7/30/2019 Hatch Act
1/2
December 5, 2012
Mr. Sean Pope10 Elmore Avenue
North Providence, RI 02911
VIA E-MAIL: [email protected]
Re: OSC File No. HA-12-4705
Dear Mr. Pope:
This letter is in response to information you provided to the
U.S. Office of Special Counsel
(OSC) concerning allegations that Ms. Michelle Bergin violated
that Hatch Act. Specifically,you alleged that Ms. Bergins candidacy
in the 2012 partisan election for the District 16 seat in
the Rhode Island House of Representatives was prohibited by the
Hatch Act because she wasconcurrently employed as a staff attorney
with the Providence Housing Authority. We reviewed
this matter and have concluded that Ms. Bergins candidacy
violated the Hatch Act. However, as
explained below, we are closing our file on this matter without
further action.
Persons covered by the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. 1501-1508, are
subject to certain
protections and restrictions with respect to their political
activity in order to protect the public
workforce from partisan political influence and ensure the
nonpartisan administration of laws.For instance, covered employees
are protected from being coerced into political activity.
1502(a)(2). On the other hand, the Act prohibits such employees
from using their officialauthority or influence to affect the
result of an election and from being candidates for publicoffice in
partisan elections, i.e., elections in which any candidate is
running as a representative
of, for example, the Republican or Democratic Party. 1502(a)(1),
(3).
Covered employees are those whose principal position or job is
with a state, county, or
municipal executive agency and whose job duties are in
connection with programs financed in
whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or
an agency thereof. 1501(4).
Employees are subject to the Act if, as a normal and foreseeable
incident of their positions orjobs, they perform duties in
connection with federally financed activities. Special Counsel
v.
Gallagher, 44 M.S.P.R. 57 (1990); In re Hutchins, 2 P.A.R. 160,
164 (Civ. Serv. Commn 1944).
Although pertinent, coverage is not dependent on the source of
an employees salary, nor is itdependent upon whether the employee
actually administers the funds or has policy duties with
respect to them. Special Counsel v. Williams, 56 M.S.P.R. 277,
283-84 (1993), affd, 55 F.3d
917 (4th Cir. 1995).
After investigating the allegations set forth in your complaint,
we have determined that Ms.
Bergins candidacy in the 2012 election for state representative
was in violation of the HatchAct. However, because we had
previously advised Ms. Bergin that her candidacy was not
U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL1730 M Street, N.W., Suite
218Washington, D.C. 20036-4505
202-254-3600
