Bill Powers appears to devote New Castle County resources to campaign
While we already he know that his campaign is financed by the people who want to pave over New Castle County – now it looks like Bill Powers is also using county resources in his campaign.
Here is the FB page which is pretty standard.
It directs to a campaign page.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but “…NCCDE.org ” is an official county email. It is one I am paying for, and frankly I object to paying for an email address being used by someone who is loaded down with checks from developers.
Also – isn’t this what they got Tom Gordon for?
That email address is looking EXTRA ripe for a FOIA request!
That is exactly a New Castle County government email address which cannot be used for campaigning.
via GIPHY
While this isn’t having county staff on the clock making calls, it does demonstrate a cavalier approach to following rules.
Ken Woods paid John Cartier’s aide 3600 to work on his campaign. Do we know if it was on county time? Also, 100% of his donations are from development interests and not one single donation from anyone who lives in the district. Hmm
Oh lord. It is worse than I imagined. That “office” phone number rings to NCC offices, so a county employee is taking campaign calls for Powers.
….and it is all still up. I guess that puts a ding in the forthcoming, “we had no idea” excuses.
https://www.councilmanpowers.com/contact/
Order some signs to see if they’re delivered in a county vehicle. “We normally wouldn’t mix business with politics, but this time…”
To be fair, while you can’t promote your campaign using county or government resources, you CAN promote your government office using your campaign’s resources. Which is what it looks like we have here. Being that you were directed to his campaign page via his personal Facebook page, where he then asks that you contact him using multiple points of contact including his county contact, he is essentially referencing and providing information about contacting his official office for basic constituent issues, which is perfectly legal. If someone calls for campaign purposes, they would just be forwarded to the campaign.
That’s all very lawyerly and sounds plausible enough. Still… isn’t this what they got Freeberry for?
Not a big deal, but you’re adding facts to fit your claim. There was nothing on that web page indicating the contact info was for constituent services. The only “service” that was offered was for a yard sign. They’re not using a campaign webpage to promote constituent services; they’re using a campaign webpage to promote government communications as a means to conduct campaign activity.
Also, by the government communication merely being forwarded to the campaign is actually a continuation of the harm, not a remedy. What should happen is that the firewall between campaign and government operations be reinforced by replying to the originator of the message that they must contact the campaign email / office phone number themselves (btw: there was no campaign office # or email).
Even if we assume the best of intentions and noble conduct, it’s still problematic that they lacked understanding the gravity of avoiding the perception of impropriety, and they didn’t take the simple steps of *actually* creating a firewall between government and campaign activities.
Powers’ list of contributors speak loudly on the topic of Bill not “understanding the gravity of avoiding the perception of impropriety”.
Gordon and Freebery set up a phone bank, disguised who paid for it and staffed it with, IIRC, a half-dozen county workers at a time.
According to the Hatch Act, looks like Mr. Powers may have some issues…So this is what the Hatch Act is all about…running for office.
The Hatch Act restricts state or local employees from engaging in political misconduct. The Hatch Act Modernization Act did not change the federal Hatch Act’s prohibitions on coercive conduct or misuse of official authority for partisan purposes. A state or local employee is still covered by these prohibitions if the employee works in connection with a program financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants, even if the connection is relatively minor. A covered employee who runs for office would violate the Hatch Act if the employee:
o uses federal or any other public funds to support his own candidacy;
o uses his state or local office to support his candidacy, including by using official email, stationery, office
supplies, or other equipment or resources; or
o asks subordinates to volunteer for his campaign or contribute to the campaign.
If you have questions about the Hatch Act or the Hatch Act Modernization Act, please call (800) 85-HATCH or (800) 854-2824, or write to hatchact@osc.gov.
This is silly. Shady, but not illegal. Sam is right… Beach typed a bunch of words that I stopped following after while… so sorry if I missed something. Also, this has nothing to do with the hatch act. Lol not sure what that was about Leanne.
As you were..