Rose/Farris Provide No Comment on Helicopter Use
SMITH COUNTY – Questions are being raised over the use of a Putnam County Sheriff’s Office helicopter after it was spotted at a political event in neighboring Smith County, and no one is providing any answers.
The Rose Family Fish Fry, hosted by Congressman John Rose at his family farm in Lancaster, TN, took place on September 20 and was celebrating it’s 5th year. This year, the primary focus was on Congressman Rose’s run for Republican candidate for Tennessee Governor against Senator Marsha Blackburn and State Representative Monty Fritts.
The event asked that you RSVP’d via JohnRose.com/fishfry. The link takes you to a WinRed landing page where donations are solicited for Rose’s gubernatorial run. To the average person, there is no doubt this was a political event.
During the event, which was held in Smith County, Tennessee, Putnam County Sheriff Eddie Farris was introduced as a senior campaign advisor and high school friend of Congressman Rose. Though this was surprising, the presence of a taxpayer-funded law enforcement aircraft at the event seemed more surprising.
The helicopter, obtained by the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office through the LESO 133 Surplus program, was manned by at least two deputies and its presence has fueled debate over whether this constitutes misuse of government property.
Critics argue that the appearance of the county-owned helicopter at a partisan political event raises questions of propriety and legality. On social media, community members have been outspoken in calling the situation inappropriate, with some suggesting it may rise to the level of a Little Hatch Act violation for Sheriff Farris or a campaign finance issue for Congressman Rose.
This is not the first time Sheriff Farris has come under scrutiny for blurring the lines between campaign and government resources. Just a few weeks ago, Columbia Uncovered questioned the Sheriff’s use of the Official Putnam County Sheriff’s Office Facebook page to announce his re-election bid. Some have suggested this is a violation of the Hatch Act, though that may not be the case.
The Hatch Act, a federal law limiting certain activity by government officials, only restricts political activity for federal employees and some state or local personnel funded by federal grants. It generally does not apply to county Sheriffs or equipment used purely for local and state purposes. That’s what the Little Hatch Act is for, a state law intended to mimic federal restrictions on the state and local level.
Though a thorough investigation would be needed to determine who paid for what, it’s unlikely that the use of a county-owned helicopter (and the uniformed deputies who came with it) would be available for any private political event like a commercial helicopter might be. The cost to rent a commercial helicopter is estimated to be as high as $6,000 – $8000.
Some citizens have argued that the use of the PCSO Helicopter is also a violation of local Code of Ethics put in place for Putnam County officials and employees pursuant to the Tennessee Comprehensive Governmental Ethics Reform Act of 2006 (TCA § 3-6-101 et seq.) which includes key provisions about the use of county property.
Under the Tennessee Ethics Reform Act and the Putnam County Code of Ethics, public officials are specifically prohibited from misusing county property, funds, or personnel for personal or campaign purposes. Important to note, Sheriff Eddie Farris has already had one 114-page ethics complaint filed on him within the last year.
While the full scope of the law’s application may be debated, the optics of the situation have generated significant public concern. At minimum, the incident has sparked larger discussions about accountability and transparency in the use of government assets. Whether or not this leads to formal action, the helicopter’s appearance at a campaign event underlines a longstanding tension between public officeholders’ official duties and their political ambitions.
We reached out to the Rose Campaign and Sheriff Eddie Farris last week to see if either could offer an explanation. Neither responded.
Observers will be watching closely for whether further review—legal or ethical—follows this most recent episode.
