OCR Text |
Show Garn from ( Washington . . . MJl By Jake Gam One of the most significant questions currently facing the Congress is whether to repeal all or part of the Hatch Act. This question of complete or partial repeal, as stated in the Federal Employees' Political Act of 1977, raises serious issues that deserve most careful care-ful consideration. The provisions provi-sions of the Hatch Act, as originally approved by Congress Con-gress in 1939, and later amended, prohibits a Federal employee subject to its restrictions re-strictions from using official authority or influence to interfere inter-fere with an election. It further furth-er prohibits an employee from taking an "active part in political management or political polit-ical campaigns." Many Federal professionals feel that if the Hatch Act were repealed, they would find their careers determined more by political activity than by performance on the job. As the law stands now, civil servants can: 1) register and vote, and express opinions as private citizens but not as active political campaigners; 2) participate in non partisan elections and serve as election judges; 3) belong to political parties, but not as officials, and 4) petition a Member of Congress, or local and state officials. In other words, the Federal employee is allowed all the political freedoms he desires except those that conflict con-flict with the objective functioning func-tioning of the government. No major benefits would be gained gain-ed by repeal of the Hatch Act. It would do nothing more than open Federal employees as a huge political power block to be used in the political tug of-war. The House has passed the first part of President Carter's Car-ter's electoral reform package j which, in effect, repeals the Hatch Act. If the Senate concurs, the Civil Service would no longer be insulated from politics. It would mean that Federal employees could participate in such partisan political activities as running for elective office, managing or helping a candidate's campaign, cam-paign, holding a party office, soliciting funds or being solicited solici-ted for money or political help. Among the major advocates of the Federal Employees Act of 1977, and those who stand to gain the most from the repeal of the Hatch Act, are the forces of organized labor. The enormous reservoir of manpower in Federal employees' employ-ees' unions is looked upon as potentially one of the largest and most powerful political forces in the country. No longer would public servants answer solely to the government. govern-ment. Union forces would be allowed to pressure or induce Federal employees into political politi-cal action for passage of legislation benefiting the labor lab-or movement. The Hatch Act prevents potential conflicts of interest for the civil servant, and protects him from political politi-cal coercion. It allows him the freedom to work for the betterment of the nation as a whole, instead of special interest inter-est groups. In two different polls conducted in the Washington Wash-ington D. C. area, a large majority of civil servants prefer pre-fer to retain the Hatch Act and to be protected against the "right" of being coerced or solicited to support a party or a party's candidate with their time, money or energy. Another serious consideration considera-tion is the attitude of the American public. It is essential essen-tial to build a positive attitude in the public, the Federal government and its employees. employ-ees. If the public is given reason to believe politics plays a key role in day to day operat ions of the federal bureaucracy, bure-aucracy, faith in the government govern-ment will lower, as will the public's esteem for Federal employees and politicians. The preservation of the privilege privi-lege of politiral participation is essential. However, so also is nnn politiri7.nl inn of the Federal government if we are to preserve the integrity of our democratic process. |