HANCOCK - A campaign appeal posted on the town of Hancock’s official Facebook page this week has prompted objections from residents and a reminder of longstanding New York rules that bar public officials from using government resources for electioneering.
The message, which appeared on or about Oct. 19–20 and encouraged voters to support incumbent town Supervisor Jerry Vernold in the November 2025 general election, was flagged to the town clerk and the supervisor in an Oct. 21 email requesting comment from the supervisor and town board.
In a brief written reply, Vernold acknowledged the problem.
“I know you’re not suppose to do this, but apparently somehow I did. Anyway, I just believed I trashed it so if you could check and see if it’s gone, I’d appreciate it,” he wrote, adding, “I apologize and thanks for pointing this out.”
A subsequent check showed the post was removed from the town page. As of publication time, no council member had responded as to whether the board had approved its placement on the municipal account.
Where campaigning meets the public dime
While New York’s statutes do not contain a single sentence that says “no campaigning on town social media,” state law and guidance - together with court decisions - draw a clear line: taxpayer-funded platforms are for information, not advocacy.
General Municipal Law §805-a(1)(b) prohibits officers and employees from using their position to secure “unwarranted privileges or exemptions.” Leveraging an official town channel to boost a personal campaign is commonly viewed as such a privilege.
General Municipal Law §806 requires municipalities to adopt a code of ethics. Many local codes explicitly forbid using public resources—computers, websites, staff time, and social media - for political purposes.
Civil Service Law §107 (often called New York’s “Little Hatch Act”) bars public employees from using official authority or influence to affect an election’s outcome.
In Phillips v. Maurer (1986), New York’s highest court held that public funds may not be used to “exhort the electorate” to vote for a particular position or candidate. Since then, the State Comptroller has repeatedly advised that official newsletters, websites, and similar communications must remain strictly informational.
The practical test is straightforward: posts about meeting times, budget hearings, road closures, public health updates, grant announcements, and factual summaries of board actions are permissible. Overt electioneering - “vote for,” “re-elect,” endorsements, fundraising links, or campaign slogans - belongs on campaign pages, not municipal ones.
Separately, documents Vernold provided to The Reporter on Sept. 9 show that he filed a written ethics complaint with the Delaware County Republican Committee concerning former Hancock Republican Committee Chairperson David “Dave” Rubera. The complaint - submitted on Town of Hancock letterhead - states that Vernold was filing the complaint “as town supervisor and as a member of the Hancock Republican Committee,” and alleges, among other points, that the local political committee has not met since last year and has “steadily deteriorated” under Rubera’s leadership.
In a statement in late September, newly elected county GOP Chair Josh Morgan said the complaint was not proceeding further. Vernold lost the Republican primary to Rubera in June and is seeking reelection on the Conservative Party line; both candidates also appear on an independent ballot line in November.
Social media’s gray areas—and how towns avoid them
The incident underscores a familiar challenge for small towns that manage official pages with limited staff and evolving practices. Experts generally recommend that municipalities:
• Adopt (or update) a written social media policy that states accounts are for non-partisan, informational use only.
• Limit posting permissions to designated employees; require secondary review for content touching on elections or ballot questions.
• Separate campaign and official communications - even when the official is the account’s most active user.
• Preserve records and corrections: if an improper post appears, remove it promptly, document the action, and, where appropriate, acknowledge the correction.
Those steps, combined with periodic training tied to the town’s ethics code, help reduce inadvertent violations and maintain public trust.
What happens next in Hancock
It is not yet clear whether the town council will take any action regarding the Facebook post, or whether the town will review its social media procedures. The initial inquiry to the clerk asked whether the message was posted with the consent of all council members or unilaterally, and requested comment “from someone or everybody on the town council.”
No response, other than Vernold’s, had arrived by press time.
To view enlarged image of email correspondence, click here.
