It doesn’t take a constitutional scholar to realize the ordinance the city is attempting to repeal is a clear violation of 1st amendment rights. Doesn’t matter what city board you may sit on, nobody can hamper your free speech rights which include giving money to a candidate. While ethically questionable in some cases, completely legal.
So why has the city decided to now repeal this unconstitutional ordinance after a recent election (Item #B)? Makes you wonder how many appointed officers violated the ordinance in the past or even in this past election? Hey good for them, they were well within their rights. It’s the timing that smells fishy.
It does smell fishy, as it should! I don’t believe we will be hearing this through main stream media. Thanks, for the heads up SOUTH DACOLA.
That ordinance has been in place to protect the employees, not hamper their political activities.
Even worse, now the directors will be expected to contribute to the mayor’s reelection fund or risk losing their appointment.
Want an appointment? Your second-in-command now only has to outbid you to overthrow you for the spot.
I know people who haven’t worked in government see this as unconstitutional and having it in place as a violation as a person’s 1st amendment rights, but the effects of not having it in place will be far worse, especially when you have a mayor like huether.
39.038 is obviously inspired by the Federal Hatch Act. The Hatch Act has been the law of the land at the Federal level since 1939 and has withstood Supreme Court scrutiny.
No one is making someone apply for a city job. If the current ordinance limiting political activity is a true detriment for city employees, then how does its absence guarantee that City employees will not be asked to act or contribute to local political campaigns and or candidates to keep their jobs in the future?
This is just not a free speech and or association issue here, but also one of quality of life and the pursuit of happiness as well for city employees without potential intimidation or coercion concerns to be realized.
I was told T. Denny gave his top executives big bonuses, expecting them to donate them to certain organizations and campaigns as to build influence and political clout.
Obviously huether learned from his former boss and maybe that helps explain the ridiculous raises given to the department heads the last few years.
I’m guessing we should watch and see where the city director’s money goes now that they’re “free” to contribute money in city campaigns now.