District 5 San Benito County Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz is
being scrutinized after sending a second letter bearing the county
seal to his constituents, this time accusing the former board of
supervisors of consciously leaving the new board with a county
budget $3 million in the red.
Hollister – District 5 San Benito County Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz is being scrutinized after sending a second letter bearing the county seal to his constituents, this time accusing the former board of supervisors of consciously leaving the new board with a county budget $3 million in the red.
District Attorney John Sarsfield said Thursday he’ll be sending the letter, along with a letter De La Cruz sent out last month, to the Fair Political Practices Commission soon so the organization can judge the legality of paying for the letters in a way that may have violated local campaign finance laws.
“All we’re doing is just shipping it off to the FPPC. That’s really their specialty; they’re kind of the experts on that kind of stuff, so they’ll tell us what to do if anything,” said Sarsfield, who has been clashing with De La Cruz since the district attorney subpoenaed 30 witnesses for a criminal grand jury investigation into De La Cruz’s campaign last year.
De La Cruz has also drawn criticism for sending his letters out on letterhead bearing the county seal, particularly from a group recently launched to recall him from office. But Deputy County Counsel Darren Bogie said Thursday De La Cruz’s actions were not illegal.
“It’s not county letterhead, it’s his supervisorial letterhead that was given to him for his own use,” Bogie said. “Each supervisor has the opportunity to use that letterhead to communicate with their constituents. There are some rules, like it has to be directly related to you as a supervisor and you can’t use it to promote a personal business or to campaign during your election cycle.”
And it’s not uncommon for supervisors to use their letterhead to disseminate controversial opinions to their constituents, he added.
“During Measure G, different officials came out with opinions on their letterheads, and there were people who weren’t happy about that,” Bogie said.
De La Cruz’s most recent letter was sent to all 2,000 households in District 5. The supervisor’s first letter, sent in early April along with a survey on the local job and housing markets, was sent to 1,200 randomly selected households.
“I sent one to each household (this time) because every voter in my constituency needs to be informed about what’s going on,” De La Cruz said Thursday. “I just want to educate the public that if we continue to go at the current pace, we won’t be able to meet expenditures.”
While De La Cruz and his campaign manager Ignacio Velazquez insist the letter was sent out simply so the supervisor could communicate with his constituents, and say the printing and mailing costs for both letters came entirely out of De La Cruz’s pocket, others still have doubts about the legitimacy of the mailer.
“What is this letter trying to say?” asked former District 5 Supervisor Bob Cruz, whom De La Cruz beat by 10 votes in last March’s election amid accusations of voter fraud. “That (the prior board) has been deceiving its constituents?”
After stating there is a $3 million deficit in the county budget, De La Cruz’s most recent letter states that “I, along with the other new supervisors, have been working hard to turn this county around.” It then accuses the prior board of trying to “stop our progress.”
“Previously, these individuals did everything possible to steal the election including fabricating outrageous lies,” the letter continues. “… Like many of you, I wish these people would accept their defeat and move on with life. Instead, they want to spend tens of thousands of your tax dollars to keep me from delivering on my promises.”
After De La Cruz sent his first constituent letter in April, Sarsfield said his office would be looking into the possibility the supervisor had violated new local campaign finance laws by accepting more than $250 from a single organization. At the foot of De La Cruz’s first letter is a note stating the mailer was paid for by Housing Opportunity Project Employment, a one-man organization De La Cruz founded. This may have been a violation of local campaign finance law if De La Cruz got more than $250 from the HOPE organization, according to Sarsfield. In turn, that could be a violation of De La Cruz’s probation for obstructing or delaying a police officer. As part of a plea bargain Sarsfield offered the supervisor in lieu of prosecuting for four felony and three misdemeanor charges related to accusations of election fraud last March, De La Cruz plead no contest in January to the charges of obstructing an officer.
Still, Velazquez said he and De La Cruz are not worried Sarsfield’s investigation will prove any wrongdoing on the supervisor’s part.
“During the campaign, Jaime was going around saying ‘Listen, this county’s having financial problems and no one wants to admit it.’ He looked at some of the papers and figured this out,” Velazquez said Thursday. “I think he’s pointing out that hey, listen, I’m here to do a job. We can’t just keep covering it up and saying ‘oh we’re fine’ when we’re really not. So when in the next few years we’re running several million dollars in the red, people are going to say it’s all your fault. But he’s saying no, it was there before. Four months into office, are people going to say the new board is responsible for this?”
Jessica Quandt covers politics for the Free Lance. Reach her at 831-637-5566 ext. 330 or at [email protected].
