U P D A T E D
I would just like to make clear that NO ONE is accusing Mr. Forti of any wrong doing in this instance. This post by Needham's Corner was in response to a multitude of rantings and ravings at this and other Peabody blogs. Mr. Forti has been very forthright when addressing the public during his campaign as well as on these blogs. This post was NOT IN ANY WAY meant to imply any wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Forti. I hope readers will read the post above this one and see that Mr. Forti has my support in his race.
- Peabody Insider
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Some of our paranoiac readers (well, yeah, you aren't really paranoid if the world is truly out to get you!) may be unfamiliar with certain provisions of the Hatch Act, a federal statute that restricts local partisan political activity by local, state, and federal employees.
Read about it here: http://www.osc.gov/ha_state.htm and before you go all off about "strong men" and coercion, think about how the law might be interpreted with respect to local politics. I once worked with someone in a non-profit agency whose funding came from the feds, and she was unwilling to hold a sign on election day because she thought it was a violation of the Hatch Act. Misinterpretation of federal law is not uncommon (!), but perhaps once in a while people err on the side of over-caution than under-caution.
It would be great if people would read the law and think for themselves about how it might be interpreted, instead of just grabbing onto whatever random interpretation is floating out there in the blogosphere. There ain't no law agin THINKING.
6 comments:
Hi Needham's Corner:
I don't disagree that there is plenty of paranoia to go around... but sadly some in our government (at all levels) have created this mess themselves by being corrupt and evil.
Now as for Mr. Forti... sure he might have a boss who is just misinterpreting the Hatch Act... on his/her own... without any prodding or coercion.
But I doubt it. I am willing to bet that someone at the very least initiated this action or investigation or whatever.
However, I would not be pointing any fingers... certainly not without some sort of proof. And sadly the Peabody Patriot readers (and writers?) seen to have abandoned the need to find proof before allegation. Although Keith's recent post does tell how he called Mr. Forti and got the story from a primary source.
So yet again in just this election season another cloak and dagger saga that may or may not have any validity.
As if the real world were not interesting enough all on its own.
.
so what is this hatch act saying that Forti shouldn't be running ?
No it is saying the complete opposite of that.
I had to change my post because of the 3rd poster...
I think that the second anon is correct here. It DOES NOT say he can't run... in fact is specifically says HE CAN RUN.
The Hatch Act is long, complicated and old (1939), with many changes in its long tenure.
However, it seems to have a very specific exemption that applies in this case...
Permitted/Prohibited Activities for Employees Who May Participate in Partisan Political Activity
These [Federal & Federally funded] employees may:
* be candidates for public office in nonpartisan elections
Thus... it would seem that Rob Forti is well within his rights to run for Ward 1 Councilor.
And after the recent Salem News article, discussed over at the Peabody Patriot, which allowed Councilor Osbourne to make some pretty broad blanket comments about both his service and future commitments to Ward 1... and the Salem News did NOT challenge him on any of these statements... and then to give so little space to Mr. Forti... it did not seem very fair.
It is difficult to beat an incumbent anywhere... and Peabody is tougher than most.
I wonder if the out pouring for Mr. Forti during the primary was the majority of his supporters coming to the polls... while the majority of VOTERS stayed home. If that is the case, as OG and Needham's Corner point out... the Apathy that is Peabody Politics may well sweep Councilor Osbourne in for yet another term... despite a lack luster job performance for the past several terms.
Matt Roy I've always thought has done a good job in his columns. That being said, I've spoke to and have seen Rob (you make the call) . He tends to be a little soft spoken and nervous, do you think that could have played a part in the lack of content on his side of the article. Just throwing it out there. He may not have said much during the interview. And we all know barry can spin a yarn.
PI, thanks for updating my original post and clarifying.
To Mr. Forti - I just wanted to point readers to the source for understanding what is/isn't allowed under state law. I am not suggesting in any way whatsoever that you have acted wrongly! As longtime readers know, I get cranky when the same old quarter-truths and rumors get recycled through the blogosphere. I am a fan of primary sources, not rumor and innuendo, and I wish you all the best on November 3.
Post a Comment