park123view 
Member since Jun 24, 2010


Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Maketa campaign reveals investigation involving opponent

As the amount of federal funds available for law enforcement has increased in recent years, the proportion of deputies in the sheriff’s office employed “in connection with federally-funded activities” has increased. So deputies wanting to run for sheriff may find themselves in a Hatch Act bind. What about the sheriff himself? Is his position not connected to federally-funded activities? It is, of course. But the Hatch Act by its own terms does not apply to “an individual holding elective office.” The sheriff may run for re-election. The chief deputy may have to resign if she wants to run against the sheriff.
(http://sogweb.sog.unc.edu/blogs/localgovt/…)

Shirk is campaigning and clearly is in violation of the Hatch Act. After reading this and the previous press release by Maketa's campaign, I looked into information on the hatch act. Amazing it clearly labels what Shirks has done his position and current desire to be sheriff violates the hatch act; therefore, he really can't run. Interestingly, it doesnt seem to me Shirk stands a chance at beating this alligation.

Posted by park123view on 06/24/2010 at 9:41 PM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation