A report released yesterday by the Office of Special Counsel (pdf) indicates that the George W. Bush White House violated the Hatch Act by spending taxpayer money to send a cabinet level official to Colorado to campaign for Rick O’Donnell in his 2006 run against Ed Perlmutter for what was then an open congressional seat.

The report, “Investigation of Political Activities by White House and Federal Agency Officials During the 2006 Midterm Elections,” found that “White House Office of Political Affairs (OPA) employees, as well as high-level agency political appointees, violated the Hatch Act through a number of practices that were prevalent during the months leading up to the 2006 midterm elections.”

The Hatch Act prohibits the use of government resources for campaign purposes.

The report found that the OPA, under the direction of Karl Rove, repeatedly violated the Hatch Act.

From the report:

On February 23, 2006, DOEd Secretary Margaret Spellings attended two events with Rick O’Donnell, a “Tier 1” candidate from Colorado who was running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. At the time, Mr. O’Donnell was Chairman of the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. The first event was a fundraising breakfast for Mr. O’Donnell and was classified as “political” by DOEd. Following the fundraising breakfast, Secretary Spellings attended an event described as “Remarks and Q&A with Rick O’Donnell.” This second event was classified as official. After the trip, DOEd determined that O’Donnell’s campaign was responsible for 35 percent of the costs of Secretary Spellings’ trip to Denver on that date.

A look behind the scenes, however, shows that Secretary Spellings’ attendance at the second event actually was intended to support Mr. O’Donnell’s campaign. On February 7, 2006, an individual from O’Donnell’s campaign staff sent an e-mail to Surrogate Scheduler McLaughlin with the subject line, “RE: Spellings event for O’Donnell on 2/23” using an e-mail address ending in “rickodonnell.com.” The staff member asked: “Do you need a proposal today? We definitely would like to schedule an event in the Denver area that morning.” The campaign staff member continued: “We are thinking a fundraising breakfast round-table and then we could pop into a school on the way to the airport . . . . Yes we definitely want her and I will get back to you with a proposal shortly.” Thereafter, Ms. McLaughlin e-mailed the campaign’s proposal to the White House liaison at DOEd, who, in turn, forwarded it to the agency’s OGC. The origin of the proposal, i.e., a campaign staff member, could be traced on this e-mail chain.

The campaign’s proposal, which was entitled “Proposed Schedule with Rick O’Donnell[,] Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives, CO-7,” began, “The following proposed schedule assists the campaign both with fundraising as well as earned media by playing to Mr. O’Donnell’s strengths as the Governor’s Cabinet appointee overseeing the Colorado Commission on Higher Education.” The proposal then outlined the itinerary for both events, listing the purpose of the second event as “Earned media.” The second event was described as a town hall meeting at a local school, where the Secretary would speak about “her priorities regarding high school reform” and “[reflect] on the important work Colorado is undertaking in this area under Mr. O’Donnell’s leadership.” OGC attorneys told the White House liaison that the introductory language “raises issues,” so the campaign subsequently submitted another proposal that was identical to the first except for the introductory language, which had been changed to read, “Mr. O’Donnell is the Governor’s Cabinet appointee overseeing the Colorado Commission on Higher Education.” As a result, Secretary Spellings attended the event and DOEd used appropriated funds to pay for it. Because this event evolved from the request of a candidate’s campaign to “assist the campaign” by earning media and highlight the candidate’s “important work,” it should not have been classified as official. Using appropriated funds to send Secretary Spellings to the event violated the Hatch Act.

…

Likewise, DOEd Secretary Spellings’ remarks, proposed by the campaign as “reflecting on the important work Colorado is undertaking . . . under Mr. O’Donnell’s leadership” at an open-press event should have raised a red flag concerning the real reasons for the event, particularly given the campaign’s statement that such an event would assist Mr. O’Donnell’s campaign by earning media. An agency official’s remarks, as well as all other aspects of an event, should also be assessed after a trip is completed to be sure that an event initially labeled official in fact included only official activities before allowing U.S. Treasury funds to pay for the trip.

The report from the Office of Special Counsel makes it clear that the Bush White House used taxpayer funds for dozens of campaign appearances by top officials on behalf of many Republican candidates.

In spite of the White House efforts, Democrat Perlmutter defeated O’Donnell.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Early this week, Douglas County informed the Douglas County School District that it would not be able to certify the election in time to swear in the new slate of charter school-friendly, Republican-backed, “reform” candidates for the next board meeting.

Mark Baisley, Douglas County GOP Vice-Chair and STEM High Board President

On Wednesday, a request was made to remove a key issue from that next meeting.

STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) High, a proposed Republican-promoted charter school, formally asked the Douglas County School District to postpone the decision to accept or reject the charter school’s application until the board’s Dec. 1 meeting.

STEM High’s board chairman is Mark Baisley, who was also one of the strongest backers of the new charter-friendly candidates elected to the board. Baisley is also the vice-chair of the Douglas County Republican Party, which also campaigned heavily for the new “reform” slate.

Baisley said STEM High requested the extension because it felt the school board needed more time to respond to feedback, some of which it received late.

“There are two sections [the board] gave us just recently, that were not given to us in the timing that’s agreed to,” said Baisley. “We’re not certainly complaining about that. We just needed more time to respond to these delayed requests in the area of the finance section and legal section.”

The district has not yet decided whether it will postpone the charter school decision, according to spokeswoman Susan Meek.

Technically a non-partisan race, the Douglas County Board of Education election was oddly marked out by the local GOP and its supports as a crucial political battle. The school board campaign featured an intense robocall and email push that, on deeply tenuous grounds, tied the candidates backed by the Douglas County Federation of Teachers to conservative hot-button groups and topics like the AFL-CIO, ACORN and President Obama’s health care reform. Two of the Federation-endorsed candidates, however, were longtime and active Republican Party members and are now disgusted by the politics that characterized the race. Colorado Ethics Watch filed a complaint against GOP-endorsed candidate Meghann Silverthorn, a Department of Defense employee, for violating the Hatch Act, which forbids government workers from running for partisan office.

Old board members who thought they had put the school board election and its ugly politics behind them found out this week that they might be required to attend one more meeting. According to Meek, Douglas County has said it won’t be able to certify the election until November 19 — two days after the next scheduled board meeting. By Wednesday, it appeared the district had decided to have the old board preside over the Nov. 17 meeting, and to swear the new board in at the Dec. 1 meeting.

Whichever board meets Nov. 17 is scheduled to vote on the STEM High application. Originally, it had appeared that the old board would preside over the proposed charter school’s review process and that the new board would vote on the issue.

Modeled on the Thomas Jefferson High School of Science and Technology in Fairfax, Va., STEM promises to set a “higher, more rigorous standard” and to focus on “basic skills in reading, writing, communication, math and critical thinking as the tools to success in later learning, life and work.” Partner high-tech companies will maintain a permanent presence on the school campus in order to “demonstrate how theory becomes profitable, applied science.”

At the most recent public hearing for the school, on Nov. 3, school district staff  indicated(pdf) that they had several areas of significant concern with the STEM application.

District staff noted, for example, that “the budget does not seem to align with the instructional approach,” pointing out that the proposed budget for technology and computers did not seem adequate to support a STEM school. Staff also pointed out that grant funding for the school was not substantiated “to any degree,” but that the school budget was not workable without such funding. Staff also noted that the school, in its budget, had assumed that the district would offer it a $100,000 line of credit, but that the Board of Education had not approved any such loan.

On the academic side, staff also noted, among other concerns, that the application had no reference to fine arts, a state requirement; that its proposed number of “highly qualified teachers” did not meet No Child Left Behind requirements; and that the applicant had proposed a graduation rate that did not meet the district’s current graduation rate.

In addition, letters of support for a 9th-grade start-up in the 2010-2011 school year were insufficient, and that there was no plan for increasing enrollment.

District spokeswoman Meek, however, said that it is common for charter schools to receive considerable feedback at their public hearings. Meek characterized the district’s feedback as “neither more than average nor less.”

This week, the school turned in the last pieces of its revised plan for review by staff, according to Meek. On Wednesday, however, it requested that its final hearing be postponed until the Dec. 1 meeting.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Over the past months, determined Republicans have worked to link the teachers union-endorsed Republican candidates to right-wing bugbears like “Government health care” and the Employee Free Choice Act and President Obama.

Monday, however, the Douglas County Federation, or local teachers union, returned fire in the form of a press release that makes a damning case that the local GOP has raised ideology over candidate qualifications. And Colorado Ethics Watch filed a complaint against GOP-endorsed candidate Meghann Silverthorn for violating Hatch Act campaign laws meant to keep partisan politics out of government business.

The underlying issues

Contributors at conservative blogsite Rocky Mountain Right argued that the teachers federation-supported candidates would ultimately demand unionization of charter schools. Observers at progressive blogsite Square State countered that the GOP-supported candidates planned to convert Douglas County to an all-charter school district, eliminate teacher contracts and appoint former U.S. Rep. Bob Schaffer, the failed 2008 Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, to the superintendent’s post.

Each side has also spilled ink accusing the other of unfair tactics.

On the “Moms Like Me” blog, candidate Kevin Leung — a longtime active Republican who did not earn the GOP nod — voiced his frustration with the Republican attempts to frame the race as a fight between the union liberals and GOP conservatives.

“My Party boss now has accused me to be a handpicked candidate by the union even though I have not received a dime of donation from the teachers’ union.”

Meanwhile conservative blogger and attorney Mike Robinson accused “the union and its cronies” of picking on Meghann Silverthorn because of her GOP endorsement.

“Meghann is a candidate for the Douglas County School board,” wrote Robinson. “She is endorsed by the Douglas County Republicans and shunned by the AFL-CIO and its AFT local branch. As such she has been insulted, branded and dissed by the union and its cronies. All this while preparing for her husband to go off and help defend this country.”

Hatch Act violation?

Colorado Ethics Watch asked the federal Office of the Special Counsel on Monday to investigate a possible Hatch Act violation by Silverthorn, whose website explains that she is a Department of Defense employee.

The Hatch Act — which seeks to ensure government offices are run fairly — prohibits federal employees from running for partisan office. While Douglas County School Board races have traditionally been nonpartisan affairs, Ethics Watch argues that the Douglas County race fails to meet that description.

“Even a nonpartisan election can become partisan if the candidate herself injects politics into the race,” said Chantell Taylor, director of the nonpartisan nonprofit watchdog group.

The move by the Douglas County Republican Party this summer to endorse candidates is unusual. The party endorsed Silverthorn as well as Dan Gerken, Doug Benevento and incumbent John Carson.

Material distributed this fall by the party has attempted to paint the election as a battle between four true “conservative” candidates and four union-tainted “liberals.”

The Ethics Watch complaint states that Silverthorn has also worked to “inject partisan affiliation into the race.”

“This is one of those clear cases, and those are rare, that’s for sure,” Taylor said.

Citing evidence from Silverthorn’s Twitter feed (pdf), Ethics Watch argues that Silverthorn publicized her GOP nomination, twittering that she was “honored to receive the endorsement of the Douglas County GOP for my candidacy for the Board of Education, District G.” She later twittered statements such as “Some R shocked that people 4 parent choice, transparency & accountability R organizing w/GOP help, but what about years of union organizing?” and “Can’t wait for R Block Party tonite: come meet my friends [other Douglas County Republican Party-endorsed candidates] Doug, Dan & John and support education reform!”

Ethics Watch also points out that her campaign filings show Silverthorn accepting $3242.25 in campaign contributions from the Douglas County Republicans.

For her part, Silverthorn — who is in consultation with attorneys and so kept her remarks brief — says some of the items contained in Ethics Watch’s letter to special counsel are inaccurate.

“What I can tell you,” she said, “is that I did not solicit the endorsement of the Republican Party. I was pleased that I got it but I did not solicit it.”

She also argued that the donation she listed on her campaign filing form documented the cost of a mailing sent out by the Republican party on behalf of their four endorsed candidates. Silverthorne said she listed the donation on the advice of an attorney, but that she had not asked the Republican party to send anything on her behalf.

“I didn’t see it until it landed on my doorstep with the mail,” she said.

Taylor said Ethics Watch had not heard yet whether the Office of Special Counsel would be investigating Silverthorn’s possible violation. If the office does find any wrongdoing, the minimum penalty is a 30-day suspension without pay. Regardless of whether she is found to have violated the Hatch Act, Silverthorn’s candidacy will not be affected.

Douglas County Federation alleges misinformation

Meanwhile, the Douglas County Federation, the local union affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers, released a letter on Monday expressing concern about “misinformation being disseminated in newspapers, letters to the editor, editorial boards, and from Douglas County Republican Party Chairman John Ransom concerning this year’s school board election.”

Apparently countering accusations that the union was a liberal organization, the letter explained that the union’s membership consisted of almost equal parts Republicans and Democrats, with the remainder unaffiliated.

The letter went on to accuse the GOP-supported candidates of ignorance regarding school board issues.

“In July of this year, John Ransom, as the Douglas County Republican Party Chair, endorsed four candidates even though school board races are nonpartisan.

“These candidates currently refer to themselves as the ‘reform’ candidates. These reform candidates have repeatedly made statements indicating a complete lack of knowledge about our district and its current situation.”

The union alleges that two of the reform candidates have called for site-based budgeting even though such a system was put in place at the end of last year. The uniuon also claims the reform candidates have repeatedly mentioned the need for a “Pay for Performance” program in the district, though such a system has been in place since the mid 1990s.

The fall election in Douglas County will be held by mail-in ballot only, and it is already underway. Ballots were mailed to voters Oct. 13.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.