Prosecutor Mat Heck Faces Charges

Prosecutor Mat Heck Faces Charges

Federal investigators take exception with business as usual in the Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office

by Mark Luedtke

A three year long investigation by the US Office of the Special Council produced 9 charges of violations of the Hatch Act against Montgomery County Prosecutor Mathias Heck and 6 charges against his executive assistant, Greg Flannagan. Mr. Heck declined to be interviewed because this is an active case.

The Office of the Special Council (OSC) investigates federal officials who use their offices for partisan political purposes. In the past, Republicans accused Bill Clinton of violating the Hatch Act by providing sleepovers in the Lincoln bedroom and access to the President in White House coffee meetings. Today, Democrats accuse Karl Rove and other Bush administration officials of Hatch Act violations because of PowerPoint presentations detailing Republican campaign plans.

According to the OSC, Mat Heck is covered by the Hatch Act because his office received and administered grants from three federal programs, and some of Mr. Heck's employees, including Mr. Flannagan, were paid out of those grants. Both deny they are covered by the Hatch Act, but the OSC's website identifies many state and local officials who have been punished for violating the Act.

Mr. Heck's charges include:

• Influencing elections by pressuring applicants to attend Democratic fundraisers

• Influencing his own re-election campaigns by pressuring job applicants to support him

• Influencing his 2004 campaign by using Mr. Flannagan and others to gather signatures for his nominating petitions

• Influencing his 2004 reelection by pressuring Mr. Flannagan and others to attend Democratic fundraisers

• Using the Montgomery County Prosecutor's office website and newsletter to promote his re-election in 2004

• Influencing elections by pressuring his employees to volunteer for the Democratic party screening committee

• Influencing the 2004 Congressional election by allowing his name and official title to appear on a flier for Democratic candidate Jane Mitakides

Mr. Flannagan's charges are related, but include an email solicitation to all of Mr. Heck's employees from his prosecutor's office account and a charge that he used his office to help Mat Hecks' wife, Cindi, win an election for Municipal Court Judge in Vandalia. Both Mr. Heck and Mr. Flannagan deny the specific charges against them.

Even though these charges are not criminal, applying to an administrative court, both sides take them seriously. Montgomery County Democratic Party Chair Mark Owens blamed the charges on the Bush administration, claiming the charges were a partisan witch-hunt, but invoking the Bush administration is just to incite the Democratic base. A review of the OSC website illustrates that significant numbers of both Republicans and Democrats were recently prosecuted for Hatch Act violations.

But unlike other charges on the website, the OSC calls these charges “serious allegations”, and they warrant more space than most cases. Documented OSC penalties range from 10 days suspension to 6 months debarment from seeking government employment.

Mr. Heck does not deny the physical evidence against him: the website and newsletter announcing his re-election, administered by Mr. Flannagan, or the email from Mr. Flannagan soliciting volunteers from the prosecutor's office “to walk precincts and drop literature”. The defendants think using office resources and soliciting volunteers from Mr. Heck's employees is acceptable practice. And if they lose, the penalty imposed by the administrative court will be minor, but they will lose the ability to conduct business as usual, which is the real prize.

This case breaks down to a battle between business as usual local politics and democratic reform. Instead of changing his business practices, Mr. Heck chose to forgo federal funds. That's because business is great for Mat Heck. In office since 1992, he ran unopposed the last two elections. He undoubtedly expected no serious competition, if any, in 2008. Mr. Heck is the head of the National District Attorneys Association. His wife was recently elected Municipal Judge.

This case is less about violations of the Hatch Act than it is about the democratic process. Should incumbents be allowed to use their office resources, including their employees, for partisan political purposes?

Mat Heck, like any incumbent, gets a tremendous boost in partisan elections from natural mechanisms. His name is in the paper every week, if not more. He's invited to speak at events and hobnob with the rich and powerful simply because of his office. He has a record to run on, a record that every citizen can read in the papers on a weekly basis. He can call press conferences that inherently aid his ability to get reelected.

Isn't that enough of an advantage over any challenger? Should we allow incumbent politicians to also solicit money and time from their employees for their party, their campaign and other candidates? Our political system only works when voters have real choices. The deck is naturally stacked in favor of incumbents, and we shouldn't allow them to use the power of their offices to stack it further.

Crucial to this case is the difference between soliciting and coercion. Is solicitation fair to employees? Because of the power difference between an incumbent and his employees, isn't solicitation actually coercion? For the same reason, isn't discussing future political support with potential employees also coercion? If an employer solicited sex, that would be sexual harassment, and Mat Heck would prosecute. Why is it OK for politics? Isn't that political harassment?

I doubt Mat Heck does anything different than local politicians all around the country, but his success is testament to how well he does it. It'll be interesting to see if business as usual triumphs over democratic reform. Republicans are licking their chops, but Mat Heck has topped them for years. He'll probably do the same in 2008 even if he loses this case.