The City of Centralia wants to send a “clear message” that the city, the city council and city departments do not endorse candidates for public office.
The news release followed an article in The Chronicle published Friday, Aug. 2, that detailed the Centralia Police Association’s endorsement of Lewis County Commissioner Sean Swope for reelection.
In the release, the city noted that the police association is independent and acts separately from the city.
“Per city policy, employees may participate in political or partisan activities of their choosing, provided that city resources and property are not used and the activities do not adversely affect the responsibilities of the employees in their positions,” the release states. “Employees are prohibited from campaigning on city time or while in a city uniform or representing the City in any way.”
The release goes on to state that city employees are “free to fully exercise the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment” which include “their rights to express political speech and to assemble and associate with others to pursue a collective interest, advocate for or against social issues, and endorse candidates.”
The clarification comes after the Centralia Police Officers Association officially backed Swope in his reelection over two challengers — Republican Peter Lahmann and Democrat Damian Bean.
The three candidates appeared on the August primary ballot, and the top two vote-getters will advance to the general election in November.
Swope and Bean were leading after initial results were released Tuesday night, though Lahmann was only 124 votes behind Bean with an estimated 1,500 ballots left to count as of Tuesday night.
The article, published Friday afternoon and printed in the Aug. 3 edition of The Chronicle, has sparked a series of questions about the move’s legality. A Facebook post from The Chronicle’s page linking to the article has garnered more than 50 comments as of noon Tuesday, with commenters questioning whether other candidates were interviewed and if the move potentially violates tax law.
