No punishment?

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
No punishment? This is ILLEGAL! It's called the "Hatch Act". All who were involved , assuming the story is true, should be fired. IF Obama requested they be there, he should be charged as well, it is ILLEGAL for him to do that.






[h=1]DC 'Reviewing' Firefighters' Appearance With Obama[/h]
The District of Columbia's Fire and Emergency Medical Services says there are no plans to punish first responders for their participation in an economic speech by President Obama, but are still reviewing the event.


Earlier this week, Obama surrounded himself with police and other first responders during remarks regarding the real world impact of the across-the-board package of federal spending cuts known assequestration, looming in March should Congress fail to reach a deficit reduction agreement. But Washington's fire and EMS chief told a local TV station the appearance of three firefighters at the event may have violated department regulations.


"I didn't know about it, the deputy mayor didn't know about it, the mayor didn't know about it," Chief Kenneth Ellerbe said. "There should be protocol followed anytime one of our employees representing the District of Columbia appears at a public event."


Ellerbe told WRC-TV the employees had been ordered to file special testimonies on how they became guests of the White House event and who authorized it. The news report prompted a statement from the city government Friday.


"Contrary to reports in local media, the DC Fire and EMS Department is not considering any disciplinary action against uniformed personnel for appearing alongside President Obama," reads the Friday-night release, adding "DC FEMS is simply reviewing its internal protocols for such appearances to ensure that both the Department and its employees are fully informed."


"We fully support the efforts of President to highlight the essential and life saving work that our first-responders do every single day, and welcome his invitation for our members to participate," the statement said. "We're exceedingly proud of the men and women that wear the DC FEMS uniform, and thank the President for his support."


An after-hours inquiry to the department was unanswered as of press time.


Capt. Ed Smith, president of the DC Firefighters Association Local 36, said said it is not likely the department will actively discipline the members who participated in the Obama event, but he remains cautious over the broader implications of the review. The association president told ABC News the officers involved were off duty and that firefighters had routinely attended similar public events in the past without incident. The invitation came from the White House through Local 36's parent organization, the International Association of Firefighters.


"If it led to discipline later it would be taken as retaliatory," he said, adding he knew of no protocol breached by appearing in-uniform. "There is a pattern of retaliation with the chief and the department and that is a concern of mine."


Smith said he has seen such measures first-hand. In October an independent arbitrator ruled in favor of the captain's claim that he was involuntarily transferred due to his union activities.


The emergency services of the nation's capital have historically gone to good lengths attempting to appear neutral to the national politics embedded there. For example, the police and fire departments generally refuse to divulge crowd counts for the city's many protests and demonstrations. Any estimate given would likely be targeted as politically motivated.






DC 'Reviewing' Firefighters' Appearance With Obama | ABC News - Yahoo!
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
They should somehow be allowed to break laws? :confused: When I was in government service I would have been fired if I did that. Why should they, and Obama, get an special treatment. I don't understand.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Well yeah, But why would it be a violation of the Hatch Act?

Their presence there was to make a political point. They are all receiving FEDERAL wages and there for it is not legal to participate in politics at that level. They are to remain neutral. IF their supervisor required them to be there, the supervisor should be fired.

It is for protection of the employee as well as to stop conflicts of interest.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
You may want to read the act more carefully.

We were not allowed to participate in any way, shape or form, other than voting. Those people are being USED to push a political agenda. As it was explained to me, they cannot be forced to do that, nor can they push a political agenda.

What they are doing is not neutral. What are you driving at? I don't understand.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Well yeah, But why would it be a violation of the Hatch Act?
They were in uniform. That's a no-no.

They can voice their opinions, even actively campaign for or against a candidate, do any kind of politicking and engage in any kind of political activities they want, as long as they aren't in uniform, or on duty, or in a government office, or using a government vehicle while doing it.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
They were in uniform. That's a no-no.

They can voice their opinions, even actively campaign for or against a candidate, do any kind of politicking and engage in any kind of political activities they want, as long as they aren't in uniform, or on duty, or in a government office, or using a government vehicle while doing it.

The way it was explained to us was no active campaigning, on or off duty. We could contribute money, bumper stickers and lawn signs were the extent. That is no way saying that was the law, just how it was laid down to us. Helping to push agenda or pushing for laws was a big no-no.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I'm sure some departments are more restrictions, depending the nature of the department. But you can do all of that stuff, just not officially. There are plenty of government jobs where no uniform is involved, and you're essentially on-duty 24 hours a day, which blurs the on-duty/off-duty line a lot.

I remember last fall when HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius got into a bit of trouble when she made some unscripted extemporaneous political remarks in favor of candidate Obama (she urged voters to ensure that Obama remained president for four more years) at a official government event, the Human Rights Campaign Event, in Charlotte (where the Democratic National Convention would be held). The HHS had to reclassify the event to comply with the law, the Treasury had to be reimbursed as it had to be classified as a political event and not an official event, so the Treasury wouldn't pay for it, and she had to undergo ethics training she she could learn when to shut up.

In this case with the firefighters, even though they were off-duty, they were in uniform, and were in effect officially representing their department. It's bad enough they were doing that, but they were doing it without the department even knowing about it. They may not get punished, but I bet it doesn't happen again. :D
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Yeah, I was just going by what the Agencies legal department told us. It very well be that we had "added restrictions" due to the nature of our work.

They SHOULD be fired, but the unions are sacred. It really is wrong, but who cares about that any more? They don't understand that PART of the intent of the law was for THEIR protection. So they would not be fired as administrations changed as it used to happen in the past. As with all laws, it is double edged.
 

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
Were they engaged in politics? Are they allowed to be window dressing for a speech by a politician who is not running for election? I scanned the Wiki version of the Act. maybe my reading comprehension was off.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Yes to the first question. No to the second, but it depends on the issue. If the event was a firefighter issue, like some bill signing to benefit firefighters, then they could be there, but they were there to induce fear of cutting off funding for emergency services to pressure Congress onto doing what Obama wants, which is pure politics.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
They were there only to induce fear and to push an agenda. The worst part of it is that LOCAL firefighting is NOT a valid federal responsibility. This entire mess points out why the feds should stay home and mind there own business.

The States had better wake up. ALL federal dollars come with strings. Unless they intend to be a puppet they had better toss the feds out.
 
Top