauge said she can’t recall if McDaniel was mentioned by name. But, she said, “Obviously I was aware that Todd McDaniel, being a county employee, had announced his candidacy.”

The commissioners, Hauge said, “asked me to look into it from a financial standpoint.” The county gets a lot of money from the federal government, she said, and commissioners didn’t want those funds jeopardized if the act was being violated.

Marshall released a memo April 22, explaining the act’s provisions. The act, he said, applies to employees who engage in federally funded activities. Judging from the law’s definition of federally funded duties, Marshall said, it doesn’t appear that a deputy sheriff would be “covered by the Hatch Act restrictions.”

Marshall’s memo, which did not mention McDaniel by name, laid out a series of contingencies under which a county could face sanctions under the law: If the Office of Special Counsel accuses an employee of violating the act, and if an independent judiciary board agrees, and if it’s determined that a government agency should dismiss the employee, and if that agency refuses to fire the employee, then that agency may face sanctions under the act, Marshall said. The sanctions, he said, are equivalent to the employee’s salary for two years.

In addition, he said, none of the county’s federal grants are in jeopardy. “That suggestion is simply inconsistent with the provisions of the act,” he wrote.

Swanson said he thought Marshall’s memo had settled the issue. “End of story,” he said.

And, asked if the Hatch Act was a major concern, Raiter said, “Not for me it isn’t. ... Personally, I’m comfortable with what I read in Ron Marshall’s (memo), but I just read it very quickly.”

Still, on Friday he said, “We do try to respect commissioners when they have concerns. ... I’m guessing that’s something that will come up Monday when we get back.”

Previous Next

No Bull wrote on May 11, 2008 2:24 AM:

" Kathleen Johnson is trying everything she can to derail the Todd McDaniel campaign. It is an interesting point (Hatch Act), but it will hold zero water. Most would agree that this election cycle has quickly past the mud slinging phase, and has gone into a straight poo slinging phase. To tell you the truth, I think that this Hatch Act stunt is hilarious. I mean, seriously. Johnson is trying to act like this is a huge issue? Lets not forget that Johnson was trying to corrupt an animal cruelty case by sending an e-mail to a judge, trying to influence the out come of a court decision. Who is the REAL criminal in this commissioners race, McDaniel or Johnson? This is not dirty politics, this is desperate politics. I mean last month, Johnson was booed when she got up to speak at the Cowlitz County Democratic Convention. So, Johnson knows she is in trouble. And she is going to try anything she can to hold her seat. It is going to be fun to watch! "

UR average VOTR wrote on May 11, 2008 7:10 AM:

" Well like most voters I'm not heavily involved in politics and don't no any of the candidates personally. I usually vote for the incumbant if there's been no scandal. This was my intention again this year, however it appears Ms. Johnson is a sort of scandal herself. First she wastes County time and money towards a personal issue of her own with the dog/judge issue and now she's trying to waste more County time and money towards another personal issue; her campaign for re-election. It sounds like our County attorney has already made all the necessary investigations and ruled it a NON-ISSUE. Come on Ms. Johnson, who are you kidding about no personal attacks? "

Clarification wrote on May 11, 2008 7:11 AM:

" Don't we currently have a sheriff, a partisan position who was a deputy when he ran? Hasn't this been the case in numerous other county positions? "

Debateable wrote on May 11, 2008 7:21 AM:

" It's about time someone looked into why the County leadership jobs all go to Democrats. You bet I'd looked into this thing. This isn't about some deputy running for a management job, it should be about a decade of handing off all elected county positions to an insider. Look deep and you will see EVERY elected official in the past ten or so years worked at the county WHILE they ran for office. And no one questione? You gotta like Johnson. At least she openly pokes around for the truth. Why aren't Raiter and Swanson asking questions instead of burying this thing? "

common man wrote on May 11, 2008 7:23 AM:

" Boy I am sure glad that Commissioner Raiter and Swanson are on the job with this one. "I just read it very quickly" ? To bad there isn't deputy running against Raiter, Oh that's right no one is. At Least Johnson is willing to do her job, and make sure the county is playing by the rules. Doesn't it bother any one that this guy is a deputy sheriff, working and running at the same time? Who's interest do you think McDaniels is serving. He should take a leave of absense if he is going to run. "

Geez. wrote on May 11, 2008 7:24 AM:

" How in the world did this lady ever get elected to a public office? Articles about her antics get more and more bizarre. Oh, well only a few more short months until she's out the door. I wonder if her friends will take to wearing paper sacks over their heads when they're in public with her? "

Does this apply wrote on May 11, 2008 7:25 AM:

" Does this act apply to the Presidential Race? why do senators keep their job and run at the same time?
They are compensated by the Fed's? Seams they would have to resign and run? Does anyone follow the rules any more? "

Ya sure wrote on May 11, 2008 8:44 AM:

" The last sentence says ,"We do try to respect commissioners when they have concerns" I'm guessing that Johnsons concern is loosing and is going to try any thing she can to get rid of her competitors. "

Danny ONeill wrote on May 11, 2008 9:23 AM:

" Kathleen missed the mark when she challenged McDaniels eligibility by pointing out he may have broken a law. The obscure law was not meant for an application in this type of issue. I think she should have taken a que by her fellow commissioners who elected to stay away from this wierd law. Kathleen didn't mind trying to influence the court following a man that shot a dog in Rose Valley. This sure looked like tampering to me. Todd has my vote. At least he always shows us the one face he has. "

I smell desparation wrote on May 11, 2008 9:33 AM:

" Kathleen Johnson knows she is very unlikely to be re-elected and she's using the Hillary technique; throw it at the wall and see if it sticks. Seems to me just another of the many reasons not to support her. Throw her out instead. "

Johnson is not making this up wrote on May 11, 2008 9:56 AM:

" "Persons covered by the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. 1501-1508, are prohibited from being candidates for public office in PARTISAN elections, i.e. elections in which any candidate represents...the Republican or Democratic Party, 5 U.S.C. 1502(a)(3)." and there's more: "Covered employees are those...with a state, COUNTY, or municipal executive agency" (i.e. law enforcement) "and whose job duties are "in connection with" programs financed in whole, OR IN PART, by loans and/or grants made by the United States or an agency thereof. 5 U.S.C. 1501(4)."
The kicker here is the word "programs", such a being on a drug task force that receives Federal loans, grants or funds, etc..In one case it was ruled: "The Hatch Act directs the Special Counsel of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to investigate alleged violations by state and local employees and present charges to the MSPB. After a hearing, in which both the employee and the state or local agency may participate,
the MSPB must determine whether there has been a violation and whether the violation warrants removal of the employee from his position. 5 U.S.C. 1504, 1505. If the MSPB finds a violation and concludes that removal is warranted, but the employee is not removed within 30 days, the MSPB must order the appropriate federal agency to withhold from the state or local agency an amount of federal grants or loans equal to two years' pay for the employee, and the federal agency must
withhold that amount. 5 U.S.C. 1506."
"

Nosey wrote on May 11, 2008 10:01 AM:

" I say "yes" take a look from outside the county, why would that hurt anyone?
Me, the tax payer, doesn't like thinking we'd be footing the "penalty" bill for 2 years salary of someone, just because no one asked an authority that didn't have a vested interest in the result. "

check it out its not just police wrote on May 11, 2008 10:09 AM:

" The beginning: http://www.tribstar.com/local/local_story_352223106.html
The Outcome? After the election, Kevin Burke claimed that Duke Bennett was ineligible because of the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., which prohibits "State or local officer[s] or employee[s from] ... be[ing] a candidate for elective office." 1502(a). State or local officer or employee is defined by the act as "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...." 1501(4). The Hatch Act, by its own terms, applies to officers and employees of a "State or local agency," ( 1501(2).) Bennett works for a private health care provider. So Burke turned to 42 U.S.C. 9851(a) which provides, private entities taking federal money are considered state or local agencies for purposes of the Hatch Act's limitations on political activity. 9851(a) states: "any agency which assumes responsibility for planning, developing, and coordinating Head Start programs and receives assistance under this sub chapter shall be deemed to be a State or local agency." That sweeps a private healthcare provider into the Hatch Act and 9851(a) effectively modifies 1501(4). So in sum, Bennett may be barred from seeking office if his "principal employment is in connection with an activity [by his employer] which is financed in whole or in part by ... [federal Head Start money]."
"

time to resign wrote on May 11, 2008 10:12 AM:

" Deputy McDaniel works for the patrol division, which is not federally funded, so the Hatch Act has no relevance in his situation. The county attorney already researched this. So why would Johnson keep trying to make it an issue? Easy answer there: She does not have the support of her own party, has been involved in some inappropriate behavior by attempting to influence a court case, and is taking her last desperate shot against the person most likely to unseat her on election day. My suggestion: Ms. Johnson, quit wasting everyone's time and just resign already. "

poppycock wrote on May 11, 2008 10:13 AM:

" TO: UR average VOTR
Your definition of scandal is interesting. The personal "dog/judge" issue wasn't a scandal.
A scandal is the Richard Curtis debacle. So what if McDaniel's camp reported "she had no business in Rose Valley". Isn't she the commissioner in that disctirct? Wouldn't that be the district McDaniel wants to serve? I want to know where was the sheriff's office was when all the animals were being killed? Where was law enforcement when the rouble was happening?

Last time I heard, Judges aren't immune to people talking to them, I fairly sure we see them walking around everyday. Talking to a judge is not illegal or criminal. If Johnson hadn't of sent an email, (dumb mistake maybe but not criminal) there would never have been a story. Didn't look like she was hiding anything to me?
Why didn't McDaniel's buddies at the sheriff's office stop the packed dogs? "

Doesnt Apply wrote on May 11, 2008 10:14 AM:

" There is no question that the Hatch Act exists, the question is does McDaniel fall under its parameters. The answer is no. If you look further into the act and review what duties are considered "qualifying" McDaniel's duties as a deputy do not qualify. I believe we've wasted enough time and money on this. Go on-line yourselves and look through the law books on your own time. The County legal advisor has already done enough and made the call! Let's look at REAL issues facing Cowlitz County. "

and wrote on May 11, 2008 10:16 AM:

" So, Ron Marshall writes a letter to which other obscure law professors within the system agree, but Marshall goes on to say he isnt in charge of resolving the issue. Marshall should sit down and shut up instead of pretending to be something he isnt. The letter did nothing but cause the waters to muddy. I could care less either way actually, but every matter should be heard, and just because the act wasnt brought up in the past -- doesnt mean it dosent have merit. This is so typical for this goat and pony show town full of people like Axel Swanson who in fact should be selling shoes at the mall instead of acting like he knows something. He's the same guy that jumped in hear one day saying Government should protect you from yourself. "

ignorance of the law is no defense wrote on May 11, 2008 10:32 AM:

" Running for a PARTISAN County Commissioner seat is no different than running for County Sheriff: check it out: http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/jan/05/30glaser-resigns-to-run-for-sheriff/
"Ed Glaser, one of five declared candidates seeking the Indian River County Sheriff's Office in November, resigned Friday from his job as a part-time training officer for the Sebastian Police Department. In a letter to Police Chief Jim Davis, Glaser cited the federal Hatch Act a 69-year-old law that restricts federal employees from seeking partisan office, as well as state and local employees if their agencies get federal grants and loans.
The law applies to employees only, not to elected officials seeking re-election or new offices. County Elections Supervisor Kay Clem said she knew the act applied to federal employees, but didn't know it also applied locally until Dec. 20, when she got an e-mail from Sarah Jane Bradshaw, acting director of the Florida Division of Elections." Bottom line, ignorance of the FEDERAL law is no defense or excuse. Being unwilling to address it can be construed as malfeasance (failure to do one's duty) "Commissioner Axel Swanson referred to the situation as a weird, obscure thing, and said: I stayed out of it. That thing came up and I just stayed away from it, Commissioner George Raiter said last week. It wasnt something that I had a direct interest in. I highly recommend the NOW seated Commissioners better get going on getting a SPECIFIC LEGAL opinion U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which enforces the Hatch Act, PRONTO. "

Drop It wrote on May 11, 2008 10:34 AM:

" The act doesn't apply to Todd. (And, yes, I've read the act and the advisory opinions.) You have to look at where the funding for his position comes from. His position isn't funded by a federal grant/loan, but the county general fund. This is just Kathleen not taking no for an answer because she isn't getting her way. Pretty juvenile if you ask me. Kathleen should take the advice of her county's legal counsel and just drop it. "

re Johnson is not making this up wrote on May 11, 2008 10:40 AM:

" Ok, sure whatever. If you know it all why don't you take the Prosecuting Attorney's office to court over their decision/memo? "

To common man wrote on May 11, 2008 10:48 AM:

" Thanks for your honesty. Is is obvious how common (simple) minded you are over your insinuation that Raiter should have spent a good deal of time poring over a memo pertaining basically to the personal business of two other county employees. Did the thought not occur to you that perhaps he had one, two or a hundred other LEGITIMATE issues to be concerned with at that time? Also - doesn't it bother YOU that Johnson is working and running at the same time? Shouldn't she take a leave of absence then as well? Get a grip, ok? "

Leave it alone K.J. wrote on May 11, 2008 10:56 AM:

" It had seemed Johnson had finished construction of her coffin over the Rose Valley incident. Now it appears she is readying it for use. I can not fathom why she even thinks she has a chance at being re-elected. She has become a troublemaker and a meddler - poking her head into things she shouldn't, and now she is wasting county resources for her own personal vendetta and last chance attack against McDaniel. She needs to go - and at this point, either of her running mates seems a better choice than re-electing her. "

My ruling wrote on May 11, 2008 11:01 AM:

" A senator winning the election for president does not hold both offices. Same here. If Todd were to win he would no longer be employed as a deputy as the commissioner postion is a full time job. If he had plans other than that then there would be a conflict. I get a kick out of the comments bringing up the dog/judge letter non-issue. Kathleen was representing constiutents from her district, just as you would hope a State senator would do if you were stuck in a Mexican jail. Beyond that I've yet to hear a legitmate complaint against the job Johnson has done as commissioner. Can anyone provide an example? Crossing party lines is irrelevant as I'm a democrat and could care less if she supported a republican. Did it ever occur to the demcratic party that her a Rassmusen worked well together and could have accomplished more than say her and Swanson are accomplishing now? Its apparent our party would rather have puppets that independant thinkers representing us "

Buford McGee wrote on May 11, 2008 11:03 AM:

" Rather than work in the best interest of the citizens, Johnson is working to disqualify her opponent. It is long overdue that we remove Johnson as she is not working toward improving the economy or quality of life for our community. "

Too Bad So Sad wrote on May 11, 2008 11:12 AM:

" Win this on your own accomplishments (or lack of them) Johnson not by discrediting your competition. Taking a page our of Hillary's play book. "

I Heart Kelso wrote on May 11, 2008 11:15 AM:

" Debateable said: "Look deep and you will see EVERY elected official in the past ten or so years worked at the county WHILE they ran for office."

You obviously researched this issue to great extent, no doubt spending countless late nights at the conspiracy theorist's library pouring over past election results. Wonderful investigative work.

Johnson completely ignored the county attorney's legal opinion and decided to spread the Hatch Act non-issue to stir the poo pot, plain and simple. What a great use of our taxpayer's money. Gooooo Johnson! "

it Hatch ACTdoesnt get enforced wrote on May 11, 2008 11:23 AM:

" UNLESS someone complains. A written Complaint starts the investigation, that is why the Feds offer a service to provide an legal opinion in advance, and it's FREE! Amazing that the local politicos are so bent on NOT asking for an opinion from the feds. Backwater politicking onc e again. The Cowlitz County Sheriff himself should be looking into this, afterall, it's the Sheriff's office who could be sanctioned financially after an investigation into McDaniel's activities, and that means we taxpayers could end up paying for a sanction. McDaniel doesn't even have to get elected for it to be a potential violation, he should be put on PAID administrative leave until this is resolved, and the Sheriff should seek the legal opinion right away from the Feds..otherwise, he could be guilty of malfeasance, failure to do his duty to protect taxpayers and protect our federal funding. Anyone can file a complaint with the feds about this situation. http://www.osc.gov/documents/forms/osc13.pdf
QUOTE: State and Local Employees are prohibited from*: 1. Using their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for office. 2. Coercing, attempting to coerce, commanding, or advising a State or local officer or employee to pay, lend, or
contribute anything of value to a party, committee, organization, agency, or person for political purposes.
3. Being a candidate for partisan political office.* *Employees of some private, nonprofit organizations are subject to the same restrictions on political activity.." "

nosey wrote on May 11, 2008 11:25 AM:

"
I know Kathleen Johnson, and yes, to say she can be dogmatic is a mild statement. But I asked her anyway,
"Why was this issue brought back up now after the opinion?"
She answered thatshe DID NOT instigate the revisit of this issue after the attorney's opinion. The Daily News reporter called this week, when they were reporting on her Democratic party "snub". From there the issue has taken on a life of its own since then. In all fairness, she stated she would be more comfortable, from this time on, if all employees/future candidates knew if they were eligible before they file for office. She questions current practice, that appears to have become a culture of employment at the county.
Lastly she stated she truley believes Todd McDaniel IS eligible to run. But admits there remains a shade of doubt as the commissioners recently accepted another Sheriff's office federal grant- $55K flack Jackets for the deputies.
Kathleen accepts the fact that she may not win, and to her it means this issue could die when she leaves office. But suggests eligiblilty needs to be questioned from time to time. For McDaniel it may reappear and fall in his lap as a commissioner, who knows. "

Ralph wrote on May 11, 2008 11:49 AM:

" Sure a lot of jail house lawyers giving their opinion of the law. That could include a county comissioner that tried to influence a judge's decision in a case that could be going to court. At least she could spell and use the correct word instead of one that sounds the same. "

flak jackets and the law wrote on May 11, 2008 12:10 PM:

" http://www.osc.gov/documents/hatchact/state/sha33996.pdf
"

TO I HEART KELSO wrote on May 11, 2008 1:01 PM:

" Come again? It doesn't take a rocket scientist or much time to note all elected officials, save the treasurer, are declared democrats that worked at the county before running for office. Unless you are not paying attention to who runs your local government. Which unfortunately is what gets us into these kinds of situations. We are trusting "they" do it right. Well shame on us. It's okay to ask questions. Myself, I think the camp that is throwing the dirt to muddy the water is not Johnson's camp. "

to Ralph wrote on May 11, 2008 1:07 PM:

" ...and you would be wrong in your assumptions. "

Uh oh... wrote on May 11, 2008 1:11 PM:

" Looks like Ms. Johnson is grasping at some very thin straws. So, after the issue is investigated by the Prosecutor's Office and a professional opnion is rendered, she still wants to push it? You can see her brows sweat through the newsprint! Based on the last few month's actions, looks to me like Ms. Johnson's career is quickly augering onto the ground like a drill bit through jello. "

Lots of federal funding wrote on May 11, 2008 1:47 PM:

" Without doing a lot of research and in addition to the flack jacket question, I can think of several possible sources of federal funding and federally funded programs that may impact the Sheriff's office and a deputy's salary: Homeland Security, Narcotics Task Force, Safe Schools/Healthy Students, Meth Initiative (COPS Office), drug court grants, domestic violence grants, traffic safety grants, etc. It looks like the only way to know for sure that the deputy is not in compliance with the Act is to ask for the opinion. That would put an end to this one way or the other. "

Open the floodgates wrote on May 11, 2008 1:50 PM:

" Marshall's opinion opens the floodgates to a bunch of folks that have always understood that they couldn't run for partisan office because they work for agencies that receive federal funding. And, what a shame that those that have already quit their jobs to run for office in fall didn't need to quit after all? What a deal. "

Right thing to do wrote on May 11, 2008 1:57 PM:

" If the eventual penalty for violating the Hatch Act (2xsalary) is against the employer, in this case Cowlitz County, then a Cowlitz County Commissioner asking the question was the right thing to do. Since none of the seated County Commissioners knew the answer to the question, then the right thing to do was to get a legal question. Now, since the Marshall opinion leaves us with as many questions as it does answers, the right thing to do is to ask for the formal ruling. Why not do the right thing? The possible cost of not doing the right thing is 2 times the deputy's annual salary. "

Obscure law wrote on May 11, 2008 2:01 PM:

" What does Swanson mean? The Hatch Act is an obsure law? C'mon. Just because you haven't held a real job doesn't mean that the law is obscure. It impacts many people's lives. Many people would have to quit their day jobs just to run for partisan public office. If they win the race, fine, but if they lose, they have no jobs to return to at the end of the campaign. Job security v. the Hatch Act is why a lot of good people don't run for positions like County Commissioner. Get your head out of the sand and learn for yourself or learn from others. "

Wondering wrote on May 11, 2008 2:30 PM:

" Not a Johnson fan but it sounds like according to the Office of Special Council it's not a big deal to get a ruling. If I were McDaniel I would do it myself. If it truly isn't an issue why not get the info from the horses mouth if you know there could be a problem. Ron Marshall is not infallible.

And to Debateable....what county job did Raiter come from? How about Swanson? Rasmussen, Lehning or Youngquist? Even Johnson? Funny, I don't see an ex-county employee in the group. Do some homework before you spout off as if you know what your talking about please. "

Booed wrote on May 11, 2008 4:33 PM:

" There are a lot of us who think Johnson being booed at during a Democratic meeting is a good thing. Given the current leadership in the local Democratic committee, I would be concerned if she was accepted by them with open arms. They aren't on my Christmas list or even on my glad-to-know-them list. "

What wrote on May 11, 2008 5:09 PM:

" Didn't Ms. Johnson work for LCC Lower Columbia College. Is that subsidized by the state of Washington. I may be way off base here but...

Go Todd and Good Luck '83 "

Oregon Deputy Quits Race wrote on May 11, 2008 8:12 PM:

" http://www.centraloregonian.com/ArcStoryPage.asp?Database=Story&StoryID=7290

Berman briefly outlined what would happen in her letters to Wright and Hanson, saying that as Crook County employees in departments that receive federal money, Wright and Hanson "may be subject to the Hatch Act" and not eligible to run for county commissioner, position one


"

. Answer wrote on May 11, 2008 8:19 PM:

" Why don't Raiter and Swanson send a letter to DC to ask the question and get it over with. "

reWondering What wrote on May 11, 2008 9:17 PM:

" Wondering - Swanson was employed in the auditors office before she became auditor. Re: What - maybe you should read the act before making off based suggestions. Johnson is long retired from LCC. "

GO TODD wrote on May 11, 2008 10:03 PM:

" I doubt KJ's daughter sent her the information on the Hatch Act, KJ came up with this on her own. Shame on you Kathleen. "

re .Answer wrote on May 11, 2008 11:02 PM:

" Perhaps because they would both rather show Kathleen the door than help her cause... "

Thinking bout it... wrote on May 12, 2008 7:24 AM:

" I'm reasonably sure that Mr. Swanson was not a County employee before and/or during the time that he ran for office. That's just off the top of my head, but I think "Debateable" could have done a little more thorough research. Sheesh. "

re re what wrote on May 12, 2008 8:29 AM:

" That is why I said I may be way off base.

I don't know everything. And I am a big enough person to admit that. How about U??? "

a Mom wrote on May 12, 2008 8:36 AM:

" Here is a man who is trying to get involved. I think it is great. Let him run rather than shut him down.Let's hear what he has to say. He may just be the right person for the job. He may be the one person to make a difference. "

Cowlitz County Red in a Blue State wrote on May 12, 2008 8:54 AM:

" Todd is the Dominator! He dominates everything he is involved in. He is dominating this issue by not wading into the mud bog. It's time for his opponents to fully disclose what,if anything, they have ever dominated. "

Clarification wrote on May 12, 2008 9:59 AM:

" The fine point of this issue is being missed by MOST posters. For Kris Swanson, it wasn't applicable because she wasn't in a position to provide undue influence on the electorate for the taking of her position. In Todd's case (and I'm a Todd supporter) Todd, as a DS, being a sworn law enforcement officer, is in a possition of authority over all citizens in his charge. This is where the rub actually is. Whether the agency actually receives fed $s or not is actually irrelevant, as it is a 'tex exempt agency', as all local and state governmental agencies are, and are thereby receiving 'federal funding'. Alas, a relatively little known quirk for keeping control. That is the same concept that keeps all 501 (c) 3 non-profits from participating in ANY politial issue - the fact that they are tax-exempt and thereby receiving federal funding by tax exemption -whether they get a check from feds is irrelevant. It ABSOLUTELY SHOULD BE CONFERRED WITH THE OSC! This, not to protect Todd so much, but to protect us taxpayers from the potential penalties, for which I have to say was Kathleen's good call - as much as I wish I weren't saying it. This post is from someone who has more than a passing interest in the Hatch Act, as I've personally been involved in 6 requests for rulings from OSC. "

Re Wondering What wrote on May 12, 2008 10:51 AM:

" Swanson worked for the "STATE" Auditors office. Johnson worked for LCC which is a "STATE" agency. Again, do some homework so you know what your talking about. As for reading the Act, what really counts is how the Agency in charge interprets it. So if they get to make the call after the fact, why not head off a problem up front and ask the question. I would if I were McDaniel. But then again I know the difference between a state agency and a county department. Maybe I just pay to much attention to little details like "facts". "

Hmmm wrote on May 12, 2008 11:03 AM:

" There are two Swansons. Axel worked for the State GA. Kris worked in the County department.

So much misinformation out there. All possible issues should be thoroughly investigated to avoid future problems. Why act like ostriches if it's free to get the question out of the way and behind us. "

Cheated Taxpayer wrote on May 12, 2008 1:13 PM:

" Kathleen Johnson needs to spend her $35 per hour salary (taxpayer paid) towards the issues that affect Cowlitz County and not on meeting her personal goals. How much county employee time, which equals taxpayer dollars, have been spent on the dog shooting issue and now this issue. All equates to your tax dollars wasted by Kathleen Johnson's personal agenda. I think my vote shifted to the more responsible candidate, Todd McDaniel. "

ray baker wrote on May 12, 2008 1:27 PM:

" I find it unfortunate that our race for local leadership has devolved to this level. I have met with and admire both the mentioned candidates, as a citizen I seek results and representation from whomever our electorate deems most worthy. With all due respect this issue will make no impact as to how our citizens prosper in the years ahead. Run your campaign on real issues and I will give you merit, run it on mud and I will clean house. "

LET IT GO wrote on May 12, 2008 1:31 PM:

" Kathleen is aware that County Attorney Ron Marshall cleared this issue, yet she persists that we spend more county money and resources revisiting the issue.

Kathleen, if the county receives federal sanctions, we'll let you say "I told you so". Otherwise, LET IT GO as every other county official has done.

Additinally, it is becoming more and more apparent that Commissioners Swanson and Raiter have little support for Kathleen Johnson, which is quite compelling. "

Tsk tsk.. wrote on May 12, 2008 2:27 PM:

" A desperate act by a desperate woman. I wonder how long before she tries to find some obscure law that would disqualify Madsen. Kathleen needs to realize it's time for her to go. "

This is not a real issue wrote on May 12, 2008 2:31 PM:

" This is only a real issue to the extent that it shows how incompetent Kathleen Johnson is.
The Hatch Act is real, but it doesn't apply here. McDaniel has no control over any of the federal money in his current role. Therefore THE HATCH ACT CLEARLY DOESN'T APPLY. End of story.
This has been explained to Kathleen. So, either Kathleen lacks the mental faculties to understand that it doesn't apply or she is again being disingenuous and trying to make some political gain by using an argument that she knows full well is a lie. Please Kathleen, save yourself whatever dignity you may have left and drop out now. "

McDaniel Supporter wrote on May 12, 2008 2:32 PM:

" OK.......Enough already. The complaint has been filed. The OSC will investigate and they will tell us if he is eligible or not. No more turning on each other and the decision will be final. "

Polish Sausage wrote on May 12, 2008 3:32 PM:

" Wait a minute. Clearly this law is in place to protect the public. I can see how an officer of the law could sway/pressure votes with his authority. I call it a Police State. Johnson is just making sure that it does not happen here. Thanks Kathleen. "

to Polish wrote on May 12, 2008 5:11 PM:

" That is not why the law is in place. It has to do with federally funding being potentially used to infuence an election when a candidate controls federal funding. That is certainly not the case here. So... no thanks Kathleen. "

Dog pile driver wrote on May 12, 2008 5:51 PM:

" To “to Polish.”, You are wrong. It does not have to do with the funds. It has to do with the influence. The funds are just a way for the Feds to say the have a stake in it. This is from a letter ruling from the US Office of Special Counsel. You can read the whole letter at this link. http://www.osc.gov/documents/hatchact/state/No%20exemptions%20to%20HA%20_redacted_.pdf …”Coverage is not dependent on the source of an employee’s salary, nor is it dependent upon whether the employee actually administers the funds or has policy duties with respect to them”…
"

attention Kathy wrote on May 12, 2008 6:34 PM:

" She is getting exactly what she wants from all of you,lots of attention and not spending a dime to boot. Is it the wrong kind on attention? Only time will tell "

to Dogpile wrote on May 12, 2008 7:01 PM:

" I applaud you trying to actually use facts and research to get to the bottom of this issue. However, here is an advisory opinion that is almost directly on point and effectively brings a close to any controversy in this instance. http://www.osc.gov/documents/hatchact/state/sha33996.pdf
As you can see, this is a nearly identical situation, with the exception that McDaniel is even further away from being a person covered by the Hatch Act than the person discussed in the opinion since he is not a Captain. The basic rule is if you are running a program funded by federal funds, you're subject to it, if you are not, you are not, though a deputy director who would have authority in the event of incapacity of the director HAS been found to be subject to the Hatch Act when the deputy director's specific job description names that as one of his duties. Again, this is not at issue here. The Hatch Act simply does not apply and there truly is no controversy here other than Kathleen operating with her usual disregard for facts or sense. "

complaint has been filed wrote on May 12, 2008 10:06 PM:

" Good, because I'm preparing a second complaint, printing it and faxing it in, as per the instructions, lest the other complaint gets lost in the fax machine, or the mail. A preruling would have been FREE, and The Democrat committee should have sought it from the get go. A complaint should not be the way the public should have felt a need to go, to get oversight under this law; doing what Marshall (a lawyer no less!) should have encouraged the County to have sought out from the start, a FREE legal opinion from OSC. Perhaps Marshall's handling of this should be scrutinized also, as it is TAXPAYER DOLLARS he is SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING, not McDaniel or Johnson. "

Legal Ruling wrote on May 13, 2008 1:16 PM:

" Seriously, this is not a live issue! That's why no opinon was sought from the OSC I'd imagine. Just like nobody needs to ask for an opinion about whether McDaniel is barred from running because he's a felon (since he's not) or whether Kathleen is barred from running becuase of the Hatch Act (since she is working for a government that receives federal funds). File a complaint all you want, but the answer will be no, it doesn't apply to McDaniel. This is a no-brainer! It is sad that Kathleen's complete nonsense has taken at least a few people in. "

Top Jobs
More Top Jobs
Top Garage Sales
More Top Garage Sales
Top Rentals
More Top Rentals