——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
By Pauline Masson – A sign urging voters to re-elect police chief Scott Melies posted in the yard of city economic development director Steve Myers is troubling to some citizens.
They say the sign violates the city personnel code which prohibits employees from assisting any candidate for municipal election.
Here’s what the personnel manual says:
No city employee shall …. take part in any political campaign, including . . . distributing badges or literature of any kind favoring or opposing any municipal issue or candidate for election.
In a telephone conversation, Myers chose to sidestep the question of a candidate’s sign in his yard, saying it was not him, but his wife, who approved the sign.
“Lori authorized the sign,” he said. “She is not a city employee. She can endorse anyone she wants to. I am staying neutral.”
Maybe so, but when she places a campaign sign on the property she shares with her husband, a city employee, it creates the impression that he is ignoring the city regulation that says employees cannot endorse candidates. Lori’s husband is not only a city employee, as economic development director he is an officer of the city. As former mayor and alderman, he has been a city leader for years.
Beyond that Steve and Lori Myers are fixtures in the community. Their closeness and loyalty to each other has warmed the hearts of even his political opponents. On the night he was sworn in as mayor, he requested and was granted, the right for his wife to stand beside him as he took the oath of office.
To now distance himself from his wife’s political leanings may exempt him from the personal manual rules about political activities, but it does not erase the appearance that the economic development director is endorsing a candidate.
The sign prompted a flurry of telephone calls to Hometown Matters, asking who was minding the store. Some residents who called asked that their names not be published for fear of reprisal from city hall, said separating the economic development director from the political sign in his yard was not believable.
“It’s his yard. Everybody knows its his yard. Saying he is not endorsing Chief Melies is a joke,” one protester said.
Resident Henry Hahn was willing to go on the record. He said the claim that Myers dissociates himself from the sign is unconvincing.
“He is an employee and an officer of the city. Everyone knows that that is his home and by association the appearance is that he is endorsing the candidate,” Hahn said.
Former Alderman Carol Johnson also thought the sign appeared to speak for the economic development director.
“When I drove by and saw the sign, Lori never entered my mind,” she said. “I thought, ‘Steve is endorsing Melies for chief.'”
The question of whether the sign in Myers’ yard violates the personnel manual, or, merely has the appearance of a violation, raises questions about both the employee and the candidate.
The police chief’s sign in the employee’s yard shows a disconnect from the rules and is more unexpected because Melies is the chief law enforcement officer of the city.
The city personnel manual, which bans city employees from the distribution of election literature, is approved by ordinance. That’s a law. For the police chief to involve a city employee in an action that even appears to break the rules raises questions about his commitment to the rule of law.
Remember the police chief and his behavior (and that of the city collector) was recently included in the jurisdiction of the city personnel manual under the watchful eye of the city administrator.
When the city took the unusual action of placing the police chief and city collector – both elected officials – under the personnel manual and the city administrator, questions were raised. At that time Steve Roth issued a statement saying that he would not, as city administrator, direct the day to day activities of the police chief or collector. But if he received a complaint about the actions of either he would forward the complaint to the full board of aldermen.
Rumor has it that he did receive a complaint about the chief’s signs but said he does not take any action when a reported infractions is “political.”
It is unclear where the unwritten the rule originated that says a person living in a city residence where a city also employee happens to reside, is free to install political signs on the property. Citizens are left to figure this out for themselves.
That is the mentality of this administration and city employee. “It’s a law, no problem it doesn’t mean me.” He needs to be replaced. Future aldermen and whoever wins mayor take note of the ethics in office at City Hall!
Maybe Lori should put a laminated card that says “Lori Myers Endorses” on top of the sign, but the concept that wives (or spouses) lose first amendment rights and are bound by the local variety of the Hatch Act when a spouse works for government is so 19th Century. I lived it for 25 years, including having one of my husband’s supervisors ask him why he could not control his wife in front . HA! Being married does not constitute servitude in thoughts and actions or that you share the same politics.
It will all be over in less than a week anyway.
…”he could not control his wife in front of me.” Type box erased two words. Sorry.
Jo
Rules for thee, not for me. City of Pacific.
Once again we see the arrogance of City officials, whether elected or appointed, and their willingness to flout the laws that us poor peons must abide.
The versions of the Hatch act from Federal, though State Statutes, to local ordnance and employee manuals all exist to protect employees from vindictive boss’s who would instantly harass or fire any employee who failed to openly support said boss or his candidate.
True, an employee can not openly support a candidate or issue the would benefit his employment, but , from personal experience, I found that setting this right aside was well worth it.
Simple solution ask a neighbor to display said sign and move it.
If the sign remains as located it may influence my and others votes.
A certified peace officer who fails to enforce laws, by his own choice, does not deserve to be City Marshal of Pacific.
The Hatch Act is crystal clear that as long as an employee is off duty, is not wearing a uniform, or is not in a Government vehicle it is well within that employees right to post a campaign sign in their yard,
The Justice Dept states the following: https://www.justice.gov/jmd/political-activities
If an employee is engaged in political activity while on duty, in a federal facility, wearing a uniform or official insignia, or using a federally-owned or leased vehicle, They
may not wear political buttons/T shirts/signs
may not display/distribute campaign materials
may not perform campaign-related chores
may not make political contributions
may not post a comment to a blog or social media site advocating for or against a partisan political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group
may not use any email account or social media to distribute, send, or forward content that advocates for or against a partisan political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group
In another Web site by the National Treasury Employees Union it states the following:
https://www.facebook.com/NTEU66/posts/hatch-act-dos-and-dontsas-national-and-local-elections-get-underway-this-year-ma/2155037351288112/
What If I’m Not On Duty or At Work?
If you are not on duty, in the workplace, or wearing a uniform or in a government vehicle, as a federal employee, you are free to participate in many political activities, such as:
expressing opinions about candidates;
putting out campaign signs in your yard;
contributing money to TEPAC, candidates or
political organizations or attending fundraisers;
campaigning for or against candidates, including
phone banking or canvassing;
registering and voting;
registering and encouraging others to vote;
driving others to the polls; and
attending political rallies.
Interesting response to this incident, Butch. Henry Hahn also went to the Hatch Act to consider what government employee can and cannot do in elections. The Hatch Act was probably the basis of many state and local regulations governing employees’ election activities. But as a lifetime, career firefighter in St. Louis County, Henry had experience with how the Hatch act was used to craft local Missouri employee/election regulations. But another point, you address what federal employees can and cannot do in elections. Steve Myers is not a federal employee. He is a City of Pacific employee and subject to the city’s personnel manual – which could have had its source in the Hatch Act. Thanks, for reading, though. And thanks for participating.
You are correct and an employee handbook can deter free speech. Employers have a right to reprimand someone if they don’t follow the employee handbook and can legally deter certain activities unless state or federal law is in opposition. Although employers may regulate political speech in the workplace without violating the Constitution, some state laws specifically protect political expression. I am in the process of reviewing state law but think a handbook that doesn’t allow a person to put up a political sign on their property is on pretty thin ground.
When a state law is in direct conflict with federal law, the federal law prevails. It seems to me that if the Hatch Act allows for federal employees to post signs (as long as they are not on duty, etc), then the State and local laws for city employees are in opposition to the federal law and the broader federal law prevails. If that is a correct interpretation, then keeping that employee from posting a campaign sign would be against that employees right to free speech and is a protected right.
Research is a good direction. I also have had concerns about the City of Pacific personnel handbook – but perhaps in a different direction than seems to be calling you. I think the city placing elected officials under the direction of the handbook and the city administrator put the city on thinner than thin ground. I think this puts the city in troubled water and, based on the 30 cities where I’ve covered city government, I doubt that could stand up in court if any elected official // employee felt the city administrator was interfering with his or her elected duties and decided to sue the city. This was probably an example of aldermen approving an ordinance without research. So, even though you are off the board now you are still a citizen with a pretty good experience in city government so keep researching. sharing your position.
Please refer to the case of Goodman Vs City of Kansas City https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/906/537/2126828/
In the conclusion it states the following: The City Manager’s interpretation of § 126, City Charter of Kansas City, as set forth in A.R. No. 2-30, ¶ 3.2; the final sentence of A.R. No. 2-30, ¶ 3.3, pertaining to the parking of vehicles displaying political bumper stickers in City-controlled lots; and the City Manager’s Memorandum to City employees, dated January 9, 1995, prohibiting City employees from attending political fund raisers, rallies, and other gatherings violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
This is going an several directions. Allowing city employees to attend fundraisers and other gatherings is different from prohibiting city employees from promoting, assisting, or distributing literature for municipal election candidates.
They had bumper stickers promoting their candidate. This seems somewhat similar to having a sign in ones yard.