Hatch Act happenings

Last year, Gladys Perry, a Community Outreach Coordinator with the Joint Council for Economic Opportunity for Clinton and Franklin Counties Inc., announced her bid for re-election as a Clinton County, N.Y., legislator. Perry's employers had told her she could not run because her duties were connected to federal funding through the Community Services Block Grant Program. Under the block grant statute, non-profit agencies receiving block grant funding are subject to Hatch Act restrictions. But Perry filed for re-election anyway, running as a Republican. Her bosses warned her again that she was in violation of the Hatch Act. Perry went on to run in the primary election and won. The Office of Special Counsel stepped in and warned Perry about violating the Hatch Act. In October, that office had formally told Perry she had to quit her job or withdraw from the race. Perry stayed in the race, and now the Office of Special Counsel wants her removed from her job. The case is pending. Meanwhile, in the Midwest Ricky L. Higgins, a mail processor for the U.S. Postal Service's Mid-Missouri Processing and Distribution Facility, decided to run for Cole County Assessor as a Republican. In March, Higgins' plant supervisor told him that his candidacy violated the Hatch Act. In April and May, various postal officials repeatedly warned Higgins that his candidacy violated the Hatch Act. Finally, on June 1, 2000, the Office of Special Counsel told Higgins that he must resign from his job or withdraw from the race. Higgins did not resign, and the Special Counsel is asking that disciplinary action be taken. The case is still pending. Office of Special Counsel cases, January 2001. Misinformed When Defense Department employee Frederick J. Barth decided to retire in 1998, he moved his family from his station in Korea back to the continental United States. Barth asked that his family be able to return ahead of him. Defense granted his request and issued a travel authorization. But the travel authorization included temporary housing reimbursement and a miscellaneous expense allowance, more than is typically allowed for families. Barth informed his supervisor, the personnel office and the finance office that he was not returning with his family. Despite this, several officials assured Barth that his paperwork was correct. So, Barth's family used temporary lodging for 60 days and incurred other miscellaneous expenses. Barth submitted a voucher and was refunded $5,741.70. Later, the Defense Department said his family was entitled only to transportation costs and said Barth had been paid in error. The agency demanded he repay $5,632.33. Barth appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, but the board decided he did owe the money. In the matter of Frederick J. Barth, Henderson, NV (GSBCA 15432-RELO), Feb. 7, 2001.