This opinion was contributed by former Mayor Mia Casey. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent BenitoLink or other affiliated contributors. Lea este artículo en español aqui.
There is a line that separates governing from campaigning. It’s not a blurry line. It’s not subjective. And it’s not optional. Yet for the past few years, that line has been increasingly crossed by those we trust to uphold it.
We are not talking about political disagreements. We are experiencing the systematic use of public office, public platforms, and public proceedings to influence our local elections. Whether it is an elected official pushing a candidate, publicly attacking other officials running for re-election, or urging voters to support or oppose a recall or measure, it crosses the line.
This should concern everyone in our community regardless of how you plan to vote.
The law is clear—even though some local leaders pretend it isn’t Under California Government Code Section 8314; elected officials are prohibited from using public resources for campaign activity.
That includes:
- Public meetings
- Official communications
- Taxpayer-funded time and platforms
The California Supreme Court has reinforced this boundary for decades. In Stanson v. Mott and later in Vargas v. City of Salinas, the Court made it clear: Government can inform, but it may not advocate.
The most current and visible example of crossing the line are three supervisors who have been labeling the recall election a “scam.” Using their elected office to urge the public to oppose it. Attacking, shaming and labeling anyone involved or supporting it.
That is not information. It is political advocacy.
Board of Supervisor Meetings are not a campaign stage
Board meetings are to conduct public business, not to influence elections.
A few months ago, three sitting supervisors took over the dais during a meeting to speak against the recall during an agenda item that was ministerial, and would typically have no discussion. It was turned into a campaign session lasting over 30 minutes.
That matters.
Because when campaign advocacy is delivered from the dais, it carries the weight of government authority. It is no longer just speech—it is the use of a public resource to influence voters.
That is exactly what code §8314 was designed to prevent.
And it doesn’t stop there
The same conduct has also spilled onto social media, on steroids.
When an elected official maintains a social media page where they:
- Share road updates
- Provide public information
- Communicate directly with constituents in their official capacity
That page is functioning as a government communication channel, regardless of what it’s called or who maintains it.
Using that same platform to:
- Campaign against a recall
- Label it a “scam”
- Attack community members
is not just inappropriate—it raises serious legal concerns under the same standard. The law does not hinge on whether the platform is Facebook or a newsletter. It hinges on how the resource is used.
You cannot build trust with the public through an official channel and then turn around and use that same channel and the weight of your office to campaign and attempt to influence an election.
A More Troubling Line has been Crossed
Perhaps the most concerning moment came in a hearing during a Board Meeting last week on a development map—an item again understood to be ministerial only and not really requiring discussion.
During that proceeding, Supervisor Velazquez publicly called out the owner of that project for supporting the recall. He suggested his political position was tied to prior votes by Velazquez and implied such participation was improper.
Now we are no longer talking about campaigning.
This is using the authority of public office to single out and shame a private individual for engaging in the political process.
The right to support or oppose a recall is fundamental. It is protected. And must be free from pressure, intimidation, or retaliation especially from those in power. When that line is crossed, the message is unmistakable: Participate and you will be targeted.
This is not politics…it’s about trust
Elected officials are not prohibited from having opinions. They are not silenced from participating in campaigns. But they must do so outside of their official role, using non-government resources, and without leveraging the authority of their office.
That’s the line.
Because when public platforms are used to campaign, it erodes trust. When official channels are used to attack, it chills participation. And when the dais becomes a stage for political messaging and threats or intimidation, the integrity of governance itself is called into question.
A pattern that cannot be ignored
Taken individually, each action is concerning, but together they form a troubling pattern:
- Campaigning from the dais
- Campaigning from official communication channels
- Targeting individuals for political participation
That pattern is not just inappropriate. It corrodes the foundation of fair and open government.
The community deserves better
Public office is not a campaign tool, public platforms are not political weapons, and we deserve leadership that understands this difference. It is one of many reasons this recall is happening: we have leadership that does not listen, respect or protect the public and their rights.
Once boundaries are trampled, the damage goes far beyond any single election. It undermines confidence in elections, discourages participation in government and weakens the very system meant to serve us all.
And that is something no community can afford.
BenitoLink invites all community members to share their ideas and opinions. By registering as a BenitoLink user in the top right corner of our home page and agreeing to follow our Terms of Use, you can write counter opinions or share your insights on current issues.