Rockwall Voices Op-Ed
I have been asked a simple question many times: Can a Mayor and City Council use public resources to fight a recall election and get away with it?
It is a fair question that deserves serious discussion.
One important point should be made at the outset. June 1 and June 3 were the dates the recall election was certified and placed on the November ballot. That timing matters because the activities discussed below occurred after the recall election had officially been certified.
Some readers will disagree with this analysis. That is perfectly acceptable. However, our community should understand the political tactics that can arise during a recall campaign.
Let’s begin with a fundamental principle of representative government: public resources belong to the taxpayers, not to elected officials.
As I normally do, let’s examine what the Texas Legislature expects from our elected officials.
What Does Texas Law Say?
Texas law draws a clear distinction between governing and campaigning.
Under Texas Election Code §255.003, “an officer or employee of a political subdivision may not knowingly spend or authorize the spending of public funds for political advertising.” A violation of the statute may constitute a Class A misdemeanor.
The Texas Ethics Commission has further explained that the prohibition extends beyond writing checks. Government resources, including equipment, facilities, internet connections, employee work time, and other taxpayer-funded assets may not be used to create, distribute, or promote political advertising.
Texas law does allow government entities to provide factual and informational communications. However, those communications must remain informational rather than promotional and cannot advocate for or against a candidate, public officer, recall effort, or ballot measure.
This distinction is especially important during a recall election.
Let’s also be clear. A Mayor and City Council have every right to campaign as private citizens. They may organize supporters, raise funds, purchase political advertising, attend political events, and defend their records in office.
What they may not do is use taxpayer-funded resources to influence the outcome of an election.
If an activity would not have occurred but for the pending recall election, and public resources are being used in a manner that politically benefits elected officials, citizens may reasonably ask whether the line between governing and campaigning has been crossed.
The Power of Town Hall Meetings
We absolutely need our elected representatives to hold town hall meetings and answer critical questions from our community.
However, the last Fate town hall meeting was held in April 2025, more than a year ago. If the five scheduled town hall meetings are limited to city business, that is appropriate. If the recall election becomes part of the discussion, however, the event is no longer simply a town hall meeting it becomes a campaign event.
This distinction is also important for the churches hosting these meetings, as campaign events may require disclosure as campaign expenses.
A side note: having a quorum of the City Council present at a Mayor’s town hall meeting is a really bad idea, particularly if city business is discussed.
The Power of Community Events
Community events are intended to bring residents together, celebrate our shared history, and strengthen civic pride. During a recall election, however, voters may reasonably ask whether highly visible participation in taxpayer-supported events provides a political benefit to elected officials facing recall.
A recent example is the last-minute participation in the City of Rockwall Fourth of July Parade. The parade is a worthwhile celebration of our nation’s 250th birthday. The issue is not the event itself. The question is whether governmental resources are being used in ways that provide elected officials with a political advantage during a pending recall election.
Timing also matters. Activities that were not priorities before a recall election sometimes become priorities afterward. While timing alone does not establish wrongdoing, citizens may reasonably ask whether those activities are driven by governmental necessity or political considerations.
The Power of Political Party Resources
Political parties funding exist to recruit candidates, educate voters, and conduct Get-Out-The-Vote efforts.
Separate from the use of governmental resources, questions may also arise when party resources are used to defend elected Republican officials facing recall, particularly if those resources are unavailable to other Republicans in the election.
Citizens should expect transparency and accountability from both elected officials and political organizations.
The Power of the Agenda
Control of the City Council agenda is one of the most powerful tools available to elected officials.
Placing vague agenda items on the agenda, limiting public discussion of ethics complaints, controlling the release of public information, and reducing transparency can all influence public perception during a recall campaign.
In Fate, questions have repeatedly been raised about agenda items that some believe created confusion surrounding the recall election, including the proposed redaction of a secret recording that had previously been released through an Open Records Request, along with the limited public discussion of ethics complaints convictions and outside counsel reports.
Voters may reasonably ask whether these actions promote transparency or instead limit public access to information relevant to their voting decisions.
Perhaps most troubling is the creation of a closed-loop process in which elected officials control access to information regarding ethics allegations or findings. Such an approach can undermine public confidence, particularly when those same officials are facing recall.
The Power of the Bully Pulpit and the Appearance of Impropriety
Elected officials possess a platform unavailable to ordinary citizens.
City Council meetings, official communications, city websites, social media accounts, newsletters, and public appearances all provide opportunities to shape public opinion.
Questions also arise when governmental authority is directed toward private citizens.
City Council members filing Open Records Requests involving private citizens, referencing the recall election during official meetings, and discussing the recall in public forums may create the perception that governmental resources including city-paid internet connections are being used in ways that could influence an election.
Government officials should strive not only to comply with the law but also to maintain public confidence. Even when an action technically complies with the letter of the law, citizens may question whether it complies with its spirit.
Public trust is difficult to earn and easy to lose. When the bully pulpit appears to benefit elected officials facing recall, confidence in local government can suffer regardless of whether a legal violation occurred.
The Enforcement Problem
One of the greatest challenges and weakness in enforcing Texas election and ethics laws is proving intent.
A elected official rarely announces, “I am using public resources to fight a recall election.”
Instead, questionable activities are often characterized as routine governmental functions, community outreach, constituent communications, legal consultations, or official city business.
Without clear evidence such as emails, text messages, social media communications, official records, meeting recordings, or witness testimony demonstrating that public resources were knowingly used for political purposes enforcement can be difficult.
As a result, some activities may never result in a legal finding, even though voters may reasonably question whether they serve a legitimate governmental purpose.
Final Thoughts
The issue is not whether elected officials have the right to defend themselves politically. They absolutely do.
The question is whether they are using the powers, influence, power, and resources of government to do so.
So let’s return to the original question:
Can a Mayor and City Council use public resources to fight a recall election and get away with it?
Texas law clearly prohibits the use of public funds and public resources for political advertising and campaign purposes. However, proving a violation can be difficult because elected officials possess broad authority to conduct government business, communicate with residents, attend community events, seek legal advice, and perform their official duties.
The reality is that a Mayor or City Council will blur the line between governing and campaigning. Whether that line has been crossed is ultimately a question for voters, the courts, and, where appropriate, state enforcement agencies.
Ultimately, citizens must decide whether governmental actions are serving the public interest or are being used, directly or indirectly, to benefit elected officials facing recall.
Public office is a public trust bestowed by the people. With that trust comes the responsibility to use public resources solely for public purposes and to serve the entire community with integrity, impartiality, and transparency.
Our City. Our Choice. Our Fate.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official stance of The Rockwall Times. We encourage a respectful exchange of perspectives to enrich our community dialogue.
