I heard something interesting not too long ago, which I think you'll find interesting.

Congressman Walberg's staff has apparently been told that no vacation requests will be granted from January 1, 2008 to November 4, 2008. What's November 4? Why, it's Election Day!

When asked whether that meant Walberg's staff would be required to help on the campaign, apparently they were told that they couldn't be required, but, if anyone wanted a job next year, they had to "do their part."

Some staffers, from what I hear, already had vacation plans. They are not pleased about this. Apparently, they were told that as employees of a "targeted" congressman, they should have expected these kinds of sacrifices.

Now, I probably used the word "apparently" more often than you'd like, but since I wasn't there myself, that's all I can say. Considering what I heard from someone a couple of months ago about Walberg and his staff, none of this really surprises me.

So let's suppose all of this is true. What does this mean?

First, I think it's obvious that it's a low and very unfair move on Walberg's part. These staffers are working long hours for this man, and how does he repay them? He takes away their vacation! Personally, that doesn't sound like the kind of boss I'd want to have.

Is it legal? Honestly, I have no idea. I know that for executive branch employees, the Hatch Act applies (basically, government resources can't be used on political campaigns), but Walberg's staffers aren't part of the executive branch. Anyone out there know more about this than me?

But at the very least, I think we can agree that it must not be fun working for Tim Walberg.

UPDATE: An anonymous comment:

I recently spoke to one of his staffers about this and they said there is no such policy nor statement made. So, I'm not sure where you're getting your information. Especially when it appears this is completely false. I thought this was a serious website talking about the issues, not some rag spreading fallacious rumors...

I hope the fact that I bumped this comment to the front page as soon as I saw it restores a little bit of my credibility. If there is no such policy, then I apologize to Congressman Walberg and his staff.

As far as spreading rumors, I can promise I'll never intentionally or knowingly slander Tim Walberg or anyone else. I've done my best to maintain a high standard here, and I hope that I've been fairly good about admitting when I'm wrong.

But when someone comes to me with a piece of information and seems credible to my best judgment, I'll share that information on Walberg Watch. Might I make mistakes? Sure. And when I do, I appreciate being corrected, and I welcome any input from Walberg's office when I post misstatements. I oppose Tim Walberg and his ideas, but I do not wish to lie about my opponents or spread fallacious rumors. That's what his side does.

So, if this story proved to be unfounded, I apologize. At the same time, you are an anonymous commenter... so I don't necessarily have a reason to believe you either. Not that the comment isn't credible, just that I wouldn't entirely trust it, nor would I entirely trust any other anonymous information without anything else to support it.

All of this is a long-winded way of saying... here's a claim, here's a counter-claim. I'd appreciate any other information anyone could give to set me right.

Labels: 2008 Election, Tim Walberg, Walberg Staff