A recent article by Stephen Barr poses some very daunting philosophical – and practical – questions about politics, civic involvement, and inherent citizen rights of government workers.
A federal employee, a border patrol officer in the Custom and Border Protection (CBP) agency, was given permission by the CBP to run for an unpaid, nonpartisan City Council seat, was elected, and is now serving in that capacity in his Texas hometown. Is this a problem? Read Stephen’s article for more details.
Timing is everything, and it is amusing how this article crosses our doors and bumps up against the ongoing controversy over the recent firings of eight (8) U.S. Attorneys and the concomitant uproar associated with it. Charges of “politics” and perceptions of abuse of power are swirling around furiously. Calls for blood abound.
Wouldn’t such perceptions and fears persist continuously and unceasingly as long as a federal employee, or any public employee, serves in the political arena even if that position is billed as ‘non-partisan?’ Is this an adequate reason to prohibit a government employee from direct and positive participation in his or her community? After all, we are all citizens first, aren’t we? Don’t we want motivated individuals to serve, especially in unpaid positions, out of a sense of desire and a willingness to serve?
City Council votes may or may not impact this employee’s agency or its operations. Any on-the-job actions by or against the person holding the community post could – and probably would – be charged as politically inspired or motivated. The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) supports the employee’s right to hold this Council post, but what if another NTEU member were to feel slighted or harmed in some way by this person’s individual actions on the Council or even the Council’s collective action on an issue? How would NTEU respond to that conundrum?
Government workers must retain First Amendment rights. That should be self-evident and agreed upon by all. Yet, some limits must apply, just as ethics rules prevent officials from owning certain properties and securities and participating in government decisions or operations directly impacting them for good or ill. It would seem to follow, then, that it is far better for employees not to serve in lawmaking and political positions which prescribe the rules and environment under which their agencies and workforces function.
Clearly, a trade-off confronts us: Loss of individual rights v. confidence in how our government officials conduct business. Should there be a bright line between those setting the rules and the workforce that carries them out? For over two centuries our country has chosen, wisely I believe, separation of roles and responsibilities. Is the issue as clear in this case? I think it is. What do you think?
It is a very tough call. One could ask where does the employee’s civic involvement end? As Little League baseball coach? Little League Commissioner? Library guild? How would you feel about the membership in a community playground group of an employee of the County Parks and Recreation Department?
We live in a post Age of Aquarius, and our societal norms seem to proclaim that more is better – you can have it all! However, are there, or should there be, boundaries for those holding jobs in certain industries and those serving on governmental bodies?
Is there a difference between an oil company executive sitting on the City Council in a non-partisan capacity versus serving on a County environmental commission?
Where do you draw the line? Does there even need to be a line?
+++
Fred W. Apelquist, III, M.Ed.
Approximately 585 words.
© March, 2007