State: Sheriff can hold office and campaign

BROOKSVILLE - State statutes do not restrict Richard Nugent from running for Congress while still holding down his position as sheriff.

Jennifer Davis, communications director with the Florida Department of State, said Thursday the "resign-to-run" law would apply to Nugent only if he was running for two elected positions at the same time.

State statutes do require him to step down as sheriff should he win the election to Florida's 5th District Congressional seat. Nugent has already said he would do that and the governor would have to appoint someone to fill out his term, which expires at the end of 2012.

A question also surfaced about whether Nugent would fall under the dictates of the federal Hatch Act.

Congress passed the Act in 1939, which placed severe limitations on certain federal, state and county employees taking part in partisan political elections.

It applies to executive branch state and local employees "principally employed in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a federal agency."

Nugent, who called the law somewhat obscure, said his lawyers determined the Hatch Act does not apply to him.

More on this subject today.

This isn't the end of this, though. The truth is that Hernando County sheriffs have grappled with the hatch act before.

Let's take a trip back down memory lane, to July of 2000. Richard Nugent was a Major with the Hernando County Sheriff's department. His boss, Sheriff Mylander was retiring. Rich Nugent was running in the election to replace him.

Among Major Richard Nugent's duties was supervising thirteen community policing deputies whose positions are funded by a federal grant.

A state senator called Sheriff Mylander and inquired about how this fit in with the Hatch Act. Sheriff Mylander did a little research and determined that Major Richard Nugent would either have to drop out of the race, or he would have to give up his duties that were related to federal grants. In this case, Sheriff Mylander reassigned those community policing deputies to another manager. Major Nugent kept his duties supervising other deputies who were not working in areas funded by federal grants.

By the way, that state senator who called Sheriff Mylander and asked about the Hatch act. Guess who it was?

Sheriff curtails major's duties during campaign (abstract of article from July 20, 2004 Hernando Times)

There are some differences between then and now, and I am not a lawyer and don't have that much detailed knowledge of the Hatch Act. Maybe some FReepers can help enlighten me.

I think Sheriff Nugent is running for congress for two reasons. To bring grant money back to his department to help cover his past mistakes, and for a fatter retirement plan.

He is certainly violating the spirit of the Hatch act by campaigning for congress while holding a position as a sheriff in a department that receives federal grant money. The law might have a loophole that he can skate through, but this still smells bad.

From the desk of
cc2k:

Candidates I support in 2010: Jason Sager for Congress, FL 5th, Doug Hoffman for Congress, NY 23rd, David Harmer for Congress, CA 10th (website for info), Marco Rubio for Senate, FL

Full disclosure: I am involved in the Sager for Congress campaign, and my company is designing and hosting his web site.

highlander_UW wrote:

Is the point that senators like Obama can campaign and not do their job because the job of US senator isn't important, but sheriffs do real work that is important, so they're not allowed to campaign while holding their current position?

Not exactly.

The point is that people who oversee and manage the spending of federal funds, federal grants, have a conflict of interest when they turn around and run in a partisan election, especially for a congressional seat.

Nugent's department receives federal grants. He is the head of that department, and he oversees and manages the distribution of this federal money. That's the issue.

He's now running for a congressional seat where, presumably, he could add earmarks to benefit his current department. He could bring back a federal grant to repair the jail, which has crumbled as he has done nothing to properly oversee the contractor running the operation. He could bring back a federal grant to fund the operation of the jail, too. Or send back a grant for a fleet of helicopters for his department.

As I said in my opening post, I believe he's in this for the earmark pen and for the retirement. He is not a conservative model of restraint. His tenure at the Hernando County Sheriff's Department has been one of expanding budgets, increased spending, even as population has decreased and county tax revenues have fallen off greatly.

Perhaps the citizens of Hernando County have made some mistakes and should have held him and the commissioners more accountable. But for us to now send this guy to Washington DC to fund his mistakes at the expense of the rest of the country is just wrong.

From the desk of
cc2k:

Candidates I support in 2010: Jason Sager for Congress, FL 5th, Doug Hoffman for Congress, NY 23rd, David Harmer for Congress, CA 10th (website for info), Marco Rubio for Senate, FL

Full disclosure: I am involved in the Sager for Congress campaign, and my company is designing and hosting his web site.

It appears that most politicians seem to view their job as going to DC and bringing back pork projects...so the potential that this one might do that doesn't make him any different than the majority of candidates...not that I believe that's an acceptable attitude for a candidate...but it shouldn't exclude one where it doesn't another.

Now that's another issue entirely. As I indicated, I don't think politician should view their jobs as bringing back pork money to their areas.

In fact, I think that congress and the senate should (I know they won't) pass a rule that forbids the adding of riders and pork bills to any other bill. Let each bill stand or fall on it's own merits. If they can get sufficient votes on a pork bill all on it's own, then so be it...and we can all see that and when we vote we can see how many pork only bills they voted on. And this way politicians will never again have to vote against a bill they like because of stuff attached to it. Perfect transparency.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.