Tulsa Firefighters, IAFF Local 176 have filed suit against the city challenging Mayor Dewey Bartlett’s executive order prohibiting firefighters from engaging in local political activities. The order is so broad that it applies to firefighters at any time, even while off-duty.
Union President Dennis Moseby is quoted as saying “We believe that when we are off duty and out of uniform we should be treated like any other citizen.” The suit alleges that the order violates the First Amendment.
US Supreme Court case law seems to support the firefighters as well, although there has been a palpable scaling back of public employee rights. In a case decided this week, the Court was quoted as follows:
There are some rights and freedoms so fundamental to liberty that they cannot be bargained away in a contract for public employment. “Our responsibility is that citizens are not deprived of [these] fundamental rights by virtue of working for the government.” … Nevertheless, a citizen who accepts public employment “must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.” … The government has a substantial interest in ensuring that all of its operations are efficient and effective. That interest may require broad authority to supervise the conduct of public employees. “When someone who is paid a salary so that she will contribute to an agency’s effective operation begins to do or say things that detract from the agency’s effective operation, the government employer must have some power to restrain her.” … Restraints are justified by the consensual nature of the employment relationship and by the unique nature of the government’s interest.
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, No. 09–1476. Argued March 22, 2011—Decided June 20, 2011
Another possible basis for the mayor’s position would be a Federal law known as the Hatch Act. That act limits the political activities of Federal employees, and by extension state and local officials who are in positions that are federally funded. However, the mayor is not publically citing the Hatch Act or his hope for a change in how the US Supreme Court interprets the Constitution to support his order. He claims his justification is in the city charter.
Here is a video update on the case.
This looks to be along the lines of the Texas law against the TSA. A policy written by someone who must barely passed government in high school.
Joe
There is definitely a cold wind blowing at public employees these days… from all directions.
I don’t necessarily think that every regulation is anti-public employee. I agree with the idea that public agencies should not be politically active. The police department or fire department or parks department, or any other government office should not be supporting any specific candidate for any office. The employees of government agencies should not advocating for candidates in a manner that could be confused with them speaking for their agency. Unions or associations representing employees of a government agency, however, is not the same as the government agency itself.
However, what is done off duty and in a manner that avoids confusion that the individual is not representing the government agency should not be up for regulation and should be an obvious first amendment issue.
Similarly, I agree with the Texas sentiment that the TSA goes too far from time to time, however unless someone is going to argue that the TSA is unconstitutional, then there’s no way for a state to pass a law regulating a federal agency.