Free speech limits placed on civil servants

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Recently a new memo came out about what sort of political activity we city employees are allowed to engage in. It was largely a repetition of what I have seen before, but with some clarification. The Philadelphia City Charter (I think it is) places what seem to me to be excessive limits on what sort of political speech a city employee can engage in. I am wondering if anyone knows what these laws are like in general (specifically in the U.S.). As an example: I, as a city employee, am not supposed to publish a letter supporting a particular candidate or party (at any level, not just the local). Does that seem like something that could be legally dubious, or is this a pretty standard limit to be placed on civil service employees?

― Rockist Scientist, Wednesday, 7 May 2003 14:17 (twenty-two years ago)

When I worked for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts there was a prohibition on campaigning at the workplace or in a "work-related capacity," but not in one's spare time. Perhaps the limit you speak of is one placing a letter in your capacity as a city employee? Or can you not place a letter supporting a candidate at all?

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 7 May 2003 14:24 (twenty-two years ago)

That sounds pretty normal to me. I have a friend in Scotland who works in the civil service. His wife was standing for the city council last month, and he was free to go out and leaflet for her, or support her -- publishing a letter in a paper supporting her would be different, because he might appear to be using his position as a civil servant to lend weight to his opinion. So it's just certain kinds of political activity that are problematic over here.

― alext (alext), Wednesday, 7 May 2003 14:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Also these measures may be a free speech issue, but I think they came into being to combat machine-like corruption in municipal and state government. It's scarcely related to recent goings-on in the world of civil liberties.

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 7 May 2003 14:25 (twenty-two years ago)

amateurist, I understand the motivation for these restrictions, and I didn't mean to imply that they were related to recent attacks on civil rights. I think the timing for the memo may relate to recent events just to the extent that there's a lot going on politically and people might be more inclined to get involved than usual, so it's time to remind them about what is or isn't permitted.

― Rockist Scientist, Wednesday, 7 May 2003 14:55 (twenty-two years ago)

a few years ago a fireman was reprimanded for calling to a local talk radio show to talk about the municipal budget.
the problem, those who reprimanded him (I believe it was a week's suspension w/pay or something) said, was not that he spoke out, but that he may have been perceived as representing the City and that he did it on company time.
Most private companies have strict rules about what sort of activities their employees can partake in while on the job (mainly because they spend so much on P-fuckin-R, but outside of work, no matter be it for Enron or the City of Butte MT, a citizen is a citizen is a citizen, no?

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 7 May 2003 14:59 (twenty-two years ago)

It would have been better if I had said "The free speech limits. . ." which would have given it less of a breaking news sort of sound.

I keep looking for language (in the passages from the city charter, cited in this memo) that suggests these limits are only for things done on company time, but I'm not finding it.

― Rockist Scientist, Wednesday, 7 May 2003 15:04 (twenty-two years ago)

I can understand why the restrictions would seem burdensome, but they're a protection for civic employees too -- if they weren't there, it would be easier for your boss or any civic boss to require "volunteer" work for candidates after hours, on weekends, etc. That kind of thing goes on a lot anyway, but the civil service protections at least keep it in check.

― JesseFox (JesseFox), Thursday, 8 May 2003 01:15 (twenty-two years ago)

the hatch act covers what federal employees can and can not do as far as elections are concerned. i was reading it monday at my desk while moving cubicles. i can look for it tomorrow if you like. it was pretty much common sense stuff that boiled down to "don't campaign when you're on the clock". that was the general idea but, as always, the devil's in the details.

― otto midnight, Thursday, 8 May 2003 02:41 (twenty-two years ago)

so, john street is doing what frank rizzo and ed rendell wouldn't? interesting ... does street think that his upcoming re-election campaign against katz is going to be that close (and that there are katz people on the city payroll)?

anyway, it sounds like the restrictions are in line with other state and municipal restrictions, not to mention the Hatch Act ... though if memory serves me right, the Hatch Act is relatively young (i.e., passed during the eighties).

― Tad (llamasfur), Thursday, 8 May 2003 03:12 (twenty-two years ago)

As a military member there are a great deal of limits placed on my political speech. I'm not technically allowed to have a bumper sticker on my car or actively campaign for any candidates. However these restrictions don't seem to apply to any of the civilians I work with, who are also federal employees. Then again I'm really just assuming that.

― Millar (Millar), Thursday, 8 May 2003 03:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Millar - are you sure about the bumper sticker thing cuz I'm somewhat sure I remember that being one of the few sorts of 'political speech' allowed to active duty types. I remember during the 96 election and 98/99 impeachment how a bumper sticker was cited as pretty much the extent of political speech allowed (and with bumper stickers it was only to the extent of an innocuous campaign sticker a la 'Dole/Kemp 96' etc., something like 'Impeach the President' or even 'Don't Blame Me I Voted for Bush' would be understood as crossing a line in being disrespectful to the commander in chief, unallowable for the same reason a bumper sticker saying 'My XO's an Asshole' would be taboo).

― James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 8 May 2003 07:11 (twenty-two years ago)

I know also that civil servants can't be fired for their political beliefs whereas it is perfectly legal for a private enterprise to do so.

― James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 8 May 2003 07:13 (twenty-two years ago)

hatch act information:

These federal and D.C. employees may-

be candidates for public office in nonpartisan elections
register and vote as they choose
assist in voter registration drives
express opinions about candidates and issues
contribute money to political organizations
attend political fundraising functions
attend and be active at political rallies and meetings
join and be an active member of a political party or club
sign nominating petitions
campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, municipal ordinances
campaign for or against candidates in partisan elections
make campaign speeches for candidates in partisan elections
distribute campaign literature in partisan elections
hold office in political clubs or parties
These federal and D.C. employees may not-

use official authority or influence to interfere with an election
solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with business before their agency
solicit or receive political contributions (may be done in certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee organizations)
be candidates for public office in partisan elections
engage in political activity while:
on duty
in a government office
wearing an official uniform
using a government vehicle
wear partisan political buttons on duty

― otto midnight, Thursday, 8 May 2003 13:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Even better, I had to sign a clause on my contract basically boiled down to being "I will not be bad person who gets caught and publicly humiliated."

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Thursday, 8 May 2003 13:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Tad, I don't know whether this has anything to do with Street or not. As I say, I don't think there are any changes being made in the rules, and the memo (or whatever it's technically called) was not given that much emphasis, but it's the first updated comment on the regulations that I remember seeing since I've worked for the city (almost ten years).

― Rockist Scientist, Thursday, 8 May 2003 14:03 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.