It has been a point of debate among Hollister residents and officials for years, but in June it looks like voters will finally get the chance to decide if they want a mayor elected by the city’s entire citizenry.
Hollister council members last week voted 3-2 to place the question on the June ballot: Do voters want to choose a mayor every four years or continue under the current system that involves rotating each of the five district officials in the seat?
Now it is up to those voters because council members have set their preferred guidelines – which include having a mayor elected every four years, pay of $600 monthly ($200 more than the five officials now make monthly) and security to return to council seats if candidates lose in a mayoral race. Council members’ vote came after a committee of appointed citizens helped to establish details associated with the prospective role.
The decision among council members was narrow, and that could point to a similarly close call on the ballot. Councilman Robert Scattini voted against the decision as it stands and had strong opinions on the matter.
“It’s not going to be any different than what we’re doing right now,” Scattini said. “If we’re going to do it, let’s do it right.”
Scattini and Councilman Ray Friend dissented in the Nov. 20 vote. Council members Pauline Valdivia, Doug Emerson and Victor Gomez supported it.
The current mayor in the rotating system, Valdivia, was all for it. Valdivia, entering her 14th year on the council, said she has long held that an at-large mayor is the right direction for Hollister.
“Having the mayor, hopefully it will increase working with other companies to come into the community,” Valdivia said.
The notion of electing an at-large mayor has gained particular traction in the difficult economy – primarily the lack of interest from outside businesses potentially moving here – but advocates also have contended it would add a more focused identity to the city, narrow the direction of the council and increase accountability among senior staff members.
City leaders for more than three years have officially discussed the idea, but it was held up in July 2008 when a hired demographer mapped out potential districts and recommended the city wait until after the 2010 Census to ensure there would be fair Hispanic representation in a four- or six-district scenario. Under the current plan, the mayor would act as the fifth council member and a tie-breaker of sorts with four council members elected by district voters.
Scattini has issues with the setup because he contends the city should employ a full-time mayor who acts as a manager on a day-to-day basis. He said it is unnecessary to have both a city manager and at-large mayor. He also said with a part-time mayor, the person likely would have to be retired – so that he or she has the time for the job.
Otherwise, he said, “I’d love to see a mayor.”
Of course, there has been that rotating mayor who performs traditional, mayoral duties such as attending ribbon cuttings and other events. Valdivia noted that the rotating mayor doesn’t have as many duties to perform as in years past.
“Being in that role, my year’s over,” she said. “It hasn’t been that active as it was before. There was more stuff to do. … Believe it or not, I was busy.”
Valdivia is confident the at-large role eventually would find more to do. Each council member had one appointment for the special committee on the issue, and she chose Aurelio Zuniga.
Zuniga, as Valdivia did, expressed some disappointment that nobody spoke against the idea at last week’s council meeting. The committee explored such matters as deciding how many districts to include in the question for voters. Zuniga said committee members examined other cities in the region and that all of the chosen communities already had elected mayors on board.
“It looks to me, that’s the direction where everything is going,” he said. “By having an elected mayor, you have a little more focus. You can identify with one person over a four-year period.”
