Special Counsel asked to explain law, Perkins case

Dan Kulin

Thursday, Aug. 26, 2004 | 9:45 a.m.

The administrative law judge handling Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins' Hatch Act case asked the U.S. Office of Special Counsel on Wednesday to explain exactly how the federal law applies to the top Democrat in the state government.

Perkins, a Henderson deputy police chief, and city officials have argued the law does not apply to Perkins because he is not paid with, and has minimal or no involvement with federal funds.

The Hatch Act prohibits federal and some state and local government employees who are paid with or work with federal funds from participating in partisan politics, including running for office. The Office of Special Counsel, which enforces the almost 65-year-old law, charged Perkins with violating the Hatch Act by running for office in 2002 and again this year.

In the Office of Special Counsel's complaint, filed June 16 with the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, which adjudicates Hatch Act complaints, the office said Perkins' police work puts him in connection with federal grants.

A statement from the special counsel's office announcing its complaint said Perkins' "primary job duties are in connection with grants issued by the United States Departments of Justice, Housing and Urban Development, and Homeland Security."

The complaint did not elaborate on that accusation.

In the order issued Wednesday, Administrative Law Judge William G. Kocol said the Office of Special Counsel, referred to as the OSC, "has not explained its position on the question of whether the Hatch Act applies to Mr. Perkins. Accordingly, OSC is directed, within 10 days from the date of this order, to file a brief, not exceeding 25 pages in length, setting forth why it believes the restrictions of the Hatch Act apply to Mr. Perkins' position. OSC should include as attachments any documents that support its view."

Kocol's order went on to say that because the only factual disagreements in the case center on the extent of Perkins' connection to federal funds, the case could be resolved based on pleadings and documentary evidence. The judge asked that both sides also say, within 10 days, whether they believe a hearing is needed.

Perkins did not respond to telephone messages seeking comment Wednesday. However, in the past Perkins has said he has no connection to federal funds and so is not covered by the Hatch Act. He has also said that he thinks the Office of Special Counsel, working under the Republican administration, is targeting him for political reasons.

Perkins' formal response to the accusation said the police department has received federal funds to hire additional police officers, pay for some overtime related to anti-drunken driving and other initiatives, and to help pay for computers that were put in patrol cars. But it pointed out that the city developed a Hatch Act Compliance Program to ensure Perkins was kept away from federal money.

'Mr. Perkins has practically no connection to any activity funded in whole or in part with federal funds,' the response said.

A separate response filed by the city said, "Mr. Perkins plays no role -- directly, advisory or supervisory -- in any portion of the process by which federal funds are sought or administered by the Henderson Police Department. Those responsible for grant application and administration do not report to Mr. Perkins, nor does he participate in meetings with respect to federal grant programs."

Office of Special Counsel spokeswoman Cathy Deeds said her office does not comment on pending litigation.

If found guilty of violating the Hatch Act, Perkins could be forced to leave his city job, or the city could lose federal funds equal to two years of Perkins' salary, which is roughly $130,000 a year.

Perkins is the second Las Vegas Valley politician to come under scrutiny recently for possible violations of the Hatch Act.

In April the Office of Special Counsel decided that John Oceguera's dual role as a Democratic assemblyman and a North Las Vegas firefighter did not violate the Hatch Act because his involvement with a city program funded by a federal grant was not significant.