Sheriff Candidate Can Campaign in Uniform
A federal investigative agency cleared sheriff's candidate Michael Timm of any wrongdoing in relation to a Hatch Act complaint filed by a Spotsylvania County Sheriff's Office detective.
Federal investigators said Spotsylvania County Sheriff's candidate Michael Timm did not violate the Hatch Act when he campaigned in uniform.
The investigation, conducted by the Office of Special Counsel, the federal office which looks into Hatch Act violations, found that Timm is running as an independent candidate, so the Hatch Act does not apply to him. A letter from the Office of Special Counsel says that the case has been closed and no further action will be taken in the case.
In late September, Robin Kocher, an investigator with the Spotsylvania County Sheriff's Office went public saying that she had filed a complaint with the OSC against Timm for campaigning in uniform and abusing his authority to further his campaign. Timm says that Kocher will not be subject to professional reprisals for her actions.
Kocher responded to the OSC's decision to close the case saying that she was aware that Timm's independent status could make his campaign ineligible for Hatch Act restrictions.
"This still does not change the fact campaigning in uniform or while on duty is one of the definitions of using the office for personal gain, which is a violation of state law, the Spotsylvania County Sheriff's Office Code of Ethics and a violation of our department's general orders," Kocher wrote in a prepared statement.
The Hatch Act primarily applies to federal government employees and is designed to prevent federal employees from using their positions to influence elections. However, the Hatch Act also governs the campaign activities of state and local employees whose departments receive federal funding. Timm, a Lieutenant Colonel in the Sheriff's Department serving as deputy sheriff, helps to file for federal grants for a variety of law enforcement programs.
But the Hatch Act only applies to those eligible employees who are running in a partisan election, according to the OSP. Timm, along with election rivals Brian Bettis and Roger Harris, is running as an independent candidate, meaning that the Hatch Act does not apply here.
"In light of our conclusion that the election for sheriff of Spotsylvania is nonpartisan, any campaigning in which Mr. Timm has engaged, wheter or not in uniform, is likewise viewed as nonpartisan activity, and, therefore, the Hatch Act does not prohibit such activity," reads a letter from Mary Larsen, an attorney in the Hatch Act Unit of the Office of Special Counsel.
Larsen's letter quotes a ruling from the federal 6th Circuit Court saying that "when it comes to regulating the political activities of state employees…the federal government does not have the same interest in promoting efficiency or public confidence in state government as a whole, but rather, has an interest in removing partisan political influence from the administration of federal funds."
At the center of Kocher's complaint were a series of videos posted by YouTube user VaNewsShooter. They were shot at a town hall campaign meeting at the Salem Church branch of the Central Rappahannock Regional Library and added to YouTube on Tuesday, June 21. The video shows Timm answering questions from county residents while wearing a Spotsylvania County Sheriff's Office uniform.
Timm's campaign has already been scrutinized for mailings to Spotsylvania County Sheriff's Office employees that reassure them that partisan election preferences would not factor into employment decisions should he win the race. He was also investigated for breaking campaign finance and state gambling laws when he held raffles and a poker run to raise money for his campaign. Commonwealth's Attorney Bill Neely decided not to officially punish Timm, although he originally wanted to fine him.
This is also not the first time that the Spotsylvania County Sheriff's race has been beset by charges of abusing official power and influence over the election. Documents from the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Bureau of Law Enforcement show that the ABC conducted two different internal investigations after Sheriff Howard Smith filed complaints on Feb. 2 and March 7 that ABC Special Agent Carter Wells had been campaigning while in uniform and on duty. Smith, who has endorsed Timm for sheriff, reported that he had heard Wells may have visited voters and politicians to rally support for Harris, who is Timm's opponent.
ABC investigators found no evidence of wrongdoing and closed both cases.
The election is Nov. 8.
Vader
5:35 pm on Wednesday, October 19, 2011
So it's wrong when the Sheriff files a complaint based on an unfounded rumor of Timm's opponents campaigning in uniform but it's OK when Timm does it? Does this mean Timm is also exonerated from state law and the Sheriff's Office Code of Ethics, or is that just the way he will try to make it seem? Sounds to me like the detective just filed the complaint in the wrong place. Using taxpayer assets and the office or uniform for personal gain is wrong, end of story.
Terry Fay
10:53 am on Thursday, October 20, 2011
integrity - n. 1: an unimpaied condition: SOUNDNESS 2: firm adherence to a code of moral or artistic values: INCORRUPTIBILITY 3:the quality or state of being complete or undivided: COMPLETENESS syn. HONESTY (taken from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary).
This says it all!
Dan Telvock
4:03 pm on Thursday, October 20, 2011
What is interesting about the letter from the attorney is that employees covered under the Hatch Act can't campaign in uniform or campaign while working, but that case law has let this part slide in local and state elections if the candidate in question is running bipartisan. If you're not an attorney and only read the Hatch Act, anyone who is covered under the Hatch Act cannot campaign in uniform or on the job.
josh ramsey
2:27 am on Friday, October 21, 2011
Even if Detective Kocher believed these allegations to be true she should have let the investigation runs its course. But as we all now know that did not happen, she filed a complaint and sent a copy to the media. I see no reason why that from this point forward any case that Detective Kocher is working whether it be a robbery, theft, child abuse, murder, rape or whatever, she should automatically send a copy of the case file to the media before anyone has a chance to investigate its's validity. Only then will it show it wasn't politically motivated. I would have respected her stance on the issue if she would have let the responsible agency investigate first, then contact the media with the story.
josh ramsey
10:45 am on Friday, October 21, 2011
Can you please email me and tell me why my comment was deleted.
Michael Theis
10:47 am on Friday, October 21, 2011
I deleted it because it looked like a cat typed it. What was "luhj" supposed to mean, anyways?
Dan Telvock
10:49 am on Friday, October 21, 2011
Michael, Josh didn't type that. I think you accidentally deleted his, too.
Michael Theis
10:50 am on Friday, October 21, 2011
Oh! My mistake. Let me see if I can get the comment reposted.
Michael Theis
10:53 am on Friday, October 21, 2011
I checked the moderation que. The comment was not deleted by me or any editor. It was flagged as inappropriate by our readers and hidden automatically. I don't think that was warranted, so I'm going to restore the comment and disable the ability of readers to flag it. Apologies nonetheless.
Michael Theis
10:54 am on Friday, October 21, 2011
Comment restored.
josh ramsey
11:23 am on Friday, October 21, 2011
Thank you. I was trying to keep it clean but still express my concern.
John
5:50 pm on Thursday, November 10, 2011
Freedom of Speech! BRAVO that's what this GREAT nation is about
Express our views and Ideas in an open forum