Aug 29, 2008 3 min read

In the cloak-and-dagger world of Fayette County politics, it appears the federal Hatch Act has become the latest weapon of choice, wielded by would-be character assassins. County Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink is the latest to be vindicated by the federal Office of Special Counsel, a place where people can anonymously file alleged Hatch Act violations in hope that something thrown there may stick to the wall. Someone who’s name is protected wanted Zimmerlink investigated, on the obviously politically motivated belief that she had violated the act by simultaneously serving on the all-volunteer Fayette County Housing Authority board of directors as well as being a paid county commissioner.

The Hatch Act basically restricts the political activity of people who work for federal, state or local government agencies in connection with programs financed by the U.S. government. The main provision of the act, passed in 1939, is to prohibit federal employees from participating in partisan political activity.

It is a real stretch to allege that because Zimmerlink served on the FCHA board, which clearly operates using federal funds, that she had somehow violated the Hatch Act. It’s even more ridiculous to assert that because Fayette County receives and disburses federal funds, Zimmerlink would be prohibited from running for re-election. If that were the case under the Hatch Act, no county commissioner could ever run for re-election.

The Hatch Act was also used as a political weapon against former Uniontown Area School Board member Tammy Boyle. Challenger Timothy B. Sandstrom initiated a complaint against Boyle, alleging a violation of the act because she also worked as an administrative assistant for Fayette County. And since the county receives federal funds … well, you get the picture.

Boyle lost her re-election bid before the charge against her was adjudicated in her favor. She labeled it “dirty politics at its best,” and termed it, “a very sad and low-down thing to do.” It was also groundless, since Boyle’s county job was not paid for by any program financed by a federal loan or grant.

Zimmerlink, who declined a third term on the FCHA earlier this year, was exonerated by the feds “because at no time (was she) principally employed in a Hatch Act-covered position.” For all 10 years that Zimmerlink served on the FCHA, that’s been clear to anyone with half a brain.

This isn’t the first time that Zimmerlink, as independent-minded public servant who accepts no campaign contributions outside her own family, has been the subject of questionable accusations. In 2002, the FCHA administration, with the backing of some board members, used tax money to pay a Pittsburgh law firm to research ways to get her off the board. In 2007, the state Ethics Commission ruled that as a FCHA board member, she had an “unintentional/technical violation” stemming from her estranged father’s status as a Section 8 Program landlord – even though Zimmerlink had publicly announced the connection many months (if not years) earlier.

Zimmerlink believes that she’ll be targeted again, because she doesn’t play the traditional political game. The sad part is, she’s probably right.