Political Ad for Searcy Incumbant Mayor May Have Violated Federal Law

A paid political ad for Belinda LaForce was published in the Sunday, October 24, 2010, issue of the Daily Citizen. In the ad, eleven of Searcy's highest employees endorsed Mayor Belinda LaForce as she campaigns for a third term as Searcy's mayor. This effort by Mayor LaForce to show her employees publicly supporting her campaign in their official capacities as department heads may violate Federal law. The Hatch Act Originally passed in 1939, the Hatch Act is a Federal law that prohibits certain Federal employees and state and local employees "who work in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants" from improperly using their positions for their own or others political gain. Since the Searcy Police Department (SPD) has been "financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants," the prohibitions in the Hatch Act apply to members of the SPD, including Chief of Police Kyle Osborne. Was the Hatch Act Violated? In Sunday's paid political ad, Kyle Osborne is not just endorsing Mayor LaForce as a private citizen. He is endorsing her in his professional capacity as the Chief of Police with 28 years service. His signature is included in the ad. In a document prepared by Larry H. James, the General Counsel for the National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) for FOP lodges across the country, Mr. James issues information and advice for law enforcement officials to help them follow the Hatch Act. Regarding the question of who must comply with the Hatch Act, the document says,

October 24 LaForce Political Ad in the Daily Citizen

"The prohibitions in the Hatch Act specifically apply to officers or employees of any “state or local agency.” State or local agency means “...the Executive Branch of a state, municipality, or other political subdivision of a state, or an agency or department thereof” 5 U.S.C.S. § 1501(2)."

It further clarifies that financing with virtually any Federal funding brings someone under the authority of the Hatch Act:

"The relevant analysis concerning the employee’s contact with federal funds is whether the employee “as a normal and foreseeable incident to her principal job or position...performs duties in connection with an activity financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants...” Special Counsel v. Williams 56 M.S.P.R. 277 (1993)."

So, it is abundantly clear that Chief Osborne must comply with the Hatch Act. He is not permitted to:

• "Allow one’s name or likeness to be used in campaign literature in the police officer’s professional capacity;
• Host a fundraiser for a political candidate and recruit attendees using the officer’s official title (however, a spouse who is not covered under this Act may host such a fundraiser and the officer may attend, but may not personally solicit contributions to the fundraiser);
• Allow the officer’s name to appear on an invitation to a fundraiser as a sponsor of the fundraiser or as a point of contact for the fundraiser;
• Engage in campaigning during working hours;
• Use any official authority for influence for political purposes, including using the officer’s official title or authority to coerce individuals to participate in political activity;
• Run for any elected partisan office;
• Solicit, accept, or receive uncompensated individual volunteer services from a subordinate for any political purpose."

However, Mayor LaForce and Chief Osborne have used his "name or likeness to be used in campaign literature in the police officer’s professional capacity" in her paid political ad. How could Mayor LaForce with "34 years of municipal experience" and Chief Osborne with his 28 years service overlook a Federal law passed in 1939? The repercussions for violating the Hatch Act include:

"When an officer violates the Hatch Act, an employer may use the Act as a basis for terminating the officer. Any time a federal agency learns that a state or local officer or employee may be violating the Act, it is required to report the matter to Special Counsel for the Merit Systems Protection Board."

Considering Mayor LaForce's past attempt to enforce a repealed ordinance and her actions that violated the Arkansas Constitution, this possible violation of the Hatch Act is disturbing. Since the ad was published in the Daily Citizen, surely they are investigating this matter and will report on it soon. If we cannot rely on our local paper to cover such an important issue this close to an election, who can we trust to provide the facts to the people of Searcy?