SLO County Supervisor Bruce Gibson’s ploys aren’t over yet

December 15, 2025

T. Keith Gurnee

OPINION by T. KEITH GURNEE

San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Bruce Gibson’s attempt to hire both his wife and his hand-picked successor for District 2 supervisor as his county-funded office assistants isn’t over yet.

After finding that a prior ruling by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) would prevent Gibson from appointing his wife as a paid member of his staff, she will now apparently work in his office without pay effective Jan. 2026. While this raises a question as to what Gibson was thinking, it’s one ploy down with a big one yet to go.

That “big one” would have our county pay Gibson’s endorsed candidate—Jim Dantona–for his open District 2 seat as his personal legislative assistant by this coming January.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Surely Gibson’s proposal raises a set of serious questions that need to be answered by county staff and the SLO County Board of Supervisors before such an unreasonable request is granted.

1. Should the county use taxpayer funds to pay a salary for an announced but as-yet unelected candidate for a future political position?

2. Would such an action require the county to make a financial political contribution to such a candidate? Would such an action be legal? And has this ever happened before in California, let alone in San Luis Obispo County?

3. What are the positions of the county administrative officer and the SLO County Counsel’s Office on this matter?

4. Was Supervisor Gibson really thinking clearly about such an unprecedented proposal?

5. Perhaps most importantly, what would the other four members of the board have to say about this ridiculous request? Wouldn’t granting it reflect very negatively upon the board?

What should be done?

According to the county’s web site, the Board of Supervisors has a meeting scheduled for this coming Tuesday, December 16,  at 9 a.m. This may be the only opportunity for the board to weigh in on this important issue before the end of this year.

The full Board of Supervisors should use this meeting to pull this item and place it on this agenda for the following purposes:

• To address and answer the five questions outlined above.
• Vote to defeat Mr. Gibson’s proposal to retain Mr. Dantona at county expense by the end of this year.