(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Federal Employee Running for Chicago Alderman Highlights Ethics Responsibilities of His Employer [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags']

Date: 2023-01-22

The Chicago municipal election will be held on February 28th, with a runoff election on April 4, 2023.

​​A federal employee running for a public office is unusual, especially in a higher profile race. Patrick Nagle, Social Security’s Chief Judge, kicked off his campaign for alderman of Chicago’s 46th Ward in August 2022. See patricknaglefor46.com/…; see also patricknaglefor46.com/… The city’s municipal election occurs at the end of February, with a runoff election in early April. See www.nbcchicago.com/… Mr. Nagle has a lot of competition in this race, including community organizers and labor leaders, seeking to replace James Cappleman, who decided not to run after a decade of service. See www.nbcchicago.com/...; see also abc7chicago.com/… This article won’t address Mr. Nagle’s qualifications, or whether he should be elected. That’s up to voters.

This article only discusses the ongoing responsibilities triggered for an employing agency (the Social Security Administration (SSA) in this case) in regard to federal ethics laws and rules relevant to a campaign, whenever a federal employee enters a race for public office. See www.fedweek.com/… (discussing that the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) oversees ethics laws and rules, but “each agency is responsible for investigating and potentially disciplining employees for violations”).

In a recent interview, Mr. Nagle seemed to acknowledge the ethical considerations in regard to the Hatch Act. See blockclubchicago.org/… There isn’t an immediate Hatch Act problem, inasmuch as Chicago’s municipal elections are nonpartisan. However, evidence that partisan politics actually enters into campaigns may transform a nonpartisan election into a partisan one in violation of the Hatch Act. McIntee v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,404 F.3d 1320, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

An example of how complicated the Hatch Act alone is, occurred when Hershel Walker and Mehmet Oz, M.D., who were both on the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition, entered their respective Senate races. As members of the President’s Council, they were classified as special government employees (SGEs), who would normally be exempt from the Hatch Act while off duty. However, once they announced that they were running, both men were asked to step down from the President’s Council. An MSN article discussing these facts, quoted an ethics advisory opinion,

“While an SGE is generally not subject to the Hatch Act while off duty, a Commission member may not use their official title when engaging in off-duty political activity by, for example, including their Commission title in the signature block of a political fundraising letter. Doing so gives the appearance that the member is acting in an official capacity and, therefore, on duty. We consider such activity to be prohibited by the Hatch Act.”

See www.msn.com/… Of course, both men were running for partisan political office, which is not at issue here. Another published article, however, acknowledges the complexity of ethical considerations, generally, whenever a federal employee or contractor runs for public office, stating that “this is a highly technical area of law fraught with potential traps.” See news.clearancejobs.com/…

For example, the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch apply independent of the Hatch Act to federal employees. Under the Standards of Ethical Conduct, an employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain. 5 CFR 2635.702. There are also restrictions on use of Government title. 5 CFR 2635.702(b). And a catch-all provision of the Standards of Ethical Conduct provides that federal agencies must question whether an employee’s request to engage in outside activity raises even an appearance of impropriety (5 CFR 2635.801(c)). See www.justice.gov/…

This article is not meant to suggest one way or the other how anyone should vote, nor insinuate that any ethical violation has occurred. The intention is solely to inform readers of the complex ethical considerations involved whenever a federal employee runs for public office. It’s very unusual to see current federal employees in a race such as this, and there aren’t easy-to-locate, similar cases of higher-ranking federal employees running in similar races.

Running for Chicago alderman is not like running for a local school board or a small city council. In Chicago, the highest paid alderpeople will make $142,772 in 2023. See blockclubchicago.org/… And, the ethical considerations don’t stop just because the race is nonpartisan, as discussed earlier in regard to the Hatch Act. For the employing agency, the ethical considerations remain throughout the campaign. See crsreports.congress.gov/... (“Under the Ethics in Government Act, each agency is responsible for the establishment, execution, and enforcement of ethical principles, including financial disclosure.”)

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1/22/2148621/-Federal-Employee-Running-for-Chicago-Alderman-Highlights-Ethics-Responsibilities-of-His-Employer

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.