Asst State Attorney in FL fired after refusing to stop speaking to Tea Party groups

[Steve Wilkins]

An assistant state attorney (also an Army veteran) here in Florida was fired when she refused to follow her boss's direction to stop speaking to Tea Party groups at their meetings and rallies.

Article in the Florida Times Union

Normally, I'm fairly pro employer regarding their rights to dictate certain behaviors/dress/image as a condition of employment. For example, if an employer has a policy of hiring/retaining only non smokers, I think that is well within their rights as an employer. There are many other examples I could list, but I think you get the point. Now, what employers, especially government employers, should not be doing is regulating or attempting to regulate the political speech of their employees by dictating what they can communicate and who they can communicate with.

 

[Flash]

Non-politician/civil servants government employees are often prohibited or restricted from participating in partisan political activities. Florida law appears to put a limit on political activity for state, county and municipal employees much like the Hatch Act does for federal civil servants, as well as state and local employees whose jobs are funded by the feds, especially when she was apparently identified as a state employee at her appearances.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

she was apparently identified as a state employee at her appearances.

That's a big negative. She was not identified as such and was appearing on her own time as a private citizen. And the Tea Party she spoke at is a non partisan group.

 

[The Chief]

This area is a tricky area.

During the Clinton years, I had to issue a 3 days suspension letter to an employee, GS-14, when she refused to take down large, signed photographs, multiple, of her and Pres Reagan and Pres Bush. While I was sympathetic to her plight, General Counsel directed it. She did relent and removed the photographs and the suspension did not go into effect.

Best advice: Keep politics out of the office if you are a public servant.

 

[Flash]

That's a big negative. She was not identified as such and was appearing on her own time as a private citizen. And the Tea Party she spoke at is a non partisan group.

I misread the article, though that still does not appear to put her on the right side of the law. When in public service you often cannot just be a 'private citizen' when making public appearances before political groups. And you would likely have a hard time trying to say that a 'Tea Party' group is non-political and/or non-partisan if it endorses or supports political causes or candidates.

Like the Chief said it is a bit of a gray area, but I wouldn't be surprised if she stays fired.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Best advice: Keep politics out of the office if you are a public servant.

That's part of the point. She didn't bring this stuff into the office.

you would likely have a hard time trying to say that a 'Tea Party' group is non-political and/or non-partisan if it endorses or supports political causes or candidates.

The Tea Party endorses principles, not causes or candidates. It is therefore, non-partisan. Did you happen to read the woman's speech that she gave to this particular tea party group? What exactly did she say that would have violated the law?

 

[SkywardET]

So many asinine rules have "good intents" but such is the pavement on the road to hell.

Such concepts as the "voters' right to know" and distancing "civil servants" from political endorsements seem noble, but in practice they serve to limit free speech and do little else. An informed public doesn't require unconstitutional campaign finance reform or local laws protecting citizens from political discourse. An informed public requires the citizens to have the freedom to access information (and for the citizens to exercise that freedom, which is impossible to regulate), not restrictions on speech.

 

[eas7888]

So many asinine rules have "good intents" but such is the pavement on the road to hell.

To quote Karl Marx, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

 

[Flash]

That's part of the point. She didn't bring this stuff into the office.

Sometimes it doesn't matter, what a public official does in their off time matters just like what a military member does in their off time. She chose to be employed by the government, she needs to follow the rules and laws or no longer be employed by it. Pretty simple really.

The Tea Party endorses principles, not causes or candidates. It is therefore, non-partisan. Did you happen to read the woman's speech that she gave to this particular tea party group? What exactly did she say that would have violated the law?

I didn't think the Tea Party was a single entity. I think you would have a hard time saying that most Tea Party groups are not political in their nature, to argue otherwise is a bit like denying reality. Why else do they exist? To study American and Constitutional history? Just because a group doesn't endorse candidates doesn't make it non-political. You can certainly make the argument here but I doubt it would hold up in court. Maybe that will be where it ends up, then it can settle the argument because it certainly won't be here.

And yes, I did read her speech, in which she specifically addresses the upcoming elections and talks about opposing progressivism and the centralization of power along with a thinly veiled jab or two at the President. How is that not political? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.......

....Such concepts as the "voters' right to know" and distancing "civil servants" from political endorsements seem noble, but in practice they serve to limit free speech and do little else. An informed public doesn't require unconstitutional campaign finance reform or local laws protecting citizens from political discourse. An informed public requires the citizens to have the freedom to access information (and for the citizens to exercise that freedom, which is impossible to regulate), not restrictions on speech.

One of the more ignorant things I have seen said here in a while. It is vital that our government's employees not get too involved in political activity just like the military, to allow it invites corruption and the abuse of power by political parties in power.

 

[webmaster]

One of the more ignorant things I have seen said here in a while. It is vital that our government's employees not get too involved in political activity just like the military, to allow it invites corruption and the abuse of power by political parties in power.

More corruption perhaps? Sorry, I find your comment amusing and incredibly either ignorant or basically blind to the day to day activities of many of our appointed and elected leaders.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Sometimes it doesn't matter, what a public official does in their off time matters just like what a military member does in their off time. She chose to be employed by the government, she needs to follow the rules and laws or no longer be employed by it. Pretty simple really.

Did you even read the Florida statute that you linked to? It's pretty clear, really. I'm not seeing where she didn't follow the law. Maybe you can clear it up for me.

I didn't think the Tea Party was a single entity.

Did I say it was? Tea Party in its singular form here is referring to this particular Tea Party group. I thought that was understood.

I think you would have a hard time saying that most Tea Party groups are not political in their nature, to argue otherwise is a bit like denying reality. Why else do they exist? To study American and Constitutional history? Just because a group doesn't endorse candidates doesn't make it non-political. You can certainly make the argument here but I doubt it would hold up in court.

Holy crap, are you even reading my posts that you are responding to? I'm not making the argument that the Tea Parties aren't political. I think I've been pretty clear, but just in case I haven't.....I am not and have not said that this particular Tea Party group or even others are non-political. Of course it's political. But that doesn't equate to being partisan.

And yes, I did read her speech, in which she specifically addresses the upcoming elections and talks about opposing progressivism and the centralization of power along with a thinly veiled jab or two at the President. How is that not political? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.......

It is political. And if you notice, she also took a couple jabs at the Republican party.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

It is vital that our government's employees not get too involved in political activity just like the military, to allow it invites corruption and the abuse of power by political parties in power.

So then you agree that government employees should not be allowed to vote, correct? I can't think of any political activity more involved than voting. If the goal is to keep these employees from getting too involved, then clearly we need to prevent these folks from voting.

 

[eas7888]

So then you agree that government employees should not be allowed to vote, correct? I can't think of any political activity more involved than voting. If the goal is to keep these employees from getting too involved, then clearly we need to prevent these folks from voting.

As a follow up to this, I made it very clear to my soldiers that politics were not to be discussed on duty. This became something that was a hot button issue while I was deployed, given that the Presidential election occurred half way through the deployment. In telling them this, I let them know that as soldiers, their mission came first, and interpreting public policy or discussing political ideology was not a part of that mission. After cutting them down on politics, I informed them of their duties as a citizen. If they wish to be involved in politics as a member of the military (or another public servant) they have a right, and I feel, an obligation to vote.

Just my $.02

 

[exhelodrvr]

Obviously this thread is getting attention in high places, and government employees are no longer involving themselves in politics. The head of the EPA just canceled her scheduled appearance at a Democratic fund raiser.

​

 

[Flash]

More corruption perhaps? Sorry, I find your comment amusing and incredibly either ignorant or basically blind to the day to day activities of many of our appointed and elected leaders.

Civil servants are not often engaged in partisan political corruption on behalf of political parties in this country. Maybe I could have worded it better to include civil servants/state employees but the point remains, more corruption would probably occur if that were not the case. One only has to look where politics play a bigger role in a country's civil service, our country has a sterling record when compared to even some 'first-world' democratic countries.

Did you even read the Florida statute that you linked to? It's pretty clear, really. I'm not seeing where she didn't follow the law. Maybe you can clear it up for me.

And I think it is pretty clear she is partisan, but my opinion is like.........I'll let the courts decide, since she seems to be taking that route.

Did I say it was? Tea Party in its singular form here is referring to this particular Tea Party group. I thought that was understood.

No, I didn't think it was, since you earlier said this:

........she refused to follow her boss's direction to stop speaking to Tea Party groups at their meetings and rallies.

Holy crap, are you even reading my posts that you are responding to? I'm not making the argument that the Tea Parties aren't political. I think I've been pretty clear, but just in case I haven't.....I am not and have not said that this particular Tea Party group or even others are non-political. Of course it's political. But that doesn't equate to being partisan.

It's a fine line sometimes and some could infer that she is partisan from the speech she gave with many of her talking points echoing those by many Republicans. And just because your group may claim that is is non-partisan doesn't mean the other ones she has supposedly talked to are not. Again, it will probably be up for the courts to decide.

It is political. And if you notice, she also took a couple jabs at the Republican party.

Criticizing Teddy Roosevelt and the Earned Income Tax Credit. Wow, what a broadside. Aren't those criticisms about 100 and 35 years to late respectively?

So then you agree that government employees should not be allowed to vote, correct? I can't think of any political activity more involved than voting. If the goal is to keep these employees from getting too involved, then clearly we need to prevent these folks from voting.

Where the hell did you get that? Oh, wait, make an absurd assumption or claim, have me deny it and then use that denial to attack my reasoning on a point I made earlier. And begin.......