Lea este artículo en español aquí.
In a move aimed at enhancing transparency on efforts to influence city officials, Hollister is pursuing adoption of an ordinance that requires lobbyists to register with the city and identify their clients.
The Hollister City Council considered a report on the issue during its meeting on Aug. 18 and also approved responses to the 2024-25 Civil Grand Jury report on a couple of items.
Regarding the lobbyist proposal, Councilmember Rudy Picha said, “Anytime you increase accountability and transparency is good for public perception. It’s a great step forward to make sure that if people are going to lobby and want to steer decisions that we know who is doing it and why.”
A draft ordinance presented to the City Council as part of the report defines four types of lobbyists.
The first includes individuals or organizations paid $1,000 or more to lobby for three consecutive months on behalf of a client.
The second covers employees lobbying on their employer’s behalf.
The third defines expenditure lobbyists as organizations or individuals who spend $5,000 or more in a calendar year on public relations or advertising, or soliciting people to communicate with city officials to influence a legislative action.
The final category includes land use lobbyists who are defined as a person spending $5,000 in a 12-month period attempting to influence land use decisions, or who spends 10 or more hours attempting to influence land use decisions.
Under the proposal, lobbyists would be required to register with the city within 10 days of entering into a contract with a client and to provide quarterly reports.
The city would charge a registration fee of $250 and an annual renewal fee of $125.
The draft ordinance also requires lobbyists to identify themselves and their clients before addressing city boards or city representatives.
In February, Hollister City Councilmember Rolan Resendiz requested the city to follow the county’s example in adopting such an ordinance. The county adopted a lobbyist ordinance in October 2024.
This is not the first ordinance city officials have considered in an effort to improve transparency.
In 2021, the city adopted a resolution requiring City Council candidates to report contributions of $1 or more and limit annual contributions to $250 per donor. The council rescinded that resolution in 2024 and opted to follow state guidelines, which requires naming donors of $100 or more and a limit of $5,500 per donor.
Both policies are a reflection of years-long unsubstantiated claims that council members are funded by developers.
During the two years Mia Casey was mayor, Resendiz constantly accused the board of being funded by developers, without evidence. The brunt of those allegations were directed at Casey and Councilmember Dolores Morales. Before that, Resendiz directed similar attacks at former council members Honor Spencer and Carol Lenoir.
BenitoLink has previously reported campaign contributions for Casey and Morales. Casey received $750 from local developers, which she returned. Morales received $750 from the same developers.
City Clerk Jennifer Woodworth said the next step is for the city to hold a public hearing to introduce the ordinance.
Civil Grand Jury
The council’s responses to the Civil Grand Jury involved reports on the city’s professional services contracting process and the animal shelter.
The grand jury is convened annually and composed of 19 citizens who are sworn in to investigate the operations of various government departments and agencies.
The city agreed with the grand jury’s recommendation for staff to formalize and unify the process to administer contracts and receive training at least annually.
And the city said the recommendation has been implemented.
“The City recognizes that prior decisions, made during a period of administrative transition and
staff turnover, resulted in procedural inconsistencies,” the city’s response states. “We recognize that some contract amendments may not have received the full level of review and City Council oversight they warranted under our established protocols.”
The grand jury also recommended that staff provide written quarterly updates on contracts worth more than $150,000 to the City Council. The city, however, said its code does not require staff to provide contract updates, but has “proactively implemented measures to improve contract oversight and transparency.”
Regarding the animal shelter, the grand jury recommended the city conduct an audit of the animal services in order to update a month-to-month agreement with the county. It also found that the animal shelter does not have an on-site veterinarian or vet tech and lacks proper shade for the outdoor dog exercise area.
The city agreed with the findings and said it is working on evaluating its services and will work with the county to update their agreement. It also said that a need for a veterinarian has been “recognized” for several years, but “financial constraints” have made it difficult to hire and retain staff for that position.
As for the shaded area, the city said it agrees additional structures would enhance the area’s functionality and comfort and that it will look for funding sources to implement the recommendation.
We need your help. Support local, nonprofit news! BenitoLink is a nonprofit news website that reports on San Benito County. Our team is committed to this community and providing essential, accurate information to our fellow residents. It is expensive to produce local news and community support is what keeps the news flowing. Please consider supporting BenitoLink, San Benito County’s public service, nonprofit news.