Federal employees cannot run for elective office in partisan elections.
State employees cannot serve in the legislature. It is time for similar
sensible restrictions on municipal employees.
In last week's municipal elections, as in those of recent years, a smattering
of teachers, police officers, dispatchers, analysts and other municipal workers
ran for office in towns that employed them. The most notable of the 2003
candidates was city fire inspector and Alderman Timothy Stewart, who was
elected mayor of New Britain.
Most, if not all, of these candidates are upstanding and civic-minded. But
holding a civil service post and an elective office creates at least the
appearance of conflict of interest. Put another way, it looks bad.
Consider: A police officer recuses himself, as most ethics codes require, on a
vote over police raises, but votes for a hefty salary increase for the fire
department. Problem? Or reverse it. The officer bends over backward and votes
against the raises. What if the firefighters deserved the money?
The situation introduces chain-of-command problems. Does the police officer get
a favorable schedule or other special treatment because he's on the council?
Wouldn't it look that way were there any change in his work status?
Members of local legislative bodies usually recuse themselves when matters
involving their departments come up. But this is a problem, as well. Residents
lose the participation of someone they elected to represent them.
A municipal employee who is elected to a full-time municipal office is entitled
under state law to an unpaid leave of absence of two terms or four years,
whichever is shorter. The town can increase the leave, if it chooses.
Mayor-elect Stewart indicated he would seek a leave.
Here again, if a mayor is on leave from, say, the fire department, any action
he might take involving the department could be viewed as feathering his nest.
So why allow municipal employees to run for town office? Proponents say it allows
employees to fully participate in the democratic process. That's hardly
compelling. They can vote, contribute money to candidates and otherwise take
part in the process. But when their participation reaches the point of conflict
of interest, common sense dictates that it be limited. No one is forced take a
municipal job or to run for office. State law once forbade municipal employees
from holding local office, but that law was changed and now specifically allows
them to run for municipal office. The law is inconsistent; it allows employees
to run for elective office but prohibits them from serving on boards of
finance, planning and zoning boards or inland wetland commissions unless
specifically authorized by the charter.
It's time for the legislature to acknowledge this as bad policy, and change it.