Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Monday, October 30, 2006

ND Human Services Employees Using Gov. Resources To Oppose Ballot Measure

As most of you are probably aware, it is illegal under both North Dakota law and federal law for any government employee to use government resources (e.g. copy machines, computers, email accounts, phones, etc.) for political purposes.  Government employees are free to engage in political advocacy on their own time, but the use of tax payer-funded resources for that advocacy is strictly prohibited.

Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped people opposed to the North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative from using government resources to influence voters.

The North Dakota Century Code 16.1-10-02 clearly states:

No person may use any property belonging to or leased by, or any service which is provided to or carried on by, either directly or by contract, the state or any agency, department, bureau, board, commission, or political subdivision thereof, for any political purpose.

And since North Dakota’s human services departments receive federal money Title 18, Part I, Chapter 93, ยง 1913 of U.S. Federal code also applies.  That statute states:

No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation, whether before or after the introduction of any bill, measure, or resolution proposing such legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation; but this shall not prevent officers or employees of the United States or of its departments or agencies from communicating to any such Member or official, at his request, or to Congress or such official, through the proper official channels, requests for any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriations which they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business, or from making any communication whose prohibition by this section might, in the opinion of the Attorney General, violate the Constitution or interfere with the conduct of foreign policy, counter-intelligence, intelligence, or national security activities. Violations of this section shall constitute violations of section 1352 (a) of title 31.

I also have a memo (click here to view it in PDF format) from the Executive Director of North Dakota Human Services Carol Olson which clearly indicates that government employees “cannot take a position on a ballot measure initiated by citizens.” Yet “take a position” on the SPI ballot measure is exactly what North Dakota Human Services employees have done.

First, consider this document printed on ND Human Services letter head which is being distributed by that agency.  It is clearly an attempt to convince North Dakota voters to vote against Shared Parenting.  It is on official government letter head, it is being distributed using tax-funded printers and the contact information is for government employees using government phone numbers and email addresses.

This is, in my estimation, explicitly illegal.

Further, I’ve also noticed no small amount of letters to the editor from ND Human Services employees in various North Dakota newspapers.  How do I know these letters are coming from ND Human Services employees?  Because they indicate so in their letters/signatures.  Again, this is explicitly illegal.  These folks are using their government positions to give their personal opinions more weight with the public.

I also have it on good authority that many Human Services employees have been using their state email addresses to send out long diatribes against Shared Parenting.  My sources would like to provide me with more information about this sort of activity, but they’re afraid that they’ll be fired if they do.  There are supporters for Shared Parenting in North Dakota’s human services agencies, but they dare not speak up for fear of retribution.

So why are these human services people so against shared parenting?  You can read the reasons they give publicly in that document I have linked above, but the reality is that these people oppose it because it means less money and power for them.  The federal government funds our state human services agencies based on the amount of child support collected in this state.  The more child support that gets collected the more money ND human services gets.  Shared Parenting would reduce the amount of child support paid in this state, both by limiting child support to the amount needed for a child’s basic needs and by encouraging more involvement from both parents, so obviously federal funding for ND human services will go down if the SPI passes.  The bureaucrats in the human services agencies don’t want that.  They want to maximize funding, so they oppose shared parenting.

It’s a cynical, pathetic position to have.  But that’s the position they’re going to take, and they won’t hesitate to use their government power and resources to make sure their funding is kept high...even if it means family law policies that encourage single-parent parenting over shared parenting.

So this November 7th, when you go to the polls, vote yes on Measure #3.  Don’t let the government bureaucrats bully you.  Their motivations are cynical, and based on money rather than the best interests of North Dakota’s families.  They will likely get away with their use of government resources to influence voters (no state agency at this point has indicated any willingness to even investigate the matter), but by voting for shared parenting we can show them that their bullying won’t work.

Comments

That Memo they wrote is the smoking gun.  Not only was it completely one-sided it actually misstated what’s on the initiative.

Our tax dollars went for that.  That’s outrageous!


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on October 30, 2006 at 07:48 am
Rob
Rob
18056 comments
Send a private message

Outrageous indeed.

I’m fine with state agencies issuing factual, even-handed information about ballot measures, but that flyer was neither factual or even-handed.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on October 30, 2006 at 07:57 am
Avatar for Puzzlefeet

As usual Rob, you are wrong.  An initiated measure is not considered “political” for the purposes of this law.  It applies only to elected offices. Please read further on under 16.1-10-02 Sub 2(a): Definition of political purpose.  It only applies to elected offices, so an agency can speak out on behalf or in opposition to an intitiated measure or referred law.

I’ll wait for a correction......

Puzzlefeet on October 30, 2006 at 08:11 am
Rob
Rob
18056 comments
Send a private message

Ok, suppose you’re right.

They’re still in clear violation of the federal code.

I’ll wait for an apology.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on October 30, 2006 at 08:13 am
Avatar for puzzlefeet

Rob, I read the passage very thoroughly, and can’t see where there is a violation since it does not address the initiated measure process.  This is the applicable part that you quote: 

or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation, whether before or after the introduction of any bill, measure, or resolution proposing such legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation;

Again, this does not apply to the initiated measure process in North Dakota.  So I guess no apology is needed and a correction is what you should provide to your readers since I know you always want to be accurate.

puzzlefeet on October 30, 2006 at 08:21 am
Rob
Rob
18056 comments
Send a private message

Again, this does not apply to the initiated measure process in North Dakota.

Yes, it does.  ND Human Services receives federal money, thus they must comply with this bit of federal code:

No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation, whether before or after the introduction of any bill, measure, or resolution proposing such legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation

Clearly ND Human Services is attempt to influence a jurisdiction (North Dakota) on a proposed policy.

This is illegal.  If you want to be willfully ignorant and claim otherwise, there’s not much I can do to help you.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on October 30, 2006 at 08:25 am
Rob
Rob
18056 comments
Send a private message

But Puzzle, all your other nonsense aside, tell me this: Do you think it’s ok for ND Human Services to actively take sides in a matter like this, whether it be for or against a ballot initiative?

Clearly ND Human Services Director Carol Olson feels it is unlawful to do so as per her memo linked in the post above.

I thought ballot initiatives were about the will of the people, not the will of government bureaucrats out to protect their funding.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on October 30, 2006 at 08:29 am
Avatar for puzzlefeet

Rob, while you may consider it nonsense, you have accused a government agency of committing a crime so the least you can do is make sure that the agency has committed a crime.  So it is not nonsense.

Elected officials comment on initiated measures all the time.  I seem to remember it was your republican party who decided that fiscal notes would be attached to any initiated measure which was done during the 2003 or 2005 legislative session. The democrats opposed this piece of legislation. So now you have an agency which my law is mandated to attach a fiscal note to every initiated ballot measure. 

I think it is incumbent upon a state agency including DHS and Sec. of State to point out issues when an initiated measure is on the ballot so as to make sure the public knows what kind of money they will be spending if the measure is enacted and what the likely intepretation of the measure will have on the public.  For example two years ago, when the Taxpayer bill of Rights initiated measure was being circulated, it was so frought with ambiguities and uncertainty as to what was meant as to have had prolonged and protacted litigation over the interpretation of its meaning and application.  That is what happens when out of state interests come in and try a one size fits all measure.

So again, Rob, as you know I have not taken a stand on the measure just wanted a bit of clarity here.  Now you can get nasty with me all you want and cry “nonsense” and call me ‘willfully ignorant’ but the reality is as I told you months ago about trying to pass an initiated measure.

So you can namecall all you want but at least try to be accurate about your crimes.

puzzlefeet on October 30, 2006 at 08:46 am
Rob
Rob
18056 comments
Send a private message

Puzzle, I’m not name-calling at all.  What you’re saying is nonsense, and I’m pointing that out.

Here’s the gist of this situation: DHS is using taxpayer money, paid in by folks like you and I, to oppose - not inform the public on but actively oppose - a ballot measure initiated by the citizens.

How you can defend that sort of activity is beyond me.  It wouldn’t be right if the DHS were supporting measure there, and it’s not right now that they’re opposing.

Especially given why they’re opposing it, which is for no other reason than to protect the status quo which allows them to promote single-parent parenting in exchange for greater amounts of federal funding.

By the way, please not how you manage to be entirely hypocritical within the space of one comment:

I seem to remember it was your republican party who decided that fiscal notes would be attached to any initiated measure which was done during the 2003 or 2005 legislative session. The democrats opposed this piece of legislation. So now you have an agency which my law is mandated to attach a fiscal note to every initiated ballot measure.

I think it is incumbent upon a state agency including DHS and Sec. of State to point out issues when an initiated measure is on the ballot so as to make sure the public knows what kind of money they will be spending if the measure is enacted and what the likely intepretation of the measure will have on the public.

So in one breath you’re against fiscal notes, but in the next breath you’re all for state agencies using our tax dollars to campaign against or support political measures.

Glad to see you’re so nuanced on this issue, Puzzle.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on October 30, 2006 at 09:52 am
Avatar for wayne

Well, whether or not it was or wasn’t legal you can bet anyone opposed to this measure will be sued by the wackos on this committee!  I swear they have no life!

wayne on October 30, 2006 at 07:41 pm
Rob
Rob
18056 comments
Send a private message

Hey, Blogger/Wayne, if you’re going to comment in this forum at least be honest enough to use one name.  Trying to pretend like you’re a bunch of different people to troll the comments here is just plain childish.

Grow up.  And thanks for adding absolutely nothing to the conversation.

Talk about not having a life…


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on October 30, 2006 at 07:57 pm
Avatar for Joel Johnston

Interesting that someone would call the people that are working on this campaign a bunch of wackos.  It’s easy to support a custodial parent that has a bias in the courts, a state government that clearly profits from a single family on their side.  But when someone does something that really takes heart, like defending the very essence of a meaningful relationship with thier own flesh and blood - a child, they are a wacko. 

I think you miss it, a wacko is someone that blogs in a name that can’t be tracked, that has no meaningful opinion to place on the blog except someone they don’t agree with is a wacko.

Why don’t you put some real intelligence into your comments, and enter a real debate over the issues in this matter.  A healthy debate is good, it helps everyone understand the issues. 

I hope everyone that is undecided reads the comments from individuals that only show their ignorance in these debates.

Bottom line, children need and deserve both parents in their lives.  It’s their rights we as adults should be fighting to preserve.

Imagine if there was a State collection agency that was given incentive money from the feds to help collect more income tax.  For every dollar they collected, the state received more money.  They would work to get everyone on the state divorced, since single tax payor rates are higher than married.  That really sums up what is going on today in each state.  Would an initiative be the correct way to eliminate something like that.

Lets not forget, State employees are SERVENTS to the citizens.

Joel Johnston on October 30, 2006 at 10:11 pm
Avatar for Blogger

Sticks and stones man...sticks and stones… smile

Let the legal battles begin!  WOOOOHOOO!!!

Blogger on November 1, 2006 at 11:28 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.