Asst State Attorney in FL fired after refusing to stop speaking to Tea Party groups

[Steve Wilkins]

And I think it is pretty clear she is partisan, but my opinion is like.........I'll let the courts decide, since she seems to be taking that route.

I'll take that as a no you didn't read the statute (Florida Statude 104.31 - Political activities of state, county, and municipal officers and employees). Here, let's go over it real quick. It isn't very long.

(1) No officer or employee of the state, or of any county or municipality thereof, except as hereinafter exempted from provisions hereof, shall:

(a) Use his or her official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with an election or a nomination of office or coercing or influencing another person's vote or affecting the result thereof.

(b) Directly or indirectly coerce or attempt to coerce, command, or advise any other officer or employee to pay, lend, or contribute any part of his or her salary, or any money, or anything else of value to any party, committee, organization, agency, or person for political purposes. Nothing in this paragraph or in any county or municipal charter or ordinance shall prohibit an employee from suggesting to another employee in a noncoercive manner that he or she may voluntarily contribute to a fund which is administered by a party, committee, organization, agency, person, labor union or other employee organization for political purposes.

(c) Directly or indirectly coerce or attempt to coerce, command, and advise any such officer or employee as to where he or she might purchase commodities or to interfere in any other way with the personal right of said officer or employee.

I think we can safely say that this portion of the statute isn't even at play in this discussion.

The provisions of this section shall not be construed so as to prevent any person from becoming a candidate for and actively campaigning for any elective office in this state. All such persons shall retain the right to vote as they may choose and to express their opinions on all political subjects and candidates. The provisions of paragraph (a) shall not be construed so as to limit the political activity in a general, special, primary, bond, referendum, or other election of any kind or nature, of elected officials or candidates for public office in the state or of any county or municipality thereof; and the provisions of paragraph (a) shall not be construed so as to limit the political activity in general or special elections of the officials appointed as the heads or directors of state administrative agencies, boards, commissions, or committees or of the members of state boards, commissions, or committees, whether they be salaried, nonsalaried, or reimbursed for expense. In the event of a dual capacity of any member of a state board, commission, or committee, any restrictive provisions applicable to either capacity shall apply. The provisions of paragraph (a) shall not be construed so as to limit the political activity in a general, special, primary, bond, referendum, or other election of any kind or nature of the Governor, the elected members of the Governor's Cabinet, or the members of the Legislature. The provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) shall apply to all officers and employees of the state or of any county or municipality thereof, whether elected, appointed, or otherwise employed, or whether the activity shall be in connection with a primary, general, special, bond, referendum, or other election of any kind or nature.

Ok, so now we're getting somewhere. This provision says that she could even be a candidate for office if she wanted to. However, 110.233 does stipulate that she would need the consent of her "agency head" to run for office if she was to do it while employed by the state at the same time.

(2) An employee of the state or any political subdivision may not participate in any political campaign for an elective office while on duty.

This infers (in case it wasn't clear from the above) that she can in fact participate in political and partisan activities, just so long as she does it off duty.

(3) Any person violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(4) Nothing contained in this section or in any county or municipal charter shall be deemed to prohibit any public employee from expressing his or her opinions on any candidate or issue or from participating in any political campaign during the employee's off-duty hours, so long as such activities are not in conflict with the provisions of subsection (1) or s. 110.233.

Again, as long as her activity was during off-duty hours, which it was, then all is good. Now, if you take a look at 110.233(1), you'll see that actually, it looks like her boss may be the one who is in violation of the law.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

And I think it is pretty clear she is partisan, but my opinion is like.........I'll let the courts decide, since she seems to be taking that route.

Let's say for the sake of argument you're right. Let's say her speech and activity on the radio was in fact partisan. How does that violate Florida law?

No, I didn't think it was, since you earlier said this:

That is what her boss told her. He reference "groups", not group and that's what I was relaying. Any references to any tea party group was to this one in particular that she gave the speech to.

It's a fine line sometimes and some could infer that she is partisan from the speech she gave with many of her talking points echoing those by many Republicans. And just because your group may claim that is is non-partisan doesn't mean the other ones she has supposedly talked to are not. Again, it will probably be up for the courts to decide.

Her talking points echo those by many Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and Libertarians. Since when is talking about Constitutional principles and the notion that people need to educate themselves considered partisan?

Criticizing Teddy Roosevelt and the Earned Income Tax Credit. Wow, what a broadside. Aren't those criticisms about 100 and 35 years to late respectively?

I didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on partisanship. Progressivism isn't partisan in the sense that only one party practices it.

Where the hell did you get that? Oh, wait, make an absurd assumption or claim, have me deny it and then use that denial to attack my reasoning on a point I made earlier. And begin.......

No more absurd than you saying that she violated the law without so much as backing it up. Oh wait, that's for the courts to decide. How about using your noggin and actually make the case instead of using your typical deference to the courts.

 

[Flash]

Again, as long as her activity was during off-duty hours, which it was, then all is good. Now, if you take a look at 110.233(1), you'll see that actually, it looks like her boss may be the one who is in violation of the law.

Figure that, I cited the wrong one. True, he may be in the wrong but she may be as well with 110.233(4).

The good news is that now she will be able to spread the good word to even more Tea Party groups, all hoping to hear the good non-partisan message that she brings. Too bad I won't be able to see it.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Figure that, I cited the wrong one. True, he may be in the wrong but she may be as well with 110.233(4).

Yeah? What part?

 

[Flash]

Yeah? What part?

The mention of her employment in conjunction with the speech could be construed as 'using the authority of her position to secure support, or oppose...any issue'. Kind of like a DEA Agent speaking at a rally to legalize pot and being introduced as one.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

The mention of her employment in conjunction with the speech could be construed as 'using the authority of her position to secure support, or oppose...any issue'. Kind of like a DEA Agent speaking at a rally to legalize pot and being introduced as one.

We've been over this. She wasn't introduced as an asst. state attorney nor was it mentioned after the fact. I didn't even know she worked for the state, much less being a state prosecutor, until I heard of her termination. She was introduced as a constitutional lawyer.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Interview with KrisAnne Hall. She's clearly a right wing nut job. :icon_roll

[video]http://blip.tv/play/kAaB44t1Ag%2Em4v[/video]

 

[Steve Wilkins]

And then today on Cavuto.

[video]http://video.foxnews.com/v/4223880/attorney-fired-for-tea-party-speeches[/video]

 

[ryan1234]

This area is a tricky area.

During the Clinton years, I had to issue a 3 days suspension letter to an employee, GS-14, when she refused to take down large, signed photographs, multiple, of her and Pres Reagan and Pres Bush. While I was sympathetic to her plight, General Counsel directed it. She did relent and removed the photographs and the suspension did not go into effect.

Best advice: Keep politics out of the office if you are a public servant.

I'm having trouble understanding that situtation. These signed photos were of previous CinCs - which happen to be the two previous administrations - so what? It sounds like more politics were involved in the direction to remove the photos rather than preventing "politics in the office".

In my humble opinion - it just seems like politics working to prevent conflicting politics over a meaningless issue.

The story in FL - hard to believe an individual holding a political office should have a political opinion. There are more politics at work to prevent her from having a political opinion than her actual political opinion.