Lea este artículo en español aquí.
BenitoLink has fact-checked three political fliers this election year. Two of them were distributed by the Hollister Guardians, which describes itself as an “all-volunteer coalition of Hollister residents.”
According to its website, which was recently updated, Hollister Guardians is led by co-directors Jasmine Rosales and Bella Rosales. It also states it’s a nonprofit that is fiscally sponsored by Ecologistics. Hollister Guardians also has a “sister organization” called Hollister Guardians Action, which paid for the latest flier. Its website does not list board members.
We published analyses of the Guardians’ fliers on Jan. 15 and May 31. In both cases, comparing the Guardians’ claims to the factual record showed that they lacked context, repeated previously debunked talking points or were objectively false.
The Guardians have responded with a new flier claiming they are under “attack” by BenitoLink and, specifically, BenitoLink reporter Robert Eliason. However, the Guardians have not disputed the accuracy of the articles or BenitoLink’s characterization of the claims in its fliers as being misleading or untrue.
Claim: “Mayor uses BenitoLink to attack Hollister Guardians”
The record: The Fact Check series was initiated by BenitoLink following complaints by residents who had received fliers in the mail and a subsequent discussion between reporters and editors over the amount of misinformation contained in fliers distributed by local special interest groups.
BenitoLink staff was concerned that untrue or out-of-context claims could confuse readers and voters. As a nonprofit, public benefit newsroom, BenitoLink decided to research the fliers and provide background information to help readers make their own judgments.
With input from Executive Director Leslie David and co-editor Noe Magana, the team chose the first three fliers to be fact-checked.
The conclusion: Untrue. Nobody “uses” BenitoLink. BenitoLink was founded in 2012 as an independent and community-responsive nonprofit news organization. We are editorially independent and do not answer to any political or special interest groups.
Claim: “Robert Eliason pretends to be an independent BenitoLink journalist when he ‘Fact Checks’ (attacks) the Hollister Guardians” and defends Mayor Casey.
The record: The Fact Check articles are not the work of a single reporter or editor. Each involves at least four BenitoLink reporters and editors and takes two weeks to complete.
The claims made in the fliers are checked for accuracy against official records including the agendas and minutes of city council and planning commission meetings and videos of the meetings themselves. City, county and state laws, ordinances and planning documents are researched and cited. In some cases, record requests were made to Hollister City Manager David Mirrione.
The Fact Checks include links to this information so readers can weigh the claims against the actual record and decide for themselves if they are true or misleading.
The Guardians’ fliers center on Hollister Mayor Mia Casey but also attack City Councilmembers Dolores Morales and Rick Perez by name and Councilmember Tim Burns by implication. Only Councilmember Rolan Resendiz, who the Guardians support politically, is not criticized in the fliers. The Fact Check articles counter the untrue or out-of-context claims made against Casey and the council, not just those against Casey.
Conclusion: The Fact Check articles are a joint project, and for good reason. Any potential bias from individual reporters or editors is subjected to a rigorous review. All rebuttals to claims made in fliers include references to original work sources. The Fact Check articles do not “defend” Casey. They look at the accuracy of the statements made by the Guardians in their fliers as a whole.
Claim: “Fact is, Eliason has helped Mia Casey in past campaigns”
The record: Two years before Casey’s 2022 run for mayor, both she and Eliason, as private citizens, publicly posted in support of Measure K, which included Rider McDowell’s Betabel Project, a plan to build a restaurant, gas station, tourist center and fruit stand near the Betabel RV Park, with all profits supporting research into pediatric cancer.
Casey asked Eliason if he could shoot some photos of a 2020 rally in support of the Betabel Project for use in Facebook posts, which he then supplied.
As a longtime local photojournalist, Eliason regularly offers the free use of photographs to sports teams, high school yearbook editors, nonprofit and community organizations and community projects. However, Eliason does not allow his photographs to be used by political candidates and did not contribute writing, photography, or money to Casey’s mayoral campaign.
In supporting McDowell and Betabel, Casey directly opposed Preserve Our Rural Communities (PORC). The Hollister Guardians’ positions, including false claims rebutted by BenitoLink Fact Check articles, have been supported by PORC founders Andy and Mary Hsia-Coron during Hollister City Council meetings.
According to Stacey Hunt, chief executive officer of Ecologistics, which acts as an intermediary for organizations that do not have their own 501(c)(3) status, the Guardians were introduced to her organization by PORC’s Mary Hsia Coron.
Conclusion: As a private individual, Eliason has the same rights as anyone to participate in the political process. BenitoLink policy restricts reporters from taking assignments where they have a conflict of interest and Eliason’s associations with Casey and Betabel disqualify him from reporting on them.
Claim: “Mayor’s husband threatens Hollister Guardians”
The record: At the request of BenitoLink, Jon Casey and Ecologistics shared the email he sent to Ecologistics. In it (see below), he addresses claims made by Hollister Guardians in a flier titled “$25 million Easter Gift,” saying it contains “misstatements of facts” and lacks “common sense and simple fairness.” The email also includes Casey’s opinion that there is a political motivation behind the flier.
In its latest “Silencing their critics” flier, Hollister Guardians state that Casey “sent a threatening letter” to Ecologistics “suggesting that he could report [them] to the IRS.” Casey’s email states: “I would respectfully request that you look at this organization and determine if it[’s] really worthy of your sponsorship and support, especially given their political leanings, which anyone with a 501(c)3 knows is not something you want brought to the attention of the IRS.”
Hollister Guardians also claim Casey is “violating our First Amendment right of free speech,” but Congress restricts political speech for 501(c)(3) nonprofits.
IRS regulations clearly state that 501(c)(3) nonprofits cannot “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” The IRS also says that leaders of a 501(c)(3) cannot make “partisan comments in official organization publications or at official functions of the organization.”
Conclusion: There were no direct threats made against Ecologistics. However, it’s up to interpretation and perception whether Casey’s statement regarding the IRS can be considered a veiled threat.
Claim: “Silencing the voice of Westside residents”
The record: In this claim Hollister Guardians state that Casey and the City Council plan to “censure (silence)” and fine Councilmember Rolan Resendiz. It is correct that the City Council has censured Resendiz but it is false he is being silenced. It is also false that the City Council is planning to fine Resendiz.
Casey, Morales and Councilmember Rick Perez moved on June 18 to issue a resolution to censure Resendiz after an independent investigation found that Resendiz had harassed Councilmember Dolores Morales.
Resendiz has been censured by the City Council multiple times. Censuring, in the context of government as defined by the U.S. Senate, is “a formal statement of disapproval in the form of a resolution that is adopted by majority vote.” BenitoLink did not find a definition of “censure” in Hollister’s city code.
It’s false that the City Council plans to fine Resendiz. Because the investigation dealt with a 2023 incident, the council opted to use the policy in place then, which does not include fines. The current policy does allow fines up to $500, as well as loss of travel and discretionary funds and the ability to be appointed vice mayor.
Hollister Guardians also claim Resendiz opposed the City Council’s decision to extend sewer service to housing developments outside the city limits. This accurately reflects Resendiz’s position. However, it is unclear which housing projects the flier refers to.
Hollister Guardians states Morales is trying to “punish and silence” Resendiz because “he continues to warn the public” about the city’s problematic infrastructure and complains of “give-aways to developers which cost city taxpayers millions of dollars.” It is unclear what the claim intends by stating Morales wants to punish Resendiz. BenitoLink previously reported on Resendiz’s charges and found developers have a right to the density bonuses and fee reductions he calls “giveaways,” under the terms of the Density Bonus Law and the Housing Accountability Act.
Conclusion: The only accurate statements are that the City Council plans to censure Resendiz and Resendiz’s position against extending sewer services. The rest of the claims are either false or lack context.
Claim: “Raise campaign donation limit from $250 to $5,500,”
The record: On a 4-1 vote, the Hollister City Council approved a motion to rescind resolution 2021-129, which required Hollister City Council candidates to report contributions of $1 dollar or higher by name of donor, limited contributions to $250 for each election the candidate participates in, and limited candidates to one campaign committee and one checking account. That resolution was passed unanimously by the City Council in 2021. Now the council follows the state’s guidelines which allow candidates to receive up to $5,500 and requires naming donors of $100 or more. Candidates may still name donors who contribute $99 or less.
The majority of California cities and counties follow the state guidelines. The Fair Political Practices Commission states that as of May 2024, there were at least 166 cities, including Hollister, and 23 counties that limit campaign contributions to less than what the state allows. According to the census data, there are 480 incorporated cities and towns and 58 counties in California.
Conclusion: The claim is correct.
Claim: “Now the gates have been opened for a flood of developer’s money”
The record: BenitoLink reviewed campaign contributions and loans for the election years 2020 and 2022, the only available data on the city’s website. Fiscal years 2020 and 2022 are the years before and after resolution 2021-129 went into effect (see table below). BenitoLink found reported contributions, monetary and loans, increased by $71,000 after the resolution was enacted. However, among the 2022 contributions was former mayor Ignacio Velazquez’s self contribution of $70,543, compared to a $33,867 contribution in 2020.
If we remove Velazquez’s money, the total amount of contributions still doubled in 2022.
Conclusion: While the long-term effect of the resolution is up for debate, based on limited data, candidates have been reporting more contributions following the enactment of resolution 2021-29.
Claim: “Increase Mayor’s term from 2 years to 4 years…” “A longer term allows the mayor to ignore public opinion and makes the mayor less accountable to the people of Hollister”
The record: In 2012 voters approved changing Hollister’s mayor to be elected rather than appointed. Voters also set the term to two years. City Council discussion about extending it to four years is not new. In 2016 then-mayor Ignacio Velazquez—now a San Benito County Supervisor-elect—brought it up, saying it was difficult to “follow through with projects” in a two-year time span.
In 2023, the City Council agreed to place the measure on the Nov. 5 ballot. In a 4-1 vote on April 2, 2024, the council formally approved the measure. Though he initially supported the move for a four-year mayoral term, Resendiz was the lone dissenter. The other council seats are four-year terms.
Conclusion: The mayor’s term length will be decided by the voters in November. The flier did not provide any evidence that elected officials’ accountability is impacted by term lengths.
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.
The post Fact Check: ‘Silencing their critics’ election flier appeared first on BenitoLink.