Councilman Mark Holmes is fighting allegations that he violated federal law by seeking elective office.
By:Lea Kahn Staff Writer
Despite allegations that Township Councilman Mark Holmes violated federal law by seeking elective office and may have risked his position as executive director of the Housing Authority of East Orange, he remains employed there.
"I love my job and I am here to stay," said Mr. Holmes, who was re-elected to a third term on Township Council last week. "The majority of the (housing authority) board is supportive of me at this point. They have said, ‘Let the process happen.’"
Also at issue is a $480 campaign contribution from the law firm that advises the East Orange housing authority to Mr. Holmes’ re-election campaign, according to state election reports.
Mr. Holmes said he was aware of the Hatch Act, but he did not seek legal advice on his ability to run for re-election because he did not think it applied in his situation. At the end of the day, he said, it will be determined that he is not covered by the Hatch Act.
The Hatch Act prohibits employees of agencies that receive federal funds from seeking public office in partisan elections where candidates run as Democrats or Republicans. If an elected official takes a job in an agency that receives federal funds, he or she may complete the term of office but that person may not seek re-election in a partisan election.
Attorney Terry Ridley, whose Newark-based law firm of Hunt Hamlin & Ridley represents the housing authority, said Mr. Holmes’ situation was discussed by the board in closed session last week, but it had not taken formal action on his employment.
Two days before the Nov. 8 general election, the Mercer County Republican Committee asked the U.S. Attorney General’s Office and the Office of Special Counsel to determine whether Mr. Holmes, who is a Democrat, had violated the federal Hatch Act. Neither office has issued a ruling on the matter.
Mr. Holmes was named executive director of the Housing Authority of East Orange, which receives federal funds, in November 2003. He was elected to Township Council in 1997 and re-elected in 2001 as a Republican. He switched to the Democratic Party in 2002.
Mercer County Republican Committee Chairman John Hansbury filed a complaint alleging a violation of the Hatch Act with the federal Office of Special Counsel on Nov. 4. The OSC investigates possible violations of the Hatch Act and, where warranted, prosecutes cases before the Merit Systems Protection Board, according to the OSC’s Web site.
One possible sanction for violating the Hatch Act is to require an employer to forfeit a portion of the federal assistance equal to two years’ salary of the employee, or to dismiss the employee, according to the OSC’s Web site.
OSC attorney Amber Bell said Friday she could not comment specifically on Mr. Holmes’ case, but when the OSC receives a complaint, an attorney contacts the agency or authority to obtain copies of the budget and other documents to determine whether it receives federal loans or grants.
Generally, the executive director of a housing authority would be covered by the Hatch Act, Ms. Bell said. The OSC would examine that person’s specific job duties to see if he or she is someone who would oversee a federally funded program, she said.
Although Mr. Holmes claims he could be a candidate for public office because he works in one county and ran for office in another county, Ms. Bell said that is not true. The Hatch Act, which was enacted in 1940, completely bans affected employees from seeking public office in a partisan election.
Based on the OSC’s findings, it would decide whether it wants to seek disciplinary action, she said. The case would be referred to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which is independent of the OSC. The board could require the offending employee to be removed from his or her job but not from political office, she said.
In certain circumstances, the OSC will not refer a case to the Merit Systems Protection Board because OSC "does not believe" that the person would be removed from his or her job, she said. Instead, the OSC would issue a letter explaining the violation and why it is not pursuing disciplinary action, and also warning the offender not to repeat the violation, she said.
Mr. Ridley said the housing authority’s board of directors would abide by the recommendations of the OSC or the Merit Systems Protection Board. He said his law firm represents the housing authority and not Mr. Holmes.
Mr. Ridley said he was aware that Mr. Holmes was the mayor of Lawrence Township an honorary post he held in 2004 and he did not think that the Hatch Act applied to the executive director. Elected mayors are exempt from the law.
Also, virtually all of the neighboring municipalities near East Orange are non-partisan their elected officials do not run for office as Democrats or Republicans, Mr. Ridley said. It did not occur to him that Lawrence might be a partisan town, he said.
The issue of pay-to-play in which a professional or a contractor makes a donation to a political campaign and expects a contract in return has been an issue in recent Township Council elections.
Mr. Ridley, whose 10-member firm has represented the Housing Authority of East Orange since 1995, said the law firm made a contribution of $480 to Mr. Holmes’ re-election campaign in July.
The donation, which was reported on the campaign finance form required by the state Election Law Enforcement Commission, was for the cost of four tickets to a golf outing and fundraiser for the campaign.
Mr. Ridley said the law firm receives solicitations from elected officials and it is not uncommon for the law firm to support those officials. He said he was unaware until recently of the contribution made to Mr. Holmes’ campaign. He added that he does not play golf and did not attend the event.
The donation has no effect on his law firm’s ability to perform its job in representing the housing authority, Mr. Ridley said. There is no connection between the donation and the fact that the law firm represents the authority, he said, adding that a contract for the law firm is awarded by the housing authority’s board of directors not by the executive director.
He explained that each year, the board seeks requests for proposals from law firms. The board of directors appoints a subcommittee to review the proposals, and the subcommittee makes its recommendation to the executive director, he said. The executive director, in turn, makes that recommendation to the full board of directors for action.
Hunt Hamlin & Ridley has applied each year since 1995 and it has been chosen to represent the authority, he said. Since its appointment to serve as the housing authority’s law firm, there have been "three or four" executive directors, he added.
When asked about the contribution from law firm, Mr. Holmes said he did not know how the law firm was asked to donate to the fundraising event.

