Livesay in possible violation of Hatch Act

Published May 18, 2006 4:00am ET



A Republican opponent of Howard County Police Chief Wayne Livesay said Livesay could be violating federal law by running for a Howard County Council seat.

“I?m not a lawyer, but from what limited amount I know, any state or county employee that oversees federal funds and is running for partisan office is in violation of the [federal] Hatch Act,” said Greg Fox, Livesay?s opponent in the Republican primary for the District 5 County Council seat.

Livesay said Wednesday that he has asked the U.S Office of Special Counsel, which oversees the Hatch Act, whether he is in violation and is waiting on a response.

County Executive James Robey has asked Livesay to stay on through the department?s April re-accreditation process. Livesay, who intends to abandon his police duties before the election, said he has notified Robey that he will retire “soon.”

Since the $3 million his office is slated to receive this year is a smidgen of the department?s budget, Livesay said he isn?t sure the Hatch Act applies to him.

If a police chief supervises the activities federal grants cover and is running in a partisan election,he would be in violation of the Hatch Act, said Anna Galindo Marrone, chief supervisor of the federal Hatch Act Unit.

The sole Democrat campaigning for the seat, Don Dunn, called Livesay?s position “unusual.”

“For a person who holds a position of trust to enforce the law, it?s unusual that there should even be a hint of a problem,” he said.

Brian Harlin, chairman of the county?s Republican Party Central Committee, said, “It?s an issue for the federal government to decide. I?m sure whatever they say, the police chief will abide by.”

One of Fox?s supporters, David Keelan, a treasurer for a slate of candidates that includes Fox, first raised the issue on his Web blog at www.hocomd.blogspot.com.

Hatch Act

» The Hatch Act prohibits local government employees who oversee federal funds from campaigning in a partisan election; using authority to interfere with results of an election; and coercing contributions from subordinates.

Source: U.S. Office of Special Counsel

[email protected]

[email protected]