Perkins cleared for governor run

Wednesday, Sept. 14, 2005 | 11:06 a.m.

An administrative law judge has dismissed a complaint that Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins violated the Hatch Act by his duties as a Henderson deputy police chief.

The dismissal apparently has cleared the way for Perkins to officially launch his gubernatorial bid next week.

In his opinion released late Tuesday morning, Judge William G. Kocol of California said the U.S. office of special counsel, which enforces the 65-year-old law, failed to show that Perkins' employment had any connection with activity financed by federal funds. The law bars federal and certain state or local officials from running for partisan political office if they are paid with or oversee federal money.

The office of special counsel, which filed the complaint in June 2004, has the option to appeal to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board by Oct. 18. A spokeswoman for the office said staff couldn't be reached for comment. She didn't know if an appeal would be filed.

Tuesday's ruling is good news for Perkins' Democratic gubernatorial bid scheduled to be announced next week. He is set to face off against Sen. Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas, and Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson, who is expected to formally announce his candidacy by the end of the month.

Perkins and his lawyers have long alleged that the investigation was being spurred by a GOP administration pursuing a prominent Democrat.

Perkins said Tuesday he feels vindicated and that the case was such a decisive defeat for the special counsel, that he doesn't expect an appeal to be filed.

"I am glad to have this partisan witch-hunt put to rest," Perkins said. "From the start, I have said that the special counsel's complaint was absolutely baseless and did nothing but waste taxpayer money. The judgment is a victory for any police officer, firefighter, or teacher who wants to serve their community in elective office."

Eric Herzik, a political science professor at UNR, said the ruling helps Perkins put the issue behind him and that any opponents who raise it would sound like sour grapes. But he said Perkins would face scrutiny if he campaigned for governor and continued his job as a deputy chief.

"If you are going to run for partisan office, particularly if it is full time, at some point you have to leave government employment," Herzik said. "This gives him some breathing room, but it doesn't get him off the hook. At some point, he will have to take a leave or resign."

Perkins reiterated Tuesday he would retire "sooner rather than later" because it would be difficult to do full-blown campaigning and serve as a deputy chief at the same time.

Henderson officials have said they wouldn't be interested in granting Perkins unpaid or vacation leave to campaign, as he was granted this year to serve in the Legislature.

Knight Allen, the Las Vegas man who asked the special counsel to review whether Perkins violated the Hatch Act, said he believes Perkins and any other government employee who runs for elective office should resign. Allen, however, said he accepts Kocol's ruling.

"I am glad that it is finally over for him," Allen said. "He followed the process and has won. Let's move on from there. That is fine for me."

Kocol handed down his decision more than three weeks after he canceled a Sept. 12 hearing in Las Vegas in which he was scheduled to take testimony. Attorneys on both sides asked him to make a ruling based on their legal filings and depositions.

Perkins and Henderson lawyers argued the law did not apply to Perkins, who is responsible for police operations overseeing investigations and two patrol captains. They said he was insulated and his connection to federal funds used in the department was minimal.

The office of special counsel argued that although Perkins may have been kept ignorant of how federal funds were used in his command, it didn't sever his connection with them.

In his ruling, Kocol said the office of special counsel issued an advisory opinion months after filing the complaint against Perkins in June 2004 that contradicted the position the office had taken in Perkins' case. The city's legal fight to obtain those opinion letters in similar cases is what delayed Kocol from ruling on the case, officials said.

Kocol said the special counsel even mischaracterized several issues, including Henderson's program to comply with the Hatch Act.

"I further find that although the office of special counsel disregards the efforts by the department to shield Mr. Perkins from any connection with federal funds, those efforts must be taken into account," Kocol said.

"Instead of discounting these efforts, public employers should be encouraged to devise programs that seek to achieve compliance with the Hatch Act while retaining full constitutional freedoms for state or local employees."

Fighting the Hatch Act violation allegations has cost Henderson more than $35,000, which Perkins has reimbursed to the city through the use of campaign funds, officials said. Perkins has also used his own attorney in the case.

Steve Ross, an attorney with the Washington, D.C.-based law firm Aiken Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, which represents Henderson, called the decision an "unlimited victory" for the positions taken by Perkins, the city and police department.

"What this decision stands for is that there is a limit to the circumstances under which the federal government can dictate to the citizens of Nevada who they can or can not have as candidates for state or local office," Ross said.

"I think they said they were looking to read the law more aggressively than it has ever been read before. It was a mistake for them to pursue this matter. They ignored the original intent of the statute."

Ross said the law is intended for employees who have control over federal funds from using their positions for political purposes. Someone who is elected, for example, can solicit contributions by using their government job to help the donor, he said. But Perkins is so far removed from federal funding and programs, there is no connection, he said.