Hatch Act there for a reason

This is a letter to the editor that I just sent to the local paper in Logan, Utah. Though more political than economic in nature, it does deal with underlying legislative conditions that need to be in place to design and implement appropriate policies.

Dear Editor

Ed Redd showed a rare level of insight and integrity when he recused himself from a public, professional assignment due to his political campaign for the state legislature, citing the Hatch Act. Though that Act most likely only applies directly to federal employment and political activity, the principle involved certainly applies to state politics. The point is, conflict of interest by those who governmental and legislative powers, given intertwining budgetary and administrative controls, opens the door to private malfeasance in public places. On the surface, it allows for a perverse kind of reciprocity. "You approve my budget and I will approve yours" can cover a multitude of sins. That is why the Hatch Act exists in the first place.

Of course, in our day and age, ethical protocol would call for a declaration of conflict of interest. In the case of state employees voting in the state legislature, much if most of what occurs would involve such conflicts and set up a bargaining regime among state-employed legislators and the instruments of government that could leave the interests of the people well off the table. How would reform take place in an environment where reformers and reformees are one and the same? Of course, this is the common practice, as the spirit of the Hatch Act has been quietly ignored in Utah for some time, particularly in higher education.

Richard Morris in his excellent 1973 book, Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny, points out a profound irony. The tiny colonial culture of early America produced a cadre of political and economic reformers that changed the world for the good in enduring ways, while we suffer in our times without equivalent leadership. So the Hatch Act Modernization bill, would undo yet another protective instrument with little debate or public outcry. The bill is presented in the name of modernization, which is, of course, an unassailable objective in our stilted mindset. I am surprised that it would not be called the Hatch Act Reform bill, because it would serve to reform one of our primary instruments of reform by eliminating it. This is how we think and act in our day. This is why we suffer from economic and political crises of our own making.