Saturday, October 23, 2010

Kanjorski Cuts Children Education In Nanticoke To Campaign

A developing story coming out of the Barletta campaign.

On Friday afternoon the Nanticoke Area School District sent a paid robo-call
from their Superintendent into the homes of parents with children in the district.

The call alerted them of a political rally for Paul Kanjorski that is to be held at the Nanticoke Jr. Sr. High School on Tuesday afternoon. It also said that the children's education day would be cut short due to Kanjorski's political rally and they would need to make accommodations to get their children.

Here is information that can be found on the Allentown Morning Call website.

I would like very much too attend this rally and see President Clinton. At what time does this event start, and do I nee tickets? Thank you,George Mizzer
Posted By: George Mizzer | Oct 22, 2010 3:48:59 PM

George, here are the details:

The public is invited to attend the rally in Nanticoke. More details are available below and at

• Address: Greater Nanticoke Area High School gymnasium
427 Kosciuszko Street
Nanticoke, PA 18634
• Doors open at 4:00 p.m., line to attend starts at 1:00 p.m.
• No tickets needed for the free event.

Posted By: Colby | Oct 22, 2010 11:21:38 PM


1. Why were taxpayer resources used to make this call?

2. Why did the call (paid for by the taxpayers) alert the recipients of a
political rally and not just an early dismissal?

3. Does Paul Kanjorski think it is right to cut a student's education day
short for his own political ambitions?

4. Did Kanjorski think about the inconvenience and hardship his rally would
cause to parents who have to leave work early or pay for extra child care so
he can have his campaign rally?

Guess this proves one point. Bill Clinton never campaigned on family values.  You can't have prayer at a school but you can campaign.  Go figure.

Someone should remind Anthony Perrone, the Superintendent, about the Hatch Act. The Act forbids employees of the federal government, as well as employees of state and municipal governmental bodies and agencies that receive federal funds, from running for office in partisan elections or participating in political campaigning while working.

From the Missouri Attorney General website:

In Fort v. Civil Service Commission of the County of Alameda, 392 P.2d 385 (Cal. 1964) the California Supreme Court ruled invalid a county charter provision that prohibited civil servants taking any part in the political management or affairs of any political campaign or election. The court said at page 389:

"No one can reasonably deny the need to limit some political activities such as the use of official influence to coerce political action, the solicitation of political contributions from fellow employees, and the pursuit of political purposes during those hours that the employee should be discharging the duties of his position.

It is unfair in this case for the Nanticoke School District to force opponents of Paul Kanjorski to lend financial support to the his campaign by use of their Jr./Sr. High School building. I believe it is also illegal for school personnel to release public employees from ordinary duties during the paid working day in order to allow a campaign to be conducted on school property.

The following information was provided to school personnel in California.

District staff and Board members should always bear in mind the potentially serious civil and criminal liability that may result from seemingly harmless actions. There is no “de minimus” level of public spending on a partisan campaign that would be acceptable under the applicable laws and rules. School districts should take steps to make clear to employees that they are not permitted to use any publicly funded, District-owned equipment for any political purposes in connection with the election, including District-issued cell phones, the District e-mail system, District-owned computers (including laptops issued to staff and used outside the office), phones, fax machines, etc. There are rare instances where the line is less than bright. However, a good guide may be that if the District prohibits or even discourages use of such resources for private purposes or conversations, it should definitely forbid any use for partisan campaigning.

The Commonwealth Procurement Code Contains Some General Ethics Guidelines in Commonwealth Agency Procurements.
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act similarly generally prohibits the use of government staff, time, equipment, facilities or property for non-governmental purposes -- including business, personal or political purposes. Confidential Opinion, 05-001. See, e.g. Neff, Order 1498; Maduka, Order 1273, Heck, Order 1251, Holt, Order 1153 (business purposes); Moore, Order 1317, Meduka, Order 1277, Sullivan, Order 1245, Dividio, Order 1202 (personal purposes); Habay, Order 1313,Version: August 2010 Pt I Ch 60 – Pg 3 of 17, Order 1030, Rockefeller, Order 1004, Freind, Order 800 (political purposes).

Isn't that what Bonusgate was all about? Look at this Order by the Pennsylvania Ethics Commission against Stephen Freind relative to conducting campaign activity using his state office.

No comments: