Meeting/Tele-conference in Question
In consideration of the meeting or conference that is the subject of the Committee's
inquiry, it is possible to conceive of a type of meeting or conference of this nature which
could be merely or purely an "informational" or "educational" activity, where a political or
elections expert would explain to and analyze for agency personnel the results and
demographics of the preceding midterm election, and the possible make-up of the next
Congress following the 2008 elections, based on various demographics, trends, and
predictions. It might be contended that such an "informational" meeting or conference,
although discussing partisan political elections, results and trends, might not necessarily be
considered "political activity" where nothing inherent in the material presented at the
program, nor in the manner of presentation or in the discussion accompanying the
presentation, would be intended or designed to assist or to hinder a political party or partisan
political candidate.
If, however, such a meeting were conducted, and elections analyzed, with the purpose
and intent to promote the success of the Administration's party and its candidates, then that
conference or meeting would be considered "political activity" in a federal building.
Certainly, if in such a conference or meeting there were indications that the meeting was used
to brainstorm ideas, strategies, or possible directions or other actions to "help our candidates
in the next election," then participating in such a meeting or conference would appear to
involve "political activities" (as defined and interpreted in the Hatch Act), such that a
superior inviting subordinate employees to participate would implicate the Hatch Act
restriction on using one's official office or influence to affect the results of an election (5
U.S.C. Eßza@)Q); 5 C.F.R. ç734.302).
It should be noted that gleaning the intent of an activity (that is, if the activity "is
directed at the success or failure" of partisan candidates or parties) might often be central to
the determination of whether any given activity is "political activity" under the Hatch Act.
Advisory rulings of the Office of Special Counsel have found that activities concerning
elections and campaigns, even while seemingly "nonpartisan" activity, may be considered
as "political activity" in the federal workplace because of various factors surrounding the
conduct and sponsorship of such activities that might indicate a political intent or a partisan
"agenda." For example, even an apparent "nonpartisan" voterregistration drive in a federal
building may be prohibited as partisan "political activity," merely when the sponsor of such
activity is an organizationwhich has in the past endorsed a federal candidate for office,3O that
is, when the sponsor o'has become identified with the success or failure of candidates in
2e (...continued)
"The law prohibits direct action to assist partisan candidates or political parties in campaigns. Thus,
covered employees are not permitted to do clerical work at campaign headquarters, write campaign
speeches ....;" see also "Federal Employees Political Participation," IJnited States Civil Service
Commission, GC-46, at2(1972) ("workfor a partisan candidate ... is prohibited, whether the work
involvescontactwiththepublicornot"); IntheMatterofJordan,CSCNo.F-l369-52,1P.A.R.648,
(drafting or printing of a political cartoon); Special Counsel v. West, 18 M.S.P.R. sLg, SZI (1984)
("assisted [friend's] campaign by doing research and running various errands.")
30 United States Office of Special Counsel, advisory opinion 2006, OSC Fite No. AD-06-xxxx,
[available at
www.osc. gov/documentsÆratchaclfe derultfha34O l4.pdfl .
http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070328154603-20874.pdf
