U.S.

OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 218 Washington, D.C. 20036-4505 202-254-3600

December 5, 2012 Mr. Sean Pope 10 Elmore Avenue North Providence, RI 02911 VIA E-MAIL: spope13@hotmail.com Re: OSC File No. HA-12-4705 Dear Mr. Pope: This letter is in response to information you provided to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) concerning allegations that Ms. Michelle Bergin violated that Hatch Act. Specifically, you alleged that Ms. Bergins candidacy in the 2012 partisan election for the District 16 seat in the Rhode Island House of Representatives was prohibited by the Hatch Act because she was concurrently employed as a staff attorney with the Providence Housing Authority. We reviewed this matter and have concluded that Ms. Bergins candidacy violated the Hatch Act. However, as explained below, we are closing our file on this matter without further action. Persons covered by the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. 1501-1508, are subject to certain protections and restrictions with respect to their political activity in order to protect the public workforce from partisan political influence and ensure the nonpartisan administration of laws. For instance, covered employees are protected from being coerced into political activity. 1502(a)(2). On the other hand, the Act prohibits such employees from using their official authority or influence to affect the result of an election and from being candidates for public office in partisan elections, i.e., elections in which any candidate is running as a representative of, for example, the Republican or Democratic Party. 1502(a)(1), (3). Covered employees are those whose principal position or job is with a state, county, or municipal executive agency and whose job duties are in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or an agency thereof. 1501(4). Employees are subject to the Act if, as a normal and foreseeable incident of their positions or jobs, they perform duties in connection with federally financed activities. Special Counsel v. Gallagher, 44 M.S.P.R. 57 (1990); In re Hutchins, 2 P.A.R. 160, 164 (Civ. Serv. Commn 1944). Although pertinent, coverage is not dependent on the source of an employees salary, nor is it dependent upon whether the employee actually administers the funds or has policy duties with respect to them. Special Counsel v. Williams, 56 M.S.P.R. 277, 283-84 (1993), affd, 55 F.3d 917 (4th Cir. 1995). After investigating the allegations set forth in your complaint, we have determined that Ms. Bergins candidacy in the 2012 election for state representative was in violation of the Hatch Act. However, because we had previously advised Ms. Bergin that her candidacy was not

U.S. Office of Special Counsel Page 2

prohibited by the Act we have decided not to pursue disciplinary action on this matter and are closing the above-referenced file without further action. If you have additional questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (202) 254-3678.

Sincerely,

Treyer Mason-Gale Attorney, Hatch Act Unit