Another Baron Lie: Of Constituent Casework, Congressional Offices, & Salaries

From Baron Hill’s response to Mike Sodrel’s initiative for a positive campaign and town hall debates across the district:

I am also disappointed that at this stage in the campaign you still have not explained to the people of Southern Indiana why after the last election you closed your official offices early. This left Hoosier families without congressional representation. You also refused to transfer constituent casework, all the while continuing to collect taxpayer’s money in the form of salaries for you and your staff. Quite honestly, I believe this is a poor reflection of your real desire to be a public servant.

When you apologize for closing the offices early, abandoning the citizens of Indiana’s Ninth Congressional Distict and taking a salary for work that you did not complete, we can then sit down and have a productive conversation about the campaign.

These are particularly egregious lies that Baron has been peddling ever since late 2006. They are manifestly and demonstrably untrue, and are a distortion of history.

First of all, regulations set by the General Services Administration require the vacating of “satellite” Congressional offices within the district well before a defeated Congressman leaves office, usually by December 1st. The phone lines to these offices are cut, the office furniture in them is moved out, and rent and utility payments are concluded.

Those offices are closed not by the wish of the defeated Congressman, but by the edict of a government agency and some Federal bureaucrats over which the defeated Congressman has no control. Baron should be familiar with this; his offices were ordered to be vacated by the GSA in 2004, just as Sodrel’s were in 2006.

(Read more after the leap)

It might be an interesting thing to take a look at the dates when Baron Hill’s offices were closed in 2004.

The operative example has Baron put forth in the past involving these spurious claims centers around Sodrel’s office in Seymour and is based upon something quoted in the Seymour Tribune.

Given the circumstances under which that office had to be closed (i.e. under the mandate of government bureaucrats), it is particularly telling to note that Mike Sodrel actually had a Congressional office in Seymour. Baron Hill, who is from Seymour, does not today have an office there, as noted on his own official website.

While the office in Seymour may have been forced to close early by the dictates of the GSA, Mike Sodrel cared enough about his constituents in Seymour and in Jackson County to actually have an office there. Baron Hill, who is from that area, has not even cared enough to have an office in Seymour and in Jackson County.

Second, it is not possible to simply “transfer constituent casework” from one Congressional office to another. The government should be so efficient.

Unfortunately, something called the Privacy Act of 1974 prevents this from taking place. Had Mike Sodrel simply handed over constituent casework to Baron Hill (or vice versa) as Hill implies Sodrel should have, it would have been illegal.

When someone comes to a Congressional office to get them to do something for them with another government agency (casework), they have to sign a privacy waiver. That waiver allows the office of that member of Congress to act on their behalf.

Baron should be aware of this waiver; two versions of the form for it are available (here and here) on his website.

They both read:

I am aware that the Privacy Act of 1974 prohibits the release of information in my file without my approval. I give my authorization to U.S. Congressman Baron P. Hill, or his staff representative designated by him, to make proper inquiry on my behalf.

Note that the form says “U.S. Congressman Baron P. Hill, or his staff representative designated by him.” It does not say “the U.S. Congressman for Indiana’s 9th District” or anything of the sort. The form is very clearly unique to the individual holding the office.

Mike Sodrel’s forms were no different, just as the forms for every other member of Congress from Indiana, from both parties (Visclosky, Donnelly, Souder, Buyer, Burton, Pence, Carson, and Ellsworth), are no different. They all authorize an individual Congressman to act on a constituent’s behalf; that authority is held only by that Congressman and simply is not transfered after an election.

Baron Hill is being highly disingenuous in attacking Mike Sodrel for not doing something when that something is actually illegal. Baron probably didn’t do it in 2004, either (and, if he did, it would have been illegal then too).

Third, Baron attacks Mike Sodrel for “abandoning the citizens of Indiana’s Ninth Congressional Distict and taking a salary for work that you did not complete,” but Mike Sodrel did not miss a single vote between the 2006 election and the time that he left office in January of 2007.

Baron Hill missed a good number of votes after he lost in November of 2004 and left office in January of 2005.

Fourth and finally, you can tell a lot about the character of someone by how they behave in defeat.

When Mike Sodrel lost in 2006, the salaries he paid his staff saw a negligible increase from the third quarter of 2006 (before the election) to the fourth quarter (the period of and after the election). There was an increase of about 11% from Q3 to Q4 (but a change of only 2% between Q2 and Q4, so the change has more to do with staff changes than actual wage changes).

In contrast, when Baron Hill lost in 2004, the salaries he paid his staff saw an massive increase from the third quarter of 2004 (before the election) to the fourth quarter (the period of and after the election). There was an 84% increase from Q3 2004 to Q4 2004 (and an increase of almost 70% between Q2 and Q4).

The publicly-available itemization of staffer wages reveals that Baron’s jump in wages was due almost entirely to pay increases for his staff. I find it rather difficult to believe that Baron Hill’s staff worked 84% more in the last quarter of 2004 than they did in the third quarter of that year, or 70% more than they did in the second quarter of that year.

Indeed, it appears that, on his way out the door, Baron decided to give his staff a big fat raise right after they were fired by the voters of the 9th District. As I said, you can tell a lot about someone’s character by how they behave in defeat.

The record clearly shows that Baron Hill behaved much worse in defeat than Mike Sodrel ever did.

He has no grounds to demand an apology from Mike Sodrel for anything.

Indeed, it appears that it is Baron that should be apologizing.

Baron should be apologizing for lying so blatantly to the voters of the 9th District about office closings and about the illegality of casework transfers.

Baron should apologize for missing votes after he lost the election, when Mike Sodrel missed none when he similarly lost.

And Baron should apologize for effectively looting the Federal treasury by giving his staffers massive raises after Hoosiers sent him packing in 2004.