| OCR Text |
Show iSome State Employees Are Not Allowed To f Seek Local Election ' By GARY R. BLODGETT rS'What's fair for one should be fair for all. Right? JlWrong. At least this is the case with state employees Jjoaider the Utah Merit System who are prohibited, by Sistate law, from seeking public office on city, county, ifschool district, state or federal level without first ; taking a leave of absence from their job. : BUT THERE'S nothing in the state statute that says ; these same state employees can't serve in public office : once they are elected. What a mixed up law! ; I think it's discriminatory and the law should be ; changed. Why should state employees be segregated "from other government workers when it comes to serving lft public office? s " FEDERAL employees hold many city and county ir ifected positions, and they do it legally under the Hatch :2"Aft. Some cities even allow city employees to hold ""ouncil jobs within their own city, and county employees Wseek an elected post in the same department in which jttey are employed. ; r rJf the purpose of the state law is to prevent "conflict of z: interest," as Roger Black, director of State Personnel rsays, then the law is full of discrepancies in addition to - -being discriminatory. r3TATE STATUTE allows school teachers to serve in irftfie state legislature where they have a hand in all -s'ttte allocations to schools and federal employees can ? Mrve on councils and boards where federal monies are rbeing spent. : 3Vhere is the fairness of this thing? s WHEN I first contacted the State Personnel Office 2 about this problem, I was told that state employees could seek office if it was a non-partisan election, was not a ; fulltime job, and if the elected position did not have a jj conflict of interest with his or her state job. 2 Now that sounded fair enough. But it was only a few 2 minutes later that I got a return call from the State s Personnel Office. It seems I had been badly misin- formed. THE STATE Attorney General's opinion, which was written on Sept. 12, gave a completely different point of view. So I contacted Assistant Attorney General Frank Nelson and he sent me a copy of the opinion. "I wrote this opinion based solely on fact as approved by the state legislature," said Attorney Nelson. "But my personal opinion is that the law is discriminatory and I would like to see it challenged in court." MR. BLACK said he, too, would like to see the law changed or challenged in court because of the discrepancies. He said he agreed that although the law covers all state employees under the merit system, other government employees are exempt and therefore there is a chance the law is discriminatory against state employees. The state personnel director emphasized that the memo that was sent to all state employees last month was "not in retaliation of previous problems which had occurred with some state employees." "WE HAD state employees seeking public office without taking a leave and there was some question about it," he said. "A bulletin had been issued earlier to all state employees under the merit system but the memo was vague and misunderstood by some so a second bulletin was issued by this office." It was only then - after the primary election had been held - that Douglas McDonald of West Bountiful withdrew from the race for city council. BUT BY this time, he had paid his filing costs and spent additional money and time campaigning for an office he could not legally seek not without taking a leave of absence or jeopardizing his fulltime job as a state employee. But this is only part of the hassle. WEST BOUNTIFUL had seven candidates, including Mr. McDonald, who filed for council. If Mr. McDonald had known, he could have withdrawn early and there would have been no need for a primary election in West Bountiful. But he didn't know - not until after the primary - and 5 West Bountiful had to foot the bill for a primary election that was never needed. AND THE eliminated candidate could still have been a legal candidate for the general election this past Tuesday. Tues-day. This same problem could have been duplicated in other Davis County communities because there are more than a half dozen candidates who are state employees under the merit system. THESE candidates campaigned illegally, according to state law, and some were elected. Now that they are elected, nothing can be done to have them removed. I knew about the attorney general's opinion earlier, but agreed with Attorney Nelson that I would not "create a problem" by having the story printed one week before election. Now, however, I think every effort possible should be made to have the existing law challenged in court or amended by the state legislature. THE ATTORNEY general's opinion clearly states that state employees can not seek "political office", and that includes "non-partisan" positions, without first taking a leave of absence from their state job. The opinion further states that if the leave is granted, it should be for the duration of the campaign from filing deadline until after the general election unless defeated in a primary election. THE OPINION also notes that the employee may, or may not, be granted the leave. But should the leave' be granted, it would be without pay and that time spent on political leave shall not be counted for seniority purposes. pur-poses. Attorney Nelson explained that the law has been on the books since 1953. NOW IT'S time to have this law, section 67-19-19 amended as being discriminatory and an arbitrary attack at-tack on state employees and no one else. |
