Opinion ID: 1174938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prohibiting legislation

Text: The election finance law limits the political activities of public employes while on the job during working hours. ORS 260.432(2) provides in relevant part that [n]o public employe shall    oppose   the adoption of a measure    while on the job during working hours. Restrictions also prohibit the solicitation of public employes for political activity. ORS 250.432(1) provides in relevant part that [n]o person shall attempt to, or actually,    require a public employe to    give   service    to    oppose    the adoption of a measure   . Defendants submitted an affidavit and exhibits with their motion for summary judgment. The activities in which public employes engaged at the direction of public officials are not in dispute. Defendants explain in their affidavit in support of their motion for summary judgment that after an initiative petition seeking to repeal a city charter amendment to fluoridate the water supply had qualified to appear on the May 20, 1980, primary election ballot, approximately 16 county employes participated in the fluoridation project during regular work hours under the direction of county health officials. Employe activities included public presentations, preparation and distribution of written materials and operation of a telephone hot line, all of which presented the advantages and safety of fluoridation. In their memorandum in support of their motion for summary judgment, defendants acknowledge that the fluoridation information was purposely one-sided. They assert that in the professional opinion of the health officers only one side, that in favor of fluoridation, survives the rigors of scientific examination. The affiant, Dr. Lawrence, a former Director of the Department of Human Services of Multnomah County, stated that Multnomah County health officials consistently have advocated the implementation and maintenance of fluoridated water systems within the county for at least 10 years prior to this ballot measure. The county's application for federal grant monies, a copy of which defendants attached to their motion for summary judgment, contains the following statement: Despite the fact that fluoridation is both a public health and a political issue, it must be emphasized that federal, state and local laws prohibit the use of federal grant funds, or public employee time on the job, for political activity. It is the applicant's intent to apply grant funds only toward the provision of current, factual, and accurate information about fluoridation to the public. The grant application contains a summary paragraph as follows: A public that is largely uninformed about the purposes and benefits of fluoridation remains a major obstacle to its implementation in Portland. The political constraints imposed by State law and Multnomah County ordinance on public employees preclude on-the-job political activity. This fact, coupled with the very narrow margin by which fluoridation passed in last Fall's election, makes it imperative that every non-political mechanism and resource available be organized and brought to bear upon the public. Time is of paramount importance to the success of Portland's public information program. If adequate resources can be directed so that the public truly understands the purpose, costs, and benefits of fluoridation, then the desired political outcome should correspond with the desired public health outcome. Plaintiff, by affidavit, elaborates on the fluoridation project. He states that defendants placed pro-fluoridation advertisements in newspapers before the election but not afterwards, issued a press release announcing the Fluoridation Hotline and the formation of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Fluoridation, and distributed pro-fluoridation literature to many groups and organizations. Defendants do not dispute these facts. ORS 260.432 prohibits any person, which includes public officials, from requiring public employes to oppose    the adoption of a measure   . The statute contemplates purposive conduct and requires that the person who attempt[s] to, or actually coerce[s], command[s] or require[s] the public employes to act does so with the purpose of influencing an election.