A line separates governing from campaigning. It is not blurry, subjective or optional. Recently, it has been crossed by those entrusted to uphold it.
This is not political disagreement. It is systematic use of public office, platforms and proceedings to influence local elections. Whether promoting a candidate, attacking opponents or urging voters to oppose a recall, it crosses that line.
This should concern everyone, regardless of how you plan to vote.
The Law is Clear—Even if Some Pretend it Isn’t
Under California Government Code Section 8314, elected officials are prohibited from using public resources for campaign activity, including public meetings, official communications and taxpayer-funded time and platforms.
The California Supreme Court reinforced this boundary. In Stanson v. Mott and Vargas v. City of Salinas, the Court made it clear: government may inform, but may not advocate.
Yet we see supervisors labeling a recall a “scam,” urging people to oppose it and attacking supporters. That is not information, that’s advocacy.
Board Meetings are Not Campaign Stages
Board meetings exist to conduct public business, not influence elections. Three supervisors used the dais during a ministerial agenda, which typically has no discussion, to campaign against the recall.
When advocacy is delivered this way, it carries the weight of government authority. No longer just speech, it uses public resources to influence voters. Exactly what the law is meant to prevent.
And It Doesn’t Stop There
Crossing over to social media, a Supervisor that uses a Facebook page to share updates, provide information and communicate with constituents has created an official communication channel—regardless of what it’s called.
Using that page to campaign, label a recall a “scam” or attack community members raises serious legal concerns. The issue is not the platform, but use of public resources and weight of office. You cannot build trust through an official channel, then use it to influence elections.
Crossing Even More Troubling Lines
Recently, during another ministerial item at a board meeting, Supervisor Velazquez called out a project owner for supporting the recall, suggesting their political activity was tied to prior votes and implying it was improper.
This goes beyond campaigning—using public office to shame a private individual for participating in the political process.
The right to support or oppose a recall is fundamental. It must be free from pressure, intimidation or retaliation, especially from those in power. When that line is crossed, the message is chilling: participate, and you will be targeted.
This is About Trust
Elected officials can express opinions or participate in campaigns, but that needs to happen outside their official role, using non-government resources and without leveraging their office.
When public platforms are abused, trust erodes. When official channels are used to attack, participation is chilled.
When meetings become a political stage for messaging, the integrity of governance is called into question.
A Pattern that Cannot Be Ignored
These actions form a troubling pattern: campaigning from the dais and from official communication channels, and targeting individuals for political participation.
This is inappropriate and undermines fair and open government.
Public office is not a campaign tool. Public platforms are not political weapons. We deserve leadership that understands the difference.
Once boundaries are crossed, damage goes beyond any single election. It undermines confidence, discourages participation, and weakens a system meant to serve us all.
And that is something we cannot afford.
Mia Casey
Former Mayor, City of Hollister
