and sadly cops are very good at getting people elected who are pro-police and who give the police lots of our tax dollars. Original Article Scottsdale cops hit ban on political activity By Ryan Gabrielson, Tribune March 2, 2006 Rules prohibiting Scottsdale employees from any political activity in municipal elections serve as a gag order that violate their constitutional rights, police union representatives said. Under city code, public employees are not permitted to make campaign contributions, circulate candidate petitions or post yard signs on their private property. Such rules are intended to prevent political favoritism and protect the integrity of municipal elections. However, the Police Officers of Scottsdale Association, which issues endorsements during City Council elections, have had to tip-toe around the regulations to take any stand, said Jim Hill, the unions president. Everyones tried to how do I say it nicely skirt it, Hill said. When the union released its council endorsements last week, members could not explain the choices themselves, instead referring questions to Hills wife. In November, before the current race began officially, the City Attorneys Office issued an internal newsletter to all employees providing its interpretation of what the code restricts. While the ordinance broadly asserts that employees will remain free from any political activity in Scottsdale elections, City Attorney Deborah Robberson said the newsletter offered specifics. In a question-and-answer format, the newsletter stated that city employees can vote and, in their off-hours, express their opinions and attend political events to become better informed. However, that expression is limited to informal verbal exchanges. No employees have been cited for violating the code. It is enforced when complaints are made. We dont have a commission or a group of employees that are going around ferreting out or following employees to see what theyre doing, Robberson said. Scottsdale based its parameters of what the city can restrict on court rulings, she said. Theres case law that allows the infringement of First Amendment rights by municipalities in certain circumstances, she said. And theres a balance. Striking that balance has proven tricky. Many of these type of statutes have been struck down by the courts for violating free speech, said Joe Clees, a Phoenix labor law attorney, while some municipalities have loosened their restrictions. The federal government has repeatedly revised its rules, instituted by the Hatch Act. Federal law mainly restricts government employees from using public resources or from political activity when working. Arizona law limits state employees involvement in state elections, as Hatch does in federal races. Both allow contributions and campaigning for or against candidates during off-hours. By comparison, Scottsdales rules are pretty rigorous, Clees said. After reviewing Scottsdales code Wednesday, he said he was not aware of any previous legal challenge to similar rules. The police union did not raise complaints when the citys legal interpretation was released. Martin Bihn, an attorney representing the union, said they will take action against the code if an employee is disciplined for what is deemed a constitutionally protected activity. The citys interpretation makes a distinction between ballot initiatives and council races that does not exist in the code. Robberson said court rulings permitting speech restrictions deal solely with candidates, not initiatives. Hill said the distinction smacks of hypocrisy, as the city called on the police union when asking Scottsdale voters for a tax increase. In 2004, with the unions support, the city gained a sales tax increase to hire additional police officers and buy land in the McDowell Sonoran Preserve. They did not mind me going up to community meetings with my arm in a sling because I tore it open chasing bad guys, telling people, Yeah, Im a police officer here and we need a safety tax because we need more bodies, Hill said. Conflicts and confusion are common when it comes to public employees and politics, said David Merkel, general counsel for the League of Arizona Cities and Towns and a former Tempe city attorney. Theres no bright line between protected speech and nonprotected speech. Its like beauty, its in the eye of the beholder, Merkel said. When he worked for Tempe, Merkel and his wife argued over her desire to display yard signs in support of a council candidate. As she was co-owner of the home, Merkel said she believed she should have been able to use half the front yard for her purposes, a move that might have put him at odds with a future boss. I talked her out of it, Merkel said, laughing. Contact Ryan Gabrielson by email, or phone (480)-970-2341