Home > elections > HCDCC moves to clean house

HCDCC moves to clean house

When Marian Brady was running for Eureka City Council in 2010, Republicans praised her as “our candidate.”

So it’s no surprise that Democrat Linda Atkins floated a resolution to ixnay Brady and other DINOs, including Supervisor Virginia Bass, from the Dem Central Committee at the HCDCC meeting Wednesday night.

Brady sported a Rex Bohn for Supervisor hoodie at the meeting to illustrate the blatant move by Republican sympathizers to usurp the Local Dem party.

But the vote on Atkins’ resolution won’t happen until June 13, more than a week after the primary election. Meanwhile, Bohn — a long time Republican who like most local (R) pols re-registered to reinvent himself as a “moderate” —  is running tv ads touting support by HCDCC members.  Guess which ones.

More at the NCJ.

EARLIER: PEAS IN A POD: Bass and Marks

  1. High Finance
    May 11, 2012 at 9:02 am

    Hey, I want one of those Rex Bohn hoodies !

  2. May 11, 2012 at 9:04 am

    You should get one! You paid for them.

  3. May 11, 2012 at 9:15 am

    If we’re talking about all those good Dems who support non-Democrats, let’s start with Congressman Thompson who once again is endorsing a non-Democrat (Clif Clendenen, a Decline to State) over Estelle Fennell, a lifetime Democrat.

    Then again Congressman Thompson used to endorse Republican Bonnie Neely over any Democratic Supervisor candidates.

    Wes Chesbro is also endorsing Clif Clendenen over Estelle Fennell, as is Milt Boyd, Christine Beresford and Barbara Kennedy from the HCDCC.

    Let’s not forget that Shane Brinton actually campaigned for Dave Meserve (Green Party) at the HCDCC meeting.

    The list goes on and on and when Linda Atkins calls these DINOs such as Congressman Thompson, Wes Chesbro, Milt Boyd, Christine Beresford, Barbara Kennedy and Shane Brinton then she can go after Bass, Brady and Ciarabellini.

  4. Anonymous
    May 11, 2012 at 9:16 am

    Let’s see – Brady’s accomplishments:
    1. Balloon Track cleaned up and not an “eye sore” anymore – check
    2. Producing more high-paying jobs – check
    3. Community Development; fewer empty store fronts – check
    4. Getting Eureka working and vibrant – check
    Wow – thanks Marian. Glad to see how you and your cronies are turning this town around. Can we expect the same “can do” performance from Rex? If you like what Marian, Mike, and Frank are doing – you’ll just love what Rex can get done!

  5. Dreaming Better Government
    May 11, 2012 at 9:22 am

    Hopefully 9:16 is joking. We avoid Eureka when possible.

  6. May 11, 2012 at 9:24 am

    No need to hope, Brady has failed to accomplish any of those things.

  7. anonymous101
    May 11, 2012 at 9:31 am

    9:15 missed one key point, the “independent” they support shares their Democratic values and the “Democrat” Estelle is bought and paid for by the Republican developers. Sorry, but that examples does not hold up.

  8. Anonymous
    May 11, 2012 at 9:43 am

    It’s about time somebody had the balls to do this (a woman with cajones in spirit). It was a near lethal blow to my faith in humboldt’s journalistic integrity that none of our local papers put a spotlight on the flip-flop party affiliation that was happening the last round of elections, in which currently elected politicians LIED to voters about their beliefs to secure their vote. It continues to get NO coverage. At every board meeting, supervisor meeting, council meeting, those elected officials should have been put on the spot for their blatant lie. It should be the number one focus on them, because it says everything about who they are and how they conduct THEIR business, not OUR politics.

  9. Anonymous
    May 11, 2012 at 9:43 am

    Good to hear from Linda’s fellow Eureka haters.

  10. June 9, 1954
    May 11, 2012 at 9:49 am

    You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, madam, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

  11. Eric Kirk
    May 11, 2012 at 9:51 am

    If we’re talking about all those good Dems who support non-Democrats, let’s start with Congressman Thompson who once again is endorsing a non-Democrat (Clif Clendenen, a Decline to State) over Estelle Fennell, a lifetime Democrat.

    Then again Congressman Thompson used to endorse Republican Bonnie Neely over any Democratic Supervisor candidates.

    Wes Chesbro is also endorsing Clif Clendenen over Estelle Fennell, as is Milt Boyd, Christine Beresford and Barbara Kennedy from the HCDCC.

    Let’s not forget that Shane Brinton actually campaigned for Dave Meserve (Green Party) at the HCDCC meeting.

    The list goes on and on and when Linda Atkins calls these DINOs such as Congressman Thompson, Wes Chesbro, Milt Boyd, Christine Beresford, Barbara Kennedy and Shane Brinton then she can go after Bass, Brady and Ciarabellini.

    All good points. But are any of them on the committee? I say this opposing the rule. If committee members veer too far out of the party line, the party registered will vote them out. If not, then they speak for their constituents. As I said, I back Linda. But this isn’t the way to fight.

  12. DBG
    May 11, 2012 at 10:05 am

    A lot of this stems from one poor loser: Richard Marks.

  13. Anonymous
    May 11, 2012 at 10:32 am

    DBG, huh? Linda is the sore loser in this case… trying to remove people because they have a differing opinion? Talk about sore.

  14. Anonymous
    May 11, 2012 at 10:40 am

    “But this isn’t the way to fight.”

    Not true. Eric. I believe from the perspective of somebody with your position of employment, where a monkey wrench like this is the last thing you’d want to deal with, it’s understandable you’d think so. But the most basic aspect of this, is how the general public sees all this. The real majority of voters aren’t blogging or taking notes when they browse the news, if and when they browse the news. If even a relatively small part of any population has to come a political agreement entirely by themselves, that’s all it takes to “sway a vote”. Though we might not take politicians at their entire word, most of us trust enough to believe in some basic principles guiding them. A primary one is political party affiliation.

    On our board of supervisors we’ve got, among other shills, a lifelong registered Republican who proudly associates with other proud Republicans. Immediately preceding the last Board of Supervisors election, in literally one swell foop, this Republican completely reversed her political affiliation in the most primary of ways. “Party affiliation” is the most basic and recognized means of political identification even for grade schoolers. The currently elected Republican supervisor was elected as a Democrat to a very important governing position in this county. This supervisor continues to support the Republican agenda.

    And that’s if I’m to believe even half of what I read in newspapers and “blogs”.

    Do you think stuff like this should be forgotten when it’s current and obvious? Should we “move on and ride it out” or some crap? Call it “even between both sides” because of how many people might have already gotten away with this? It’s LYING in broad daylight! It’s literally affecting the quality of our lives. The decisions they make determine the future health of our natural resources, that includes open space they develop, that includes water they tap, that includes forest they clearcut, that includes waste they create, etc. etc. etc.

  15. Anon.
    May 11, 2012 at 10:44 am

    “Working for the Democratic Party is like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.” — U. Utah Phillips

  16. Mitch
    May 11, 2012 at 10:44 am

    Anonymous 9:43 wrote,

    It was a near lethal blow to my faith in humboldt’s journalistic integrity

    Near lethal?

  17. Anonymous
    May 11, 2012 at 10:51 am

    Eric,
    That might have been true at some point in our history when the vast majority of people were informed and voted. But now, when media coverage of the actual issues is basically non-existent and people rely on political ads for their information, it’s very important to hold people accountable for what they say and do as the HCDCC is trying to do. The Brady bunch talks the line of the Democrats and campaigned as such but they surely govern as Republicans.
    As a side note “Dreaming”, by avoiding Eureka whenever possible you’re marginalizing those of us who live here and hope to change this city for the better – you know actually finding ways of creating jobs, creating safer neighborhoods, etc.. Your attitude makes it just that much harder.

  18. beau
    May 11, 2012 at 10:53 am

    @Erik Kirk…. Yes, Mike Thompson does have a seat on the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee. It is proxied to his local field rep.

  19. Mitch
    May 11, 2012 at 10:55 am

    10:40 has it exactly right. The labels “D” and “R” are shorthand by which many voters, who don’t have the time to inclination to investigate further, make their decisions.

    In this county, “R” doesn’t attract voters as well as “D”. So the “R”s have decided to relabel themselves as “D”s.

    If they were selling watches instead of themselves, they’d be charged under anti-counterfeiting laws, spend time in jail, and be subject to million dollar fines:

    http://www.timezone.com/library/archives/archives0059

    If a party can’t reject people who not only don’t believe in its principles, but will publicly endorse opponents of those principles over members of their own party, the party label no longer has any meaning. So not only have these pols counterfeited themselves, they’ve contributed to the destruction of their opponent’s “brand.”

    You might want to tug a party in one direction, but that’s not what’s happened here.

    What’s happened here is simple fraud. Good for Atkins for standing up to it.

  20. iraqwarvet1201
    May 11, 2012 at 11:02 am

    Corruption at the local level, “no way!” If it’s true that these members endorsed Bohn then they should be removed, they aren’t Democrats.

    The political spectrum has moved so far right that politicians that claim they are “liberal” are no more “liberal” than Bill (NAFTA, Don’t ask, Don’t Tell, Somolia) Clinton. These DINO’s remind even more of Zell Miller, the Democratic Senator who spoke at the Republican National Convention in 2004 praising George W. Bush.

    You’re either a progressive Democrat or not. The people who call themselves “moderates Democrats” are FAKES. They might not be wacko rightwing conservative who don’t believe in equal rights or an economy that works for everyone, but they are still on the right side of the political spectrum when they support people who don’t believe in any part of the Democratic Party Platform.

  21. What Now
    May 11, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    Good for Linda.
    I support the motion and will be looking forward to sending that low-life weasel Richard Marks packing.
    The most “moderate” aspect of Bohn is his ability to function as a sentient life form.

  22. Good Heavens
    May 11, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    To iraqwarvet1201–as a “fake” moderate democrat, I look at the your comments and think maybe it’s YOU who isn’t a democrat anymore. Maybe you need to affiliate yourself with a different party as the democratic party seems to no longer your party. As soon as you feel you can tell me what I am or am not, then maybe it is you who is no longer not the democrat. There are plenty of other parties out there for you to join.

  23. School Grounds Tattletale
    May 11, 2012 at 1:20 pm

    Fight! Fight! Fight!

  24. tra
    May 11, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    Help me out here, folks. How do people get on the HCDCC in the first place? Are they elected to that position or are they appointed by a majority of the other members of the HCDCC?

    If they are elected, then rest of the committee should not be trying to remove them, other than by trying to get someone different elected next time around.. If they are appointed by a majority of the other members of the HCDCC, then I have no problem with them being removed the same way.

  25. tra
    May 11, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    O.K., so the HCDCC website says that its members are “elected or appointed by supervisorial district.”

    http://humboldtdemocrats.org/members

    It doesn’t say which of them were elected, and which were appointed.

    Does anyone here know whether the members who are being targeted for expulsion were elected to the committee, or were appointed?

  26. tra
    May 11, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    O.K., I’m reconsidering my first comment. Because regardless of whether you’re elected or appointed, if you break the by-laws then I guess you should be fair game for removal. (Of course if this particular part of the by-laws is only selectively enforced, this would raise issues of fairness towards those currently being targeted.)

    If I’m understanding the situation correctly, HCDCC by-laws say that HCDCC members can’t make a personal endorsement of any candidate whose opponent has received the official endorsement of the HCDCC.

    However, it sounds like some of the personal endorsements were made before the candidate in question had any opponent who was endorsed by the HCDCC. For example, HCDCC members who gave their personal endorsement to Rex Bohn before Cheryl Seidner even entered the race, and obviously long before Seinder received the HCDCC’s official endorsement. It’s not clear to me what is supposed to happen in such cases: Once the HCDCC has made an official endorsement, do the by-laws require the HCDCC members to “withdraw” their earlier personal endorsement of the other candidate?

  27. Mitch
    May 11, 2012 at 2:34 pm

    tra,

    The removal would be for a straightforward violation of the HCDCC bylaws as allowed in the California Election Code.

    Ryan Burns provides a link to the HCDCC Bylaws at the Journal’s blog. http://humboldtdemocrats.org/sites/default/files/HCDCC%20bylaws%202012.pdf

    2.11:
    . This Committee also may remove a regular member, except an
    Ex Officio Member, for the following grounds:
    …• (d) Publicly advocating that voters should not vote for the Democratic endorsee for any office, or giving support or avowing preference for a candidate of another party or unaffiliated candidate who is opposing a candidate endorsed by the Democratic Party. However, this provision shall not
    apply when This Committee itself or the California Democratic Party has disavowed a democratic candidate or nominee whose views are inimical to the basic principles and tenets of the Democratic
    Party. (EC §7215).

    California Elections Code Section 7215 reads:

    A committee may remove any member, other than an ex officio
    member, who during his or her term of membership affiliates with, or registers as a member of another party, who publicly advocates that the voters should not vote for the nominee of this party for any
    office, or who gives support or avows a preference for a candidate of another party or candidate who is opposed to a candidate nominated by this party.

  28. Thirdeye
    May 11, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    Is Norman Solomon a DINO because his views are closer to the Green Party?

    There’s lots of bellyaching from the far left about Barack Obama not being liberal enough. Would he survive the Atkins litmus test?

    I predict that Atkin’s tailspin into bitter factionalism will come back to haunt her this fall.

  29. tra
    May 11, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    Mitch,

    Thanks. It looks like you were writing your 2:34 comment while I was writing my 2:33 comment.

    Any idea how those by-laws are supposed to apply to the situation I outlined in the third paragraph of my 2:33 comment? In other words, do they apply retroactively, requiring HCDCC members to publicly “unendorse” candidates that they may have given their support to before tanother candidate (who later got the HCDCC’s official endorsement) joined the race?

  30. Mitch
    May 11, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    tra,

    No. But if you go to the NCJ blog, it sounds as though at least some of the renegade committee members attended the meeting wearing “Rex Bohn” hoodies. To me, that’s public support.

  31. Percy
    May 11, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    It’s time the Arkley buttlickers came out of the closet and wear their Republican party affiliation with pride. At least he owns his political persuasion. The rest of the worthless shills that try to get elected by these little stealth moves are nothing more than political whores who need to be sent packing back to the republican central committee where they get their orders. Kudos Linda Atkinson. Don’t let the door hit you Good Heavens, Iraqwarvet1201 nailed it.

  32. tra
    May 11, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    Thanks Mitch,

    It seems like once the HCDCC endorses a candidate, HCDCC members are supposed to refrain from publicly supporting their opponent, and I agree that wearing a sweatshirt with the opposing candidates name on it to a HCDCC meeting would qualify as publicly supporting that opposing candidate, just as putting up a lawn sign for that candidate, or putting a bumper-sticker on their car for that candidate, or donating money to that candidate, or writing a letter to the editor advocating the election of that candidate would be.

    Presumably the rule would not apply to someone wearing the sweatshirt in their own home, as that would not amount to publicly advocating for the election of that candidate.

    But what about wearing that sweatshirt somewhere, elce, for example to work, or to the grocery store? Would that be disallowed as well? In a case like that, would the person wearing the sweatshirt be considered to be “advertising” for that candidate, and doing so in public, and therefore in breach of the by-laws?
    But

  33. jr
    May 11, 2012 at 3:31 pm

    People who wear their candidate’s sweatshirt/cap/button/etc are enablers for a co-dependent candidate, to use a bit of psychobabble.

  34. tra
    May 11, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    It seems to me that its core, this struggle is a classic example of the conflict between, on the one hand, the desire to ensure that the party “stands for something” and, on the other hand, the desire to maintain enough of a “big tent” to continue to attract voters.

    In a way, it’s kind of similar to what the Tea Party Republicans are trying to do: purge those they portray as “Republicans in Name Only” from any positions of leadership in the Republican Party. If successful, such efforts may result in a party that is more well-defined, with greater distinctions between the image of that party and the image of opposing parties, therefore creating a cleearer choice for voters. But the risk is that if you insist on too much “purity” you end up marginalizing yourslef with a much “purer, but also much smaller, base of supporters.

  35. jr
    May 11, 2012 at 3:47 pm

    A good book on this subject is “The Rise of the TEA Party, Political Discontent and Corporate Media in the Age of Obama” by Anthony DiMaggio, published by Monthly Review Press.

  36. iraqwarvet1201
    May 11, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    ‘Good Heavens’ and all the other “Moderate” Dems…..it was you that left our party, at one time we were the party that was against invading a sovereign Nation but for some reason “Moderate” Dems gave the authority to do so to George W. Bush. It was “Moderate” Dems that stayed home or voted Yes for Prop 8 writing bigotry into our state constitution. It was the “Moderate” Democrat that helped destroy the single payer, government option HealthCare Bill. The word compromise is synonymous with the “Moderate” Democrat, rather than sticking to the Democratic Party Platform. In case you need to remember what we stand for, please re-read this again:

    http://www.democrats.org/about/party_platform

  37. tra
    May 11, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this is the possibility — mentioned in the NCJ article — that some folks who are elected (by registered Democrats) as voting members of the HCDCC in June may be refused a seat because they have previously personally endorsed someone other than the HCDCC’s officially-endorsed candidate.

    If someone is a current voting member of the HCDCC who is supposed to be following the by-laws at the moment, then that would be one thing. But if we’re talking about people who are not currently voting members of the HCDCC, it doesn’t seem fair (or wise) to apply a litmus test that says that if that person has ever, in the past, opposed a HCDCC-endorsed candidate (or endorsed or in whatever way supported any candidate other than the HCDCC-endorsed candidate in any race where there was an HCDCC-endorsed candidate) then they cannot be seated as a member of the HCDCC even if they are elected as a voting member by a majority of registered Democrats in their district .

    I’m not sure whether or not this kind of retroactive purity-test for new HCDCC members is what Atkins was referring to in the NCJ article, but if it is, I think it’s a very bad idea. Purging current HCDCC members who may have failed to follow the by-laws is one thing, but disallowing the seating of duly-elected new members, simply because their personal endorsements have ever differed from HCDCC’s official endorsements in the past (before they were ever a voting member of HCDCC) would be quite anti-democratic. Overruling the democratically-expressed will of their own base of registered voters is a dangerous move for any party leadership structure.

    Registered Democratic voters should be able to elect the representative of their choosing to the HCDCC, and those choices should not be overruled by the other members of the HCDCC. Once on the Committee, those people should have to abide by the Committee’s bylaws and be subject to rremoval if they don’t play by those rules. But retroactively applying those rules to those who were not voting members of the HCDCC to disallow a newly-elected candidate from being seated seems both unfair, and, from the point of view of democratic governance, unwise.

  38. Anonymous
    May 11, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    In other words, tra is saying there’s no foul play unless you’re caught, and in this case they weren’t caught so we have to move on and just deal with it, paying tens of thousands of dollars per year to politicians who pulled shady publicity stunts on us to get elected. Except they have been caught, their choices prove it, time for them to pony up and go play with their own party on the clock.

    The decisions they make are too important to tolerate such obvoius trickery against their own constituents.

  39. Anonymous
    May 11, 2012 at 4:23 pm

    I thought we elected people to make good decisions based on the facts, not march lockstep party line. My bad.

  40. Mitch
    May 11, 2012 at 4:23 pm

    I think it would be more accurate to characterize what tra is saying as this: if you fool your electorate in an election, you’re entitled to be in.

    I think he’s right, unfortunately. I don’t like that either.

  41. Mitch
    May 11, 2012 at 4:24 pm

    Democracy doesn’t work when fooling the electorate is a piece of cake.

  42. Percy
    May 11, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    Miss-information, disinformation, bullshit, flip flops, and lies. If your candidate gives you that you’re talking to a republican. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure it out either. I can tell pretty quick where somebody is coming from, and so can most people. I’ll be damned if I want those kind of people around to help decide my candidates. If you’re a moderate then you’re in a tough place. You have a decision to make. But you know what’s right for you and who has your back, be it republican or democrat.

  43. tra
    May 11, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    “In other words, tra is saying there’s no foul play unless you’re caught…”

    Wow, you sure missed the point. No, if you’re breaking a rule and you’re not caught, you’re still breaking the rule. The questions are: (a) whether or not you’re actually breaking the rule and (b) whether the rule in question is a fair and wise rule in the first place. If the answer to (a) is “yes,” then the rule should be applied. If the answer to (a) is “yes,” but the answer to (b) is “no” then the rule should be changed in the future.

  44. tra
    May 11, 2012 at 4:46 pm

    Mitch said:

    I think it would be more accurate to characterize what tra is saying as this: if you fool your electorate in an election, you’re entitled to be in.

    Unfortunately, that’s the way it has to be, because who do you want deciding that the voters have been “fooled,” that they shouldn’t have elected the person ther elected, and that therefore the voters’ choice should be overruled? The dozen or so members that (currently) control the HCDCC? Uhhh…no thanks.

    Democracy relies on the proposition that people will be fooled less often than they won’t be fooled. If you don’t believe that, you might as well just give up on the democratic process altogether, and just use whatever non-democratic means you can get your hands on to try to hold onto whatever power you and your allies already have. I hate to say it, but it’s starting to sound like some of the current members of the HCDCC may have already reached that level of cynicism.

  45. Anonymous
    May 11, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    time for a refill, tra.

  46. Anonymous
    May 11, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    “In this county, “R” doesn’t attract voters as well as “D”. So the “R”s have decided to relabel themselves as “D”s.

    If they were selling watches instead of themselves, they’d be charged under anti-counterfeiting laws, spend time in jail, and be subject to million dollar fines”

    I’m generally not fond of analogies, but this is more a statement of actual events. The “R”‘s cooperatively labeled themselves “D”. It’s as obvious as…the labels on watches.

  47. Anonymous
    May 11, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    “when media coverage of the actual issues is basically non-existent and people rely on political ads for their information, it’s very important to hold people accountable for what they say and do as the HCDCC is trying to do. The Brady bunch talks the line of the Democrats and campaigned as such but they surely govern as Republicans.”

    Worth repeating.

  48. tra
    May 11, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    Okay, so if a county-level party committee votes to endorse Candidate A over Candidate B, and the vote is not unanimous, there are obviously going to be some folks who are full voting members of the committee and personally support Candidate B, but were out-voted, and there are going to be some folks who are non-voting associate members, and didn’t get to vote.

    Obviously just because the vote went against you or you didn’t get a chance to vote because you’re only a non-voting associate member, you’re not necessarily going to have a magical change of heart and suddenly believe that Candidate A is in fact, the better choice, or even, for that matter, an acceptable choice. Assuming you’re not willing to outright lie and say that you support Candidate A even though you don’t, what are you supposed to do? It seems that according to HCDCC bylaws you’re supposed to just keep your mouth shut and refrain from commenting at all on either candidate or from opposing the endorsee or supporting the non-endorsee in any way, or else you’re supposed to be removed from the committee, and then will also be (permanently?) ineligible for election to the committee in the future.

    If this is indeed the rule, and the idea behind this rule is to ensure that any new voting members of the HCDCC will only be individuals who strictly adhere to the (current) party line of the faction that (currently) controls the HCDCC, it’s likely to succeed in meeting that goal. The danger is that it succeeds too well, resulting in a leadership that only represents the one preferred faction of registered Democrats. If the rule is used to override the voting choices of rank-and-file registered Democrats, refusing to seat those representatives that the rank-and-file vote for, thenn the HCDCC risks alienating many of those voters.

  49. tra
    May 11, 2012 at 5:49 pm

    The problem of “fake” Democrats, Democrats-in-name-only, etc., is a real problem (and I’m sure that to Tea Party Republicans, the problem of “fake” Republicans, Republicans-in-name-only, etc., is also considered a real problem).

    The question is who gets to decide who is a “real” Democrat and therefore eligible to serve on the HCDCC. Current HCDCC members? Or rank-and-fil registered Democrats who vote to elect their representatives on the HCDCC?

  50. Life
    May 11, 2012 at 5:57 pm

    The US Constitution trumps the by-laws. Individuals can endorse anyone they like. If the individual is a member of HCDCC, they may also vote for the committee to endorse someone, though that endorsee must be a Democrat. It’s even possible to endorse one way as an individual, and for another candidate for the committee endorsement. The committee might even endorse a candidate they don’t like, depending on who gets on the committee and where they stopped before the meeting and whatever the hell they think they can accomplish.

  51. May 11, 2012 at 6:02 pm

    Waaah waaah waaah, what a bunch of wussy whiners..The HCDCC has been a dysfunctional mess for years…nobody pays any attention to them or their ‘candidates’….Marion and Rex do have the interest of the community in mind and will improve Eureka…ok so they are Republican, who really cares, get over this petty griping and move on people, we live here and need to deal with the issues in front of us…

  52. Anonymous
    May 11, 2012 at 6:14 pm

    “Marion and Rex do have the interest of the community in mind and will improve Eureka”
    And exactly when will this happen?
    We’ve got Marian, Mike, and Frank in office and things have gotten steadily worse. Crappy Balloon Track, empty store fronts on F, half of the mall closed, and the best thing they can do is cheerlead for WalMart.
    Maybe they should get that “interest of the community” out of their minds and into action, like the folks putting together the West Side Community Center (which these folks basically opposed).

  53. tra
    May 11, 2012 at 6:22 pm

    “The US Constitution trumps the by-laws.”

    Well, sure, the HCDCC can’t overrule your Constitutional right to express support for the candidate of your choice (or opposition to another candidate). But you don’t have a Constitutional “right” to belong to the HCDCC. So if you’re a HCDCC member you can go ahead and endorse whoever you want, but if that candidate is opposed by a HCDCC-endorsed candidate, and you continue to support the non-HCDCC-endorsed candidate, then the other members of the HCDCC can vote to remove you from the HCDCC if that’s what their rules call for. At least I’m pretty sure that’s how it works.

    At any rate, I think this “gag rule” stuff is pretty self-destructive. The HCDCC endorsement is an expression of who the majority of the HCDCC members support, and functions as a recommendation to rank-and-file voters, and that’s great. If dissenting members of the HCDCC want to express their dissent by continuing to personally support the non-HCDCC-endorsed candidate, they should be allowed to do so. You shouldn’t have to agree to what is essentially a “gag rule” in order to serve in a role that the rank-and-file of your party has elected you to. If, as a result of a “rogue” HCDCC member’s support of a non-endorsed candidate, rank-and-file Democratic voters don’t want that person to serve as their representative on the HCDCC anymore, then rank-and-file Democratic voters should vote that person out, and vote someone else in.

  54. High Finance
    May 11, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    Why all this angst from Linda Atkins and others here about Dems on the Central Committee supporting non Dems now ?

    When there was nothing but silence from them in past years when the DCC endorsed Bonnie Neely and Clendenen who weren’t Dems over life long Democrats ?

  55. tra
    May 11, 2012 at 6:44 pm

    Hi Fi, I’m not sure about Neeley when she was still a Republican, but I’m pretty sure the HCDCC as a whole did not officially endorse Clendenen in the last race, and I know for a fact that they didn’t officially endorse him in the current race. Individual members, on the other hand, are free to endorse and support Clendenen all they want, because even though there is a longtime Democrat (in fact an Associate Member of the HCDCC) in the race, namely Estelle Fennell, the HCDCC chose not to make any endorsement in this race, instead staying neutral.

    The controversy there is a different one — why they didn’t endorse Fennell, even though she’s a longtime Democrat with very progressive views (even by HCDCC definitions) on all kind of issues — the one glaring exception (at least in the view of the faction currently in control of the HCDCC) being the current GPU debate.

    That one reminds me of the old joke about Chicago-style politics:

    “Question: What do you call 99% loyalty?

    Answer: Disloyalty.”

    Seems like that’s the direction that the HCDCC is headed these days, the non-endorsement of Fennell being perhaps the clearest example.

  56. Thirdeye
    May 11, 2012 at 8:28 pm

    Thank you for your patience in explaining the consequences of purist factionalism in the HCDCC, tra.

  57. Anonymous
    May 11, 2012 at 8:49 pm

    Since so many whom I do not know seem to have taken such an interest in who I do and do not support I have decided to have my say. I have not donated to the campaign for Rex Bohn nor did I give permission for my name to be used. I have already asked in the past that my name be removed immediately from the website and any mailers. I believed it had, obviously not. But, Linda Atkins, in all her glory of the hour did not even bother to call me to see why my name was listed. If she had, I would have gladly explained the situation. She and I have never spoken outside of a few moments at various public events. She doesn’t know me nor does she have any insight into understanding any of my “democratic values” even thouogh she feels bold enough to stand up and shout out that I am “not a REAL democrat” and should be outsted from the committee.
    Well Linda, you don’t know everything and before you go shooting off your mouth about me would you at least give me the courtesy of getting to know me. I know you have my email and my number has been in the book locally for over 30 years. I work at an elementary school and we talk to kids every day to “THINK” before you speak. The “T” stands for: Is it truthful?. What you had the balls to stand up in public and say about me is unture and I would like an apology at the next HDCC meeting.

  58. Anonymous
    May 11, 2012 at 8:51 pm

    Robin Marks

  59. samoasoftball
    May 11, 2012 at 8:54 pm

    Robin Marks

  60. tra
    May 11, 2012 at 9:15 pm

    I think Robin Marks makes a fair point: Before calling out Robin Marks and trying to get her expelled from the HCDCC for publicly supporting the “wrong” candidate, Linda Atkins should have confirmed that Robin was, in fact, publicly supporting that candidate.

    But I would also add that this information — that both Robin and Richard Marks were, without being asked, listed as supporters by the Bohn campaign (Richard later agreeing to be listed, Robin not agreeing to it) and that Robin later asked to be removed from the list of supporters but still was not removed — leads me to wonder how many other people listed on Bohn’s list of supporters are not actually supporters.

    This seems to happen with some regularity in local elections, and it’s embarrassing to the candidate when it does happen (at least when the issue becomes public). Listing someone who has not given permission to be listed is bad enough — but failing to remove them from the list when asked to is even worse.

    Didn’t former DA candidate Allison Jackson have a similar problem when she claimed she had been endorsed by Betty Chinn?

    At any rate, given this history, it seems unwise to propose to purge someone from a political organization based on them being listed as a supporter of a given candidate, without checking first with that person to confirm that they are, indeed, publicly supporting that candidate. Perhaps we could call that the Chinn-Marks rule.

  61. Anonymous
    May 11, 2012 at 9:21 pm

    I got a Bohn mailer the other day where he was posing with Betty Chin. Did she endorse him?

  62. tra
    May 11, 2012 at 9:45 pm

    “Thank you for your patience in explaining the consequences of purist factionalism in the HCDCC, tra”

    Another consequence is that if the currently dominant faction, despite (or maybe because of) their current machinations, finds themselves in a minority position at some point in the future, they may regret their support for this “gag rule.”

    For example, if just a couple more HCDCC members had voted to endorse Estelle Fennell, she would have received the official endorsement of the HCDCC. If that had happened, then, according to this “gag rule” no member of the HCDCC would have been allowed to publicly support Clif Clendenen. I wonder if the Clendenen supporters on the HCDCC would have complied with the gag rule, or resigned from the HCDCC so they could continue to support Clif, or whether they would just have ignored the rule?

    In other words, careful what you wish for…because even if it benefits you now, it may work against you in the future. I’m sure it feels clever and empowering to gag other people in the name of ideological purity and/or party loyalty…but quite a bit less empowering when you’re the one being gagged.

    So I think those who are so interested in gagging dissenters today should think again about how that might work out for themselves down the road.

    But maybe due to hubris, or perhaps just shortsightedness (or some combination of both) members of the the currently in-charge faction of the HCDCC just haven’t really considered the possibility that some day they may be the ones being gagged, rather than the ones doing the gagging.

  63. Anonymous
    May 11, 2012 at 9:53 pm

    That sounds so familiar. Like wait, those environmental laws and regulations that I pushed so hard for to tell timber companies what to do you now want me to live by. wha?

  64. tra
    May 11, 2012 at 9:57 pm

    Richard Marks wrote on his blog that the HCDCC did endorse Estelle Fennell 4 years ago, but that despite that endorsement HCDCC members were “running her opponent’s campaign” during that race anyway. I assume he’s referring to HCDCC members working for Clendenen… unless someone had really “gone renegade” and was working for Johanna Rodoni!?

    http://samoasoftball.blogspot.com/2012/04/humboldt-countydemocratic-central.html

    I don’t know if that’s true or not, but if it is, it certainly raises some issues of selective enforcement of the by-laws, not to mention some issues of hypocrisy if any of those folks are still on the HCDCC and are now supporting Atkins’ proposal to purge anyone who has failed to adhere to the gag rule this time around.

  65. 713
    May 11, 2012 at 10:45 pm

    This is funny stuff. Hopefully it drags on past June. Hey Mitch, what do you think about Obama’s $14 million night?

  66. Jack Sherman
    May 11, 2012 at 11:00 pm

    You don’t read many republicans complaining because their Central Committee has similar by-laws.

    No, Linda Atkins didn’t need to call anyone before offering a resolution to enforce long-standing by-laws. There’s plenty of due-process built into the rules for Bohn supporters, including Robin Marks, to explain their case.

    No big deal….assuming these are mature adults.

  67. tra
    May 11, 2012 at 11:18 pm

    Jack,

    Atkins didn’t “need to” check her facts before making an accusation against Robin Marks, but basic civility suggests that she should have done so. Would have avoided both embarrassing herself and creating needless conflict.

    “Due process” is all fine and well, but better yet, why not just go ahead and check your facts first, rather than making the accusation first and then making the wrongly-accused party “explain their case” later.

    By the way, Jack, what about other HCDCC members who reportedly have, in past elections, supported someone other than the HCDCC-endorsed candidate. Shouldn’t they also be booted out, or do the rules only apply when convenient to this particular faction? I didn’t see anything in the bylaws about any “statute of limitations” on this rule. Could get kinda messy….

  68. May 11, 2012 at 11:39 pm

    No one was stopping Richard Marks from bringing a similar resolution if he had a beef years ago. Just because he didn’t doesn’t mean Linda shouldn’t bring one now.

  69. tra
    May 12, 2012 at 12:54 am

    OK, but if the rule is going to be applied, now, to some people, it should be applied to all (I know, that’s such a quaint concept!). And, as far as equal treatment goes…well…better late than never.

    As noted above, I didn’t see any “statue of limitations” provision in the by-laws, so if any other still-serving members of HCDCC have breached the same gag rule in the past, even if it was during the last election, or a couple of elections ago, then the rule could, and should, still be applied to them as well.

    That would be assuming, of course, that this is a matter of principle, as opposed to just a way of maneuvering for political advantage. I guess we’ll find out soon enough.

  70. Institooshnal Nollidge
    May 12, 2012 at 6:58 am

    The committee can’t throw anyone off the committee over endorsement disputes — the discussion neatly supports the reasoning, however, for the 2/3 endorsement rule. A central committee endorsement is valuable.

  71. Anonymous
    May 12, 2012 at 8:49 am

    Conversation dominated by internet blowhards.

    Our dwindling resources alone are enough to draw a line refusing to tolerate the obvious voter manipulation some of those members, especially clear in the case of lifelong Republican Virginia Bass. It’s not something to which playground hopscotch attitudes apply.

    These elected offiials, who are being paid hansomely by all of us, are LYING. Every regular reader of these blogs can see our resident blowhards like “tra” and “high finance” are predictably playing their characters. This is too important to ignore or gloss over. Our resources are dwindling and they are NOT being honest.

  72. Anonymous
    May 12, 2012 at 9:08 am

    This is not a case of lifelong Democrats suddenly changing their mind about the majority of their political beliefs. This is a case of registered Republicans attempting a coup of their opponents political headquarters altogether. It is SLEAZY POLITICS. It’s dishonest. The people they associate with, the developers, the real estate holders, other politicians and businesses, prove they do not represent the agenda they are describing to the public by renaming themselves Democrat. They are our county’s most important politicians, and they have lied to us. No tollerance. This isn’t 1960.

  73. iraqwarvet1201
    May 12, 2012 at 9:28 am

    Infiltrating the Democrats? This has been happening for years at all levels of government. Democrats don’t even look like Democrats any longer, we are scared/embarrassed to call ourselves “liberals” or “progressives” as if these are bad names. We nominate and elect people who compromise with Hard Right Wing Republicans. Just look at the upcoming Congressional Race, we have something like 10 Democrats running for this vacant seat which will obviously go to a Democrat. Rather than sending a proven liberal/progressive to Washington to represent us, we’ll send the guy or gal who is financed by big corporate businesses and has proven record as Moderate/Blue Dog Democrats. Why do we allow this? Why do we shoot ourselves in the foot? We need to look at ourselves. Let’s take our party back.

  74. Anonymous
    May 12, 2012 at 9:41 am

    I agree (for the most part) 9:28. That doesn’t mean we, the real disassociated voters, have to deal with even more of it, just because they continue to get away with it behind our backs. I, for one, do not appreciate somebody pretending to be somebody they are not when it comes to the future wellbeing of myself and my family.

    The most basic rule to be respected is how one presents themselves to the public as far as the foundation of their political beliefs. They can kiss all the babies they want, get fake tans and shake hands with anybody willing to shake theirs, but they have to stick to their own party.

    The fact that they’re willing to behave like that gives them a dishonest advantage over people who oppose the decisions they want to make within the guidelines of their constituents’ unified goal. The ultimate purpose is for we, the voters, to identify the decisions that are going to be made by our respecting “party”. They are willing to be shady, where others have been honest, starting at square one.

  75. RefFan
    May 12, 2012 at 10:11 am

    I know you all have been waiting for me to comment so here you go. All this Republican/Democrat thing has gotten so out of hand that we need to disban all parties and go from there. Let canidates run under their name only & we vote under our names only, no more parties. Its only going to get worse if we continue. This year Repubs are crooks & Dems are stupid. Next year, Repubs are goin to be stupid & Dems crooks. See its never going to stop.

  76. Anonymous
    May 12, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    “Rather than sending a proven liberal/progressive to Washington to represent us, we’ll send the guy or gal who is financed by big corporate businesses and has proven record as Moderate/Blue Dog “Democrats”. Why do we allow this?”

    I only changed your quote to put sarcasm around the word Democrat, you’re being too kind. They are doing exactly as you say but not as true politicians at all. They are business liasons in government. Getting paid very well by us to be there, too. The movements and amounts of money, right into the physical hands of the state Governor(s) themselves, proves it all.

  77. Thirdeye
    May 12, 2012 at 1:50 pm

    Heraldo, did it occur to you that Richard Marks didn’t bring a similar resolution years ago because it was a bad idea then as it is now?

    This move for a power grab is another symptom of Linda Atkins’ meltdown that she’s been in for the past 18 months or so. There are more than a few who are willing to follow her in her meltdown.

  78. Anonymous
    May 12, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    “Thirdeye”, another resident blowhard, to try to distract from the specific issue: members of the HCDCC being called for removal have not and do not represent the Democratic agenda nearly enough to remain aboard. As said by somebody above, a degree of integrity and focus needs to be restored, this is obvious trickery. They have consistently demonstrated this in areas of politics and business, not coincidentally.

  79. What Now
    May 12, 2012 at 2:21 pm

    per:Anonymous said on May 12, 2012 at 12:30 pm:

    “They are business liasons in government. Getting paid very well by us to be there, too. ”
    Possibly the most spot on summation on this issue yet.
    Thanks, 12:30.Excellent point.

  80. Anonymous
    May 12, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    “You don’t read many republicans complaining because their Central Committee has similar by-laws.”

    This is obviously because no one in their right mind will run for local political office as a registered republican. Let’s start a list of politicians that have fled the republican “brand” just before announcing their run. Virgina Bass, Mike Newman, Rex Bohn… The local republican party doesn’t fight over this stuff because they offer nothing of value to fight over.

  81. High Finance
    May 12, 2012 at 7:33 pm

    Or, there are only feckless Republicans who are willing to put their careers on hold to run for local office.

    Whatever, how is it that Rep or Dem, lib or con has anything to do with a City Council or Bd or Sup’s race ? Those offices aren’t about global warming, war in Afghanistan or the national takeover of the country’s economy. Those offices deal with paving the local streets, balancing the local government budget and fixing potholes in our local streets.

    Only bitter partisans try to bring their ugliness down to the local races.

  82. anonymous
    May 12, 2012 at 8:55 pm

    or that. yeah! yeah! *only* bitter partisans. yeah HiFi yeah.

  83. May 12, 2012 at 9:27 pm

    technally supervisor does not run as a party member

  84. Percy
    May 13, 2012 at 1:06 am

    Republicans that run as democrats on the city council voted down the Jefferson School proposal, They are pushing for the East West railroad boondoogle and tried to get the Waterfront Drive extension going again. County wide it’s all about letting developers dictate the General Plan update. Fixing potholes my ass. Us bitter partisans aren’t as dumb as you think you lying ahole.

  85. Anonymous
    May 13, 2012 at 6:51 am

    The way to change government is not to lie about who you are and how you intend to change government. Those members are not Democrats, they’re people who have it within themselves (and get paid) to “bend the truth” that much more, to say the least. Whether others may or may not be doing the same thing is beside the point, because it is at least that obvious in their case regardless, and it shouldn’t be ignored any longer. The integrity of the Democratic party and cooperative political process are too important. They have lied to the public, and right now before another series of elections is an important time to resolve the matter. They should respectably and gracefully quit.

  86. 713
    May 13, 2012 at 8:08 am

    I call bullshit. A number of former greens are now democrats. Are their credentials as dems being questioned? Should they be “outed”? The local party has moved to the left. You can call people who switched Dino’s or whatever but they are really Clinton democrats.

  87. Percy
    May 13, 2012 at 8:25 am

    Greens don’t support the right wing agenda bullshitter.

  88. Mitch
    May 13, 2012 at 8:27 am

    713,

    There’s an interesting difference between Greens becoming Democrats and Republicans becoming Democrats.

    Most people become Greens because their perception is that neither mainstream party is sufficiently close to their views. So they joined a small party farther to the left on the spectrum. They are constantly forced to wonder if they are helping their position by staking out ground farther to the left, or if they should stick with the party closest to their views that has a chance of winning. So it’s not surprising, or particularly devious, for people to waver between Green and Democrat, and return to the Democratic Party.

    When Republicans become Democrats, it might be because they have changed their mind about Democratic Party positions. That would be great. But if it’s just to continue to support their existing positions with a more popular label, it’s fraud.

    The better comparison of Greens becoming Democrats would be Tea Party members who had refused to join the Republicans because Republican positions were “not conservative enough” finally yielding and joining that Party.

  89. iraqwarvet1201
    May 13, 2012 at 8:57 am

    Great response Mitch to 713, but what do we call Democrats that compromise with Republicans to “get a bill passed”? They campaign on the Democratic Party Platform but once elected they sell out their core values and beliefs to just get bills passed so they can build a resume to move up the political latter. Is this the meaning of a DINO too?

  90. Mitch
    May 13, 2012 at 9:22 am

    “They campaign on the Democratic Party Platform but once elected they sell out their core values and beliefs to just get bills passed so they can build a resume to move up the political la[dd]er.”

    My attitude on that changes by the hour.

    I really don’t think most of them do it to move up the political ladder, though I realize you absolutely have to do it if you expect to move up. I think most of them do it on the “half a loaf” theory — “half a loaf’s better than nothing.”

    But lately it’s not seemed like the half a loaf theory, but the “crumb of moldy discard” theory. And I’m not sure that a “crumb of moldy discard” is better than nothing.

    What keeps pulling me back to reality is when people point out all the folks who really have fallen entirely off the ladder. Is it fair to refuse the “crumb of moldy discard” on their behalf, when that’s the only “politically possible” alternative to the “nothing” that is on the table?

    “Politics” will be different once people start poisoning the water supply in some wealthy zip codes, or kidnapping toddlers from billionaire’s families, or shooting at supreme court justices, but that sort of stuff hasn’t started happening yet. I doubt it’s far off, given everything we’ve seen over the past few years. [Mandatory disclaimer for the NSA and SS: I am not advocating on behalf of the actions I mentioned.]

  91. Percy
    May 13, 2012 at 10:05 am

    Modern day republicans have no morals when it comes to politics. They just have morals when it comes to social issues. And those morals are a hypocritical joke. It’s all about who wins. Lie, cheat, bend the rules, make believe you’re something your not to get elected to further your right wing agenda. And that goes for union people that support their goals too. Kiss their ass and watch them outlaw you as they did in Wisconsin, Sid. It’s all about the power and who get’s the gold to them. Screw the middle class and the environment. I got mine and I need all those guns to protect it. And blame everything on the government and then try to bring it down to lower your taxes even when it helps you (SS & Medicare) and at the cost of making it ineffectual for the rest of us. What a hopeless bunch of selfish idiots. Unlike the greatest generation that sacrificed to leave their children with something better than they had, the Boomers will go down as the generation that tried to take it all with them and left nothing.

  92. Anonymous
    May 13, 2012 at 10:06 am

    “I think most of them do it on the “half a loaf” theory — “half a loaf’s better than nothing.””

    They do it on the specific counseling they recieve from their corporate sponsers. They are supposed to be predictable, to their own party’s agenda. Changing affiliation (polar and popular, as we all recognize) as suddenly as they did while maintaining the same agenda can only have been done to make people who are naive to the situation believe their intentions are related to following through the established goals of what was supposed to be our mutual “party”. There’s nothing mutual about what they are doing. It’s a lopsided slap to the public’s trust in their representatives. It should now and forever more be recognized as a practice of the past. Party waffling, whatever you want to call it, is not acceptable, and in this case it is obvious, current, and right before another series of important elections. It is history repeating itself because it got away with it last time so easily.

  93. High Finance
    May 13, 2012 at 10:26 am

    Despite Percy’s hate filled rhetoric (get some help pal), the whole problem with state & national political houses is their very refusal to compromise, not the opposite.

    This is still a very divided country. There are more registered Dems than Reps but there are twice as many who call themselves conservative vs those who call themselves liberal.

    When a politician is elected they need to remember they represent all their constituents and not just the narrow plurality that elected them. The stalemate in Wash DC & in Sacramento is caused by the two parties refusing to compromise.

  94. 713
    May 13, 2012 at 10:37 am

    Mitch,
    What party do I join if I believe in fair wages, a reasonable safety net, pro choice, agnostic, free trade, limited government and pro business?

  95. Mitch
    May 13, 2012 at 10:48 am

    I dunno, 713. All the parties have to try to resolve the contradictions that might exist in your list, and they all do it by trying to pretend the contradictions don’t exist.

    For example, “pro business” and “fair wages”/”a reasonable safety net” — don’t you think people might disagree with you as to where “pro business” becomes anti-fair-wages, or vice versa? I’m constantly hearing people talk about how attempts to increase the minimum wage kills business, or how unions kill business, or about how the taxes needed to maintain or create what I’d consider a fair safety net kill business.

    And then any time there’s an attempt to reduce a subsidy for one particular type of business, that business’ lobbyists tag the reduction as anti-business, even though eliminating all subsidies would probably be an extremely pro-business thing to do.

    Sadly, I think under our current economic system, “limited government” is the same as giving the entire farm away to the .01%. But so is “active government,” what could be more active than the Bush/Obama giveaway of the Treasury to the banksters?

    I agree with your implicit statement that there is no longer any party for people who feel as you do. We probably disagree as to which existing party comes closest. I thought Carter was probably the last President who might have worked to move towards your description — we traded him for GE’s spokesman, and our society has been crumbling since. It’s the difference between wanting to build a long term, just, and fair society and wanting immediate gratification.

    What about

  96. Percy
    May 13, 2012 at 10:50 am

    Yep Hifi, you and the republicans are the great compromisers all right.

  97. 713
    May 13, 2012 at 10:57 am

    I’m making the point neither party fits everybody exactly so it is really troubling to hear people who may switch from time to time considered trailers and frauds. It is those people who swing the elections and the hcdcc ought to think about that. Or not. I’m registered republican but the anti choice and religious aspects bug the hell out of me. If I switch and get elected to something, I would not consider myself a fraud.

    good wages attract good people. Where it becomes anti business is when you have the unions telling the business which people need to be at what station for what pay, and how long.

  98. Anonymous
    May 13, 2012 at 11:08 am

    What “high finance”, another predictable phoney trying to distract from the specific issue, refers to as “the narrow plurality that elected them” is actually both the party and voting majority. A simple degree of dishonesty can get one in the door of any respectable party, as we can all see has happened. That is the issue facing the specific people being asked to leave the HCDCC. If it’s not that they knowingly had an inherant conflict of interest before joining (which would make them incredibly ignorant by any standard), it’s that they maintain an obvious one. It’s foul play involving important decisions (beginning with how they get elected in the first place). Nobody should be paid by the public to play pretend politics for big business anymore.

  99. Mitch
    May 13, 2012 at 11:15 am

    713,

    Just because there’s a gray area doesn’t mean it’s not fraud when someone switches from black to white or vice versa.

    The HCDCC situation doesn’t sound to me as if someone “just couldn’t decide” which party was a better match for their values.

    Where it becomes anti business is when you have the unions telling the business which people need to be at what station for what pay, and how long.

    But those rules, which I agree can be oppressive and harmful, often come about because in their absence bosses abuse their privilege to punish people they just don’t like, and promote boot lickers.

    When a business ensures that its interests and those of its employees remain aligned and that its employees are rewarded fairly, unions have a hard time even getting a foothold.

  100. Percy
    May 13, 2012 at 11:30 am

    If you’d like to get a feel for the union experience perhaps you should try working in a union vs a non union coal mine or meat packing plant 713.

  101. HellIt'sMay
    May 13, 2012 at 11:59 am

    Percy @11:30, that is for sure.
    Take Californias’ union grocery stores- 60+ employees,
    Ralphs, Vons, Gelsons,Alphabeta, Safeway……
    paid professional wages with benefits to those who could do the work efficiently- stages of competence- 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th then,
    journeyman.

    Result: Paid wages that families could live on. Provided 100%
    health and dental topped off with death-benefits.

    Compare that to the Piggly Wiggly in that “Right to Work” state,
    North Carolina. But hey, if the local union-buster is the major
    client of the local newspaper, look for more union-busting.

    Beautiful day, for God’s sake, vote union.

  102. Percy
    May 13, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    Making unions out to be anti-business is another convenient right wing myth. They are not anti-business, they are pro worker. Seniority and qualifications determine which people are at what station for what pay and how long according to a written, binding contract instead of who has his nose the furthest up the boss’s ass, or who the boss’s daughter is dating. They were established because exploitation of workers was rampant and still is in right to work (scab) states.

  103. 713
    May 13, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    Your right Percy, in a union shop who gets those jobs is dished out according to who has their nose farthest up the business reps ass.

  104. 713
    May 13, 2012 at 1:37 pm

    See longshoreman for more info.

  105. Percy
    May 13, 2012 at 2:04 pm

    Nope, qualifications and seniority was adhered to in my union, and other local agreements such as determining overtime form a list that spread it around to everybody that wanted it. Been in two national union jobs and that was the way it was handled in both. If the rules weren’t followed things got straightened out real fast at the next union meeting, sometimes at impromptu meetings outside the gate.

  106. Anonymous
    May 13, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    Percy is right. 713 is using right wing radio and gangster movies for information.

  107. Anonymous
    May 14, 2012 at 10:15 am

    Ideological purity must prevail! Seig Heil!

  108. Anonymous
    May 14, 2012 at 11:08 am

    “Honesty must prevail.”

    Fixed.

  109. 713
    May 14, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    no, 2:57, I used the news:

    http://news.yahoo.com/longshoremen-storm-wash-state-port-damage-rr-144921214.html

    Percy, I am sure things got straightened out “outside the gate” threats and violence go hand in hand with the union thugs, don”t they?…what about having the best people in the job? i know, crazy. that might lead to increased productivity and then we would all be out of a job, right? ya, i’ve worked with you guys before. drag your feet, protect the lazy and incompetent, bitch and moan about management. i’m glad i don’t have to deal with that anymore. you know what I’m talking Percy if you really worked union jobs.

  110. Jack Sherman
    May 14, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    The By-Laws at the HCDCC have been in place for decades. It is the right of every member to attempt to enforce them, or not. Any attempt requires a democratic vote and debate. Same thing at the Republican Central Committee where AIP and Libertarians are welcome converts, but, a handful of notable liberal democrats simultaneously storming their party HQ would result in equal outrage.

    For the last generation, party-leadership (both parties) refuse to educate and register the other half of the potential U.S. electorate that always refuses to vote.

    This made recent front page news in the Humboldt State University newspaper, never a word in the mainstream press.

    Instead of widespread outrage, party honchos call it “pragmatic, practical and realistic” to compromise long-standing party values to win….they lose more voters….and must compromise further to appeal to opponents who still vote!

    With half the potential electorate abstaining, a tiny elite of financial/business/government collusion was allowed to reintroduce child labor, abandon environmental and labor regulations overseas, hide the profits offshore, loot the U.S. Treasury, divest in America’s infrastructure, and eavesdrop on every transmitted conversation.

    Mission accomplished.

  111. Want facts
    May 14, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    Who is reintroducing child labor? More facts and less hyperbole please?

  112. Anonymous
    May 14, 2012 at 10:32 pm

    “The By-Laws at the HCDCC have been in place for decades. It is the right of every member to attempt to enforce them, or not. Any attempt requires a democratic vote and debate. Same thing at the Republican Central Committee where AIP and Libertarians are welcome converts, but, a handful of notable liberal democrats simultaneously storming their party HQ would result in equal outrage.

    For the last generation, party-leadership (both parties) refuse to educate and register the other half of the potential U.S. electorate that always refuses to vote.

    This made recent front page news in the Humboldt State University newspaper, never a word in the mainstream press.

    Instead of widespread outrage, party honchos call it “pragmatic, practical and realistic” to compromise long-standing party values to win….”

    a quote from above, there are the facts sans hyperbole for 9:06pm.

  113. Jack Sherman
    May 14, 2012 at 11:19 pm

    “Who is reintroducing child labor? More facts and less hyperbole please?”

    It’s always invigorating when another blogger loses his innocence on Heraldo to learn that he’s been living in an imperial economy all along.

  114. Anonymous
    May 15, 2012 at 4:33 am

    Facts: http://current.com/community/92998111_gop-missouri-lawmaker-pushes-bill-rolling-back-child-labor-laws.htm

    and who can forget the Grinch’s great idea that poor kids do the janitorial work at their schools?

  115. Percy
    May 15, 2012 at 8:46 am

    Unions are about as basic a form of democracy as you can get. They are set up with rules and by laws and their representatives are elected democratically. What I was referring to as settling something outside the gate or at a union meeting was referring to letting a member know they were violating the contract and either to follow it or the mater would be handled in a grievance procedure. That would involve speaking and not violence. The only thing close to violence I have ever seen was during strikes when scabs that were trying to cross picket lines clashed with the union member trying to protect their jobs, and there was a lot of verbal threatening from both sides. Perhaps that is where you had your bad experience 713. The Unions ARE about getting the best people into the job, you just don’t get to climb on everyone’s back to get there. Here’s a different take on the Washington Longshoremen’s labor dispute. The abc news article you referenced conveniently left a lot of information out.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-macaray/ilwu-strike_b_955734.html

  116. A-nony-mouse
    May 15, 2012 at 9:04 am

    When a person becomes a member of the Central Committee, they agree to abide by the By Laws. This is true of almost any group. If that person does not want to abide by the conditions imposed by those By Laws, he/she/it should NOT be there in the first place. To cry big crcodile tears when someone has the audacity to suggest those By Laws be enforced. We either have a Party with enforcable rules or we should all go home.

  117. Arcata Green Party candidate
    May 15, 2012 at 9:57 am

    Shane, I’m so sorry, but Tom Peters is right.

    Since you chaired my Arcata City Council campaign (as a Green Party candidate) after the HCDCC endorsed both Democrats Alex Stillman and Mark Wheetley for Arcata City Council you are in direct violation of the HCDCC by laws.

    It was nice having you on the HCDCC, but you can always come back to the Green Party. I’m sure Katlin won’t mind.

  118. Anonymous
    May 15, 2012 at 10:46 am

    It is telling that critics of the decision to oust the obviously deceptive and totally counterproductive members politically disect everybody involved except the people being asked to leave the group. The degree to which these members maintain conflicts of the greater party’s interest (and now this much time after they immediately changed their affiliation and joined) is so obvious it needs to be remedied. They obviously “conspired” to swing the vote by “swapping their label” without any real changes to their agenda. It’s very easy to lie yourself into any respectable party, because they are idealy about maintaining that degree of trust and honesty regarding how one governs and their intentions thereof. The party’s themselves don’t govern; there is supposed to be a friendly accord within each RESPECTABLE party. The members being brought into question are not being respectable.

    They should choose a party more in agreement with the decisions they make (and have been making) as elected officials. It’s very obvious now that they are in critical disagreements within their own party. That is allowed, of course, as honesty is the expected policy. However, in this case it’s obvious they never had any such intentions regarding very important issues (and aren’t they all important?). It was showing the minute they very obviously swapped their label, pushed that fact under the carpet and ran their successful campaigns promising to further the Democratic agenda. They are not being honest about their intentions, where others are. Remember, some of them are getting paid over $50,000 of the people they are claiming to represent when they declare their political party affiliation.

  119. Anonymous
    May 15, 2012 at 11:02 am

    …the point is, “it’s obvious”….

    It is painfully obvious in this case to anybody on any “side”. Of course we aren’t reading opposing political party affiliates complaining, they have everything to gain. Some of these critics would literally be doing business with their formerly opposing party’s elected official if a bipartisan monopoly is established. In this case, there have been polar flips of stated affiliation. Not only that, the elected candidates didn’t address the issue whatsoever at the time, pushing it under the rug and accepting with open arms the voting majority they knew would come with lying their way into the Democratic “party” in Humboldt County.

    It can’t be allowed to continue to happen. The HCDCC is a longstanding respectable group in itself, as are those of the Republican, Conservative, Independed, Green etc. parties. Party affiliation spans beyond the four walls of their meeting room. By making themselves public figures they place themselves in a fishbowl and in this case can be plainly seen swapping labels. The decisions they make ultimately affects everybody, they need to be real about who they are. It’s not really just internet drama, those are real people making real, multimillion dollar decisions and changing the physical shape of our environment forever.

  120. Amy Breighton
    May 15, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    “Arcata Green Party” coward at 9:57 am is perfectly within his rights as a member of the HCDCC to make his case against Shane at the next meeting by offering their own resolution.

    Anonymous and NAN are correct.

    The issue is about the insurgents, and their lifelong republican values that persist in conflict with the HCDCC by-laws.

  121. I'amStickingWithTheUnions
    May 15, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    “…threats and violence go hand in hand with the union thugs, don”t they?” 713

    No, 713 you are wrong again.
    You must be HiFi. Never worked a day in your life-
    is my bet.

  122. tra
    May 15, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    Union organizer Richard Marks and his wife Robin are examples of “insurgents” with “lifelong republican values,” who must therefore be purged from the HCDCC?

    So much for a “big tent.” Guess the HCDCC is looking to downsize to something more along the lines of a pup tent.

  123. Percy's child
    May 15, 2012 at 5:46 pm

    Actually Mitch, I am not 713.

    I work with the unions all the time and in my earlier years I belonged to one as well as my parents. I am pro union.

  124. High Finance
    May 15, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    See how easy it is to use other names ?

    Why not just stick to the ones we know & love you by ?

  125. Anonymous
    May 15, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    A synopsis of what you are about to see, should you watch the following video:

    Virginia Bass, a lifelong Republican who had just changed her party affiliation to Democrat, is asked why she is to be believed regarding her sudden, and very politically convenient change of heart. She had, after all, voted almost exclusively Republican her entire term(s) in office, and had been elected as a proud and vocal representative of the Republican Party. Her response is that it amounts to ‘bigger’ decisions the party makes, like the Republican’s refusal of rights to same sex couples. The crowd applauds, she is obviously coy. She’s also not a little girl and knows exactly what is going on in the big picture. She has obviously prepared the statement because it’s obvious to anybody that she could be switching parties merely to sway the vote. It is then pointed out to her that she had recently, and very vocally rejected a bill allowing a multitude of newly recognized rights for gay couples (while serving the republican agenda in broad daylight as well). The guy even says, with an almost empassioned hope, that he believes her change of political affiliation is “sincere”. Woes be it just keeps going. Whoever filmed this has a whole page of our good ol’ boys digging their own graves. Like Virginia Bass, who’s getting paid $80,000 per year, over $6,000 per month, to be a puppet falsely representing herself. It is so obvious that it really is shameful, IMO. Her opening statements are about change and not being afraid to change, yet when in office she pushes the same agenda. Her opening statements are about working together, but her decisions are and have been as predictable as if she were still the Republican she had always proudly been. etc. etc. etc….it’s something to witness. It has permanent affect in important matters. It’s puppet politics for profit on everybody’s dollar, it has to stop, and it can in this case.

  126. tra
    May 15, 2012 at 6:28 pm

    I think you can make a pretty good argument that Virginia Bass fits the description of a longtime Republican who apparently converted to being a Democrat just for electoral convenience. Of course you could say the same thing about Bonnie Neeley. She, too was a Republican for many, many years, and only switched to Democrat very recently, when it became politically advantageous to do so.

    Richard Marks, on the other hand, has long been a Democrat. Same with Estelle Fennell. Both have much, much more in common with rank-and-file Democratic voters than they do with Republican voters. Yet the clique that is currently in charge of the HCDCC denied Fennell their endorsement, basically over one issue (the General Plan), and are actively trying to get rid of Marks, too. This faction is pursuing a strategy similar to what the Tea Partiers are doing in the Republican Party — they’re trying to purge anyone who is not completely committed to the ruling clique’s rather narrow version of what it means to be a Democrat.

    In my opinion, if the local Democratic Party cannot accommodate longtime Democrats like Marks and Fennell, they’re going to end up marginalizing themselves as a very “pure,” but also very out-of-touch “boutique” party of the far left. That’s a choice they can make if they want to, but I’m not sure that’s what the majority of rank-and-file Democrats want. I guess we’ll find out.

  127. Anonymous
    May 15, 2012 at 6:47 pm

    tra, the GP doesn’t amount to one little issue, nor is it the only issue of difference. You are right to call it a “strategy”, it really is that obvious. Your use of quotation marks around the word “pure” is unecessary, tra, you are the one saying it. Within the party there is supposed to be an agreement that the public can trust and depend upon. There are obvious cases of misrepresentation going on. As a member of the general public these people claim to represent, my voice of concern is valid when I say they are lying. They know exactly what they are doing and why. With all their talk of telling everybody that the problem is all somebody else’s talk, they are not saying what they mean to say when they say they are suddenly Democrat and not Republican. Let them change the local (and national) Republican party by voting for all they claim to wish the local (and national) Republican party should stand for, as the proud members of the Republican party they’d always been. To bring the antithesis of a party’s philosophy into practice among the ranks of qualifying members is inexcusable.

    Then there’s the issue of these people doing business with eachother. The false representation has to stop, simple as that. The accused have all essentially said during their candidacy that they were fed up with politics as usual, only to be so obviously practicing it.

  128. May 15, 2012 at 7:04 pm

    See how easy it is to use other names ?

    Why not just stick to the ones we know & love you by ?

    HiFi, who sometimes goes by “Anonymous” but hotly denies it, continues to accuse Mitch of switching names when comment records show it’s not true.

    So take your own advice if it means so much to you, HiFi.

  129. tra
    May 15, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    “the GP doesn’t amount to one little issue, nor is it the only issue of difference.”

    Well, can you name any issue other than the General Plan where Estelle Fennell is not up to your standards of what you think a Democrat should stand for?

    “Let them change the local (and national) Republican party by voting for all they claim to wish the local (and national) Republican party should stand for, as the proud members of the Republican party they’d always been.”

    Again, you can make that argument about Virginia Bass, who was a longtime Republican, but the argument really rings quite hollow if you’re trying to apply it to folks like Fennell and Marks, who are longtime Democrats.

  130. 713
    May 15, 2012 at 8:19 pm

    Percy,
    The union is about the gravy train, and that’s it. It used to be about protecting workers and doing good things for the country, but not anymore. They need to police themselves and get rid of the dead weight amongst their own ranks to ever be effective again. I know a number of union retirees who are pretty upset with their pensions about now and the treatment they received when they retired. To make the argument that unions are not associated with violence ignores history, including the recent events in Washington where 19 of your ‘brothers’ were arrested. Tell your bs to somebody who hasn’t worked in the system.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/union_label_suckers_evAZuOL6p0T82LmFgjHNOI

  131. Amy Breighton
    May 15, 2012 at 9:14 pm

    There’s no question that R. Bohn represents fundamental republican values and he was not endorsed by the Central Committee.

    If committee members want to enforce the by-laws against those who would support R. Bohn over a life-long public servant with clear leadership experience and unquestioned democratic values, it’s perfectly OK to enable committee members the opportunity to consider enforcing the by laws against those members. A “big tent” should never be at the expense of debating and enforcing the by-laws.

    They’re all mature adults, right?

  132. tra
    May 15, 2012 at 9:26 pm

    O.K., Amy, but let me ask this: Does the same apply to other committee members who have supported non-endorsed candidates against longtime Democrats? Such as those who have supported Clendenen, a non-Democrat, against Fennell, a longtime Democrat? In other words, are we talking about consistent, principled enforcement of a clear standard, or are we talking about about selective enforcement, when convenient?

  133. Amy Breighton
    May 15, 2012 at 9:40 pm

    Of Course!

    Join the HCDCC, author your resolution, and see if you get the votes to debate it!

    Isn’t democracy wonderful?

    Atkins nearly won the support she needed and may get them next time…and the debate can begin, with a vote to follow.

    It’s a process for grownups.

  134. tra
    May 15, 2012 at 10:00 pm

    Well, Amy, it will be interesting to see whether, if these “grownups” decide to remove some people who have personally supported non-Democrats against Democrats, they will choose to remove only those who Atkins targeted, or whether they will also expel those who supported non-Democrat Clendenen against Democrat Fennell. If these rules on personal endorsements of non-Democrats are going to be retained and enforced, they should be enforced equally and fairly. You seem to be suggesting that it’s perfectly O.K. for Atkins to advocate selectively enforcing these rules against her political opponents, and that it should be up to someone else to enforce them against others. Nonsense. If Atkins is taking a principled stand, she should target everyone who has broken the by-laws, not just those she finds it politically convenient to target. On the other hand, if this is a cynical power-grab, rather than a principled stand, then of course there’s no need for such even-handedness. I guess we’ll see which way it goes.

    And yes, democracy IS great. Which is why the question of who is allowed to be a voting member of the HCDCC should be up to all registered Democrats, not just a little clique of a dozen or so current HCDCC members. When you start talking about using selective enforcement of previously non-enforced by-laws to refuse to seat certain people who are duly elected by rank-and-file members of the party, that’s basically the opposite of representative democracy. More like a desperate attempt to hold onto power by people who apparently don’t trust rank-and-file Democrats to decide for themselves who they’d like to have represent them on the HCDCC.

  135. Anonymous
    May 15, 2012 at 10:07 pm

    tra, you write as though there is only one person who has noticed the obvious false representation. There is only one person bringing it to the attention of the group, yes. The more time that has passed, the more obvious it has become. You do not address those who you agree are suspect, you criticize the messenger who is actually speaking for the group. Your bias is predictable. everybody reading knows you are a resident blowhard on select blogs in this county. You know that as well.

  136. Anonymous
    May 15, 2012 at 10:16 pm

    resident blowhard “tra’s” true colors show,

    “More like a desperate attempt to hold onto power by people who apparently don’t trust rank-and-file Democrats to decide for themselves who they’d like to have represent them on the HCDCC.”

    This is perhaps the most convincing you-just-buried-your-argument-for-the-person-you-were-arguing-against comment I’ve ever read. The issue is false representation, and the majority are voting those who have been falsely representing the group out of the party.

    They are falsely representing the whole group, tra. You are saying “yeah but”. How many members can YOU name? There are many more “reasonable” explanations you could come up with than what you’ve written above. But, like “high finance” you are the predictable blog blowhard everybody knows you to be, including yourself.

  137. tra
    May 15, 2012 at 10:38 pm

    Anon 10:07 / 10:16:

    Try again…and perhaps this time try to make some kind of cogent argument, assuming you’re capable of doing so.

    To me, the bottom line is this: There are about two dozen voting members of the HCDCC. There are tens of thousands of rank-and-file Democrats in Humboldt County. Who should be able to decide who is enough of a “real Democrat” that they should be allowed to serve on the HCDCC? The two dozen, or the tens of thousands?

    In my view, the fundamental idea of the Democratic party is not any particular policy position, it’s the proposition that rank-and-file voters will, more often than not, make the right decisions about who should represent them. Hence the name of the party.

  138. Anonymous
    May 15, 2012 at 10:59 pm

    tra, anybody is free to make the same motion. Where is yours against the person{s) you claim are making a vindictive act? You have agreed upon the misrepresentation, thank you very much. You are not so special that you are the only one to see what’s going on, nor are you so brilliant that you can apply such bias without being as transparent as you are. Who are you voting for, tra? Will you please tell us? Who have you voted for already, who is within the group? Who do you think ‘high finance’ is voting for? Your good ol’ boy soap opera bullshit is just that. You exist in internet land, period.

  139. tra
    May 15, 2012 at 11:23 pm

    Your incoherent ramblings are at least amusing, 10:59, if not enlightening.

    Meanwhile, there will be an election in June in which rank-and-file Democrats will vote for, among other things, which people they would like to have represent them on the HCDCC.

    If certain current members of the HCDCC don’t like some of the voters’ choices, and they want to try to use selective enforcement of previously unenforced or inconsistently enforced HCDCC by-laws to try to block some of those duly-elected people from being seated as voting members of the HCDCC, well, that will speak volumes about their view of what is more important — the wishes of the rank-and-file voters, or the desire by currently-in-power party insiders to enforce (their version of) the “party line.”

  140. Eric Kirk
    May 15, 2012 at 11:26 pm

    I guess the real question is “what is a Democrat?” It’s much easier to define a Republican I think. I’m not even saying that in the negative. The Republican is much closer to a party in the European sense with a coherent political agenda. The Democrats are pretty much just… everybody else.

    I have no problem with the leadership trying to generate some sort of core value system with regard to its endorsements. If they venture too far left as seems to be alleged here, then they’ll be voted out. That’s the “democratic” angle here.

  141. tra
    May 15, 2012 at 11:47 pm

    Eric,

    In the Journal article, Atkins suggests that, based on the (selectively enforced) endorsement rule, she might try to get the committee to refuse to seat Marks and his allies even if they are elected by the rank-and-file. That doesn’t seem very (small-d) “democratic.”

    It’s not clear to me who, if anyone, would be seated in their places in such a case. If the answer is that the rest of the HCDCC would just appoint the losing (but preferred-by-the-currently-in-control-faction) candidates to fill the unfilled seats, or appoint some other non-elected individuals that are willing to “toe the party line,” then that would be quite an interesting “angle” on democracy indeed.

    At that point the HCDCC would be acting more like a self-perpetuating board, rather than democratically-elected representative body.

    But in the end, I agree that even if they go that route, that would prove to be a Pyrric victory, as rank-and-file Democratic voters aren’t likely to put up with that kind of power grab for very long.

  142. Percy
    May 16, 2012 at 12:08 am

    From your comments 713, I gather that you are employed in a non union job or perhaps you are a contractor. I wish you the best in your personal negotiations with your employer regarding your wages and if you are lucky enough, your medical benefits and retirement. Your take on unions being there to protect lazy employees is a lie. All jobs have production requirements and if they are not met then management will deal with that individual. Your assertion about union violence is also a lie. Historically union people were the ones getting beat up and killed when police or the military was used to break strikes. I’m done pointing out your biased bullshit. The battles we union people fought to get better wages, working conditions and benefits are what spurred the growth of the middle class. Just like the unions in decline so is the middle class. It’s ok though, because at some point people will realize what this idiotic right wing mania this country is in right now has gotten them. That’s when what’s left of the middle class and the rest of the country that has slipped into poverty will fight all the battles that we fought all over again. I’m done wasting my time with you 713.

  143. tra
    May 16, 2012 at 12:08 am

    By the way, does anyone here know why the voting membership of the HCDCC currently consists of six members each from the 1st and 3rd supervisorial districts, but only four members from the 4th district and three members each from the 2nd and 5th districts?

    Can’t help but wonder if Fennell might have received the 60% needed for an endorsement if there had been equal representation from each of the districts…

  144. Percy
    May 16, 2012 at 12:30 am

    The usual propagandists have weighed in on this thread trying to obfuscate the issue and even want to define what a democrat is in this county. I’ll tell you what a democrat isn’t : It’s somebody showing up at a HCDCC meeting wearing a Rex Bohn for supervisor pull over. That’s just plain down right insulting and needs to be dealt with.

  145. Amy Breighton
    May 16, 2012 at 12:54 am

    You’re right Percy…plain and simple.

    Oh, the audacity of “toeing the party line”,WITHIN A POLITICAL PARTY!!

    Oh, the injustice of the HCDCC “acting more like a self-perpetuating board, rather than democratically-elected representative body.” Even thought they are duly elected members of the HCDCC already representing the rank and file and, thus, have every right to debate and decide the appropriateness of enforcing HCDCC by-laws.

    Oh, the “Pyrric victory, as rank-and-file Democratic voters aren’t likely to put up with that kind of power grab for very long.”

    Hell, if this issue is large enough to inspire the other majority to finally turn out and vote GREAT!!! (We wouldn’t be having this issue in the first place!).

    Tra’s comments read bitter over the “inconsistency” of not having some other Central Committee member equally upset that Clendenen was endorsed over Fennel. So, if tra feels as strongly as he/she portrays, tra, or any rank and file dem, should become a member and offer a resolution for debate. The fact that both Clendenen and Fennel share many democratic values might result in far less than the 2/3 vote needed to debate the issue. The same might be true for Marks…but I’m not a voting member, THEY must decide!

    It’s easy to see, however, why Atkins nearly got the 2/3 votes she needed to debate the issue. Returning to a developer-backed majority on the Board of Supes is disgusting…Fennel’s campaign donors betray an equally disgusting alliance with developers.

    It’s pretty amusing to read cries of “equal application of the by-laws” with the same graveness as the “equal application of law”.

    It’s POLITICAL! And those with the elected responsibilities are well within their charge.

  146. tra
    May 16, 2012 at 12:56 am

    Oh, I see, so it’s Percy who gets to decide what a Democrat is and isn’t in this county.

    And here I was thinking that it should be up to the tens of thousands of rank-and-file registered Democrats in the county to decide for themselves through a free and fair election of the HCDCC members of their choosing. Silly me.

    Obviously these decisions should be made for us by Percy, and the dozen or so members of the HCDCC insider clique.

    Well, thanks for straightening me out on that Percy!

  147. tra
    May 16, 2012 at 1:03 am

    Amy,

    Thank you for acknowledging that Atkin’s attempt at selective enforcement is just “political” rather than a matter of principle, as some have tried to portray it

    Also, thank you for acknowledging that equally applying the rules is not important to you as achieving the result you want.

    And finally, thank you for clarifying that you think it’s the couple dozen members of the HCDCC who should be deciding who is qualified to become a new voting member of the HCDCC this June, rather than those pesky rank-and-file members who actually vote in the election.

    At least you’re being honest.

  148. What Now
    May 16, 2012 at 2:10 am

    “I don’t belong to Any organized political party.I’m a Democrat.”

    -Will Rogers circa 1930

  149. 713
    May 16, 2012 at 7:16 am

    Hey Percy,
    When I want a raise I will go and ask for it, I don’t need some jackass from out of the area to negotiate for me because I am too dumb to understand what’s going on. I have health, vacation, retirement…How’s your pension doing? Mine is funded 100%. Is yours?

    http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/criticalstatusnotices.html

    Is the DOL lying Percy?

  150. May 16, 2012 at 7:23 am

    The democrats are the new republicans…the republicans are not the christian party of the south…

  151. May 16, 2012 at 7:23 am

    not=now

  152. Mitch
    May 16, 2012 at 7:44 am

    713,

    “When I want a raise I will go and ask for it”

    That you can summarize unions this way only shows you don’t understand where the union movement came from and what it has accomplished. Hey, maybe with your individual resources you could actually get the raise on your own.

    Maybe you had a bad experience with a particular union. That doesn’t alter the historical reality of a whole century.

  153. 713
    May 16, 2012 at 8:05 am

    Mitch,
    I agree the unions have brought the wages and benefits up for many industries, and saved many lives with safety improvements, etc. I appreciate it and have no doubt we are all benefiting. They have been so effective that many policies are now common health and safety regulations. As of now, we have whistleblower laws, OSHA, equal pay for equal work, etc. so there isn’t really a need for an organization to keep workers from being exploited in my opinion. My problem with them is the protectionism that is extreme to the point it actually hurts the workers because business and government are so hamstrung by rules it creates hardship on the many for the few. Also, I have a problem with the pensions not being funded and they are passing the buck off to the new members, while enjoying fat pensions that are not sustainable. They are supposed to be about taking care of all the workers but ask the union workers to take a 5% paycut because there is no money or lay off 5% of the the newest guys, and they lay off the new guys. Some brothers. Case in point would be our school system. They are laying off teachers, which inevitably will increase the class sizes. Bad for kids, bad for teachers. Why not do an across the board cut and keep the same positions?

  154. Mitch
    May 16, 2012 at 8:17 am

    “ask the union workers to take a 5% paycut because there is no money or lay off 5% of the the newest guys, and they lay off the new guys.”

    When is this five percent request coming? Is it after the shareholders have been asked to turn in five percent of their shares, and the management has taken a greater than five percent cut (since they make more and have more flexibility in their personal budgets)?

    If so, it would be nice if the unions would not laugh such a request off the table. If not, isn’t your question really why management, shareholders, and workers aren’t willing to take cuts to avoid layoffs of the newest hires?

  155. Mitch
    May 16, 2012 at 8:20 am

    Or in the case of teachers, replace shareholders with taxpayers. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest haven’t even been repealed, so the wealthiest are the only segment of our community that has been given a real “raise” in the past decade. When they give back their “raise,” then and only then should public employees be asked to take additional cuts.

  156. High Finance
    May 16, 2012 at 8:34 am

    So, you consider a “real raise” is when the government allows you to keep more of your own money ?

    Yep, you’re definitely a liberal.

  157. Anonymous
    May 16, 2012 at 8:40 am

    It’s an increase in the amount of money you have to spend, call it what you will.

  158. Anonymous
    May 16, 2012 at 8:43 am

    There are members who are clearly not Democrats. They are clearly lying about who they represent, that is not allowed in any party. They have been getting away with it too long already. It is obvious to everybody. Time to vote them out. It has everything to do with restorting honesty and integrity to the party AND the process, and nothing to do with who brings the matter to the public’s eye. This not a playground matter, as the regular blabbermouths of this blog attemt to make it out to be..

  159. Mitch
    May 16, 2012 at 8:55 am

    Yes, Hi Fi, when the government changes the way it bills citizens for taxes so that the share paid by the wealthiest goes down the most, that’s a real raise for the wealthiest.

    Thanks for this comment — your comment about High Speed Rail funding made me worry something had happened to you.

  160. tra
    May 16, 2012 at 9:29 am

    “There are members who are clearly not Democrats. They are clearly lying about who they represent, that is not allowed in any party. They have been getting away with it too long already. It is obvious to everybody. Time to vote them out. ”

    Well, there’s an election in June when rank-and-file registered Democrats will have the opportunity to decide for themselves who they want to elect to the HCDCC. Seems to me that this should be the appropriate venue for your concerns. But Ms. Atkins is suggesting that if certain people are elected, then the current HCDCC members should overrule the rank-and-file by refusing to seat those people.

    If the individuals in question are “clearly” not Democrats, “clearly lying about who they represent,” and this is “obvious to everyone” then why not trust the rank-and-file to make this decision for themselves?

    In my view, that’s the core issue here: Who should decide…a couple of dozen party insiders, or the tens of thousands of rank-and-file Democrats?

  161. High Finance
    May 16, 2012 at 9:32 am

    As far as the topic about the Democrat Central Committee trying to purge its ranks of any people not toeing the line, the Board of Supervisors and City Council races are NON PARTISAN races.

    The HCDCC is trying to squelch the free speech rights of its own members ! What is next, purging its ranks of anybody who speaks up in favor of Wal Mart ? Anybody who seen socializing with Robin Arkley ?

    Is this the actions of a Democrat Central Committee or of the Soviet Politburo ?

  162. Anonymous
    May 16, 2012 at 9:38 am

    tra, how are you going to vote in the HCDCC?
    Are you a member? And what is your voting history? Who have you voted for and who are you going to vote for?

  163. tra
    May 16, 2012 at 9:47 am

    9:38,

    I am not a member of the HCDCC. Are you?

  164. Democracy Never!
    May 16, 2012 at 9:48 am

    Tra – just what the hell are you suggesting?

    Do you think the Democratic Central Committee is going to allow democracy – as in the majority of voters allowed to decide an issue?

    No – this is going to be a handful of power mongers not letting go of control no matter who the voters elect.

    Is it just me or has Linda Atkins gone rogue ever since Larry went bye-bye?

    First her nick-name changed from bobble-head to one-four.

    Atkins obviously wants power somewhere and she ain’t getting it at City Council meetings,

    So now she creates “by-laws” issues – and there are many – however she selectively chooses which to enforce and which to ignore.

    Come to the June 13 HCDCC meeting to watch dysfunctionalism up close.

  165. Anonymous
    May 16, 2012 at 9:50 am

    tra, who are you going to vote for, and who have you voted for in the past?

  166. Anonymous
    May 16, 2012 at 9:55 am

    “So now she creates “by-laws” issues – and there are many – however she selectively chooses which to enforce and which to ignore.”

    Specific rules have been broken, they have not been selectively chosen. Virginia Bass and Rex Bohn, especially, have selectively chosen to misrepresent themselves. They are business liasons playing politics on everybody’s dime, and it has become sickeningly obvious to everybody involved. “Rank and file” my ass, those members were at odds to begin with, they have been given a fair, polite and democratic chance to prove themselves, only to misrepresent the whole Democratic party with the decisions they continue to make. They are not Democrats, they are lying to the public to sway the vote. They can vote for gay rights as the Republicans they have always proudly been. The issues directly related to humboldt are the ones registered members of any party in Humboldt care about. They are playing a con game. They would have to lie to our faces to deny it.

  167. Anonymous
    May 16, 2012 at 10:00 am

    …Virginia Bass gets $6,000 a month of the public’s money to falsely represent the Democratic party in Humboldt’s government (a very important position as well). She is NOT a Democrat, she has literally never been a Democrat, she has always voted against the philosophies of the party she suddenly claims to represent, and continues to do so. Rex Bohn very loudly and very proudly promoted big boxes in Humboldt, he has become just as obvious a con.

    “Fool me once, shame on you. To fool me twice isn’t going to happen. Shame on you for trying and thinking we were that stupid.”

  168. Democracy Never!
    May 16, 2012 at 10:01 am

    Various bloggers keep stating, “They are not Democrats.”

    Have you had a conversation with them?

    Did you have the common decency to sit and have a chat about their social views?

    Define “Democrat”?

    Since gay rights are a state issue, please tell what Wes Chesbro and Noreen Evens did on the floor of Sacramento to promote gay rights?

    Since they did nothing – are they “not real Democrats” either?

  169. Anonymous
    May 16, 2012 at 10:07 am

    “Have you had a conversation with them?

    Did you have the common decency to sit and have a chat about their social views?”

    The decisions they continue to make speak for them. They are expected to support the party’s agenda for the 99.999% of the public that will never meet them in person. They are supposed to be representing themselves truthfully. They are not. This is not about their public speaking skills. It is much more important than that.

  170. Anonymous
    May 16, 2012 at 10:09 am

    10:01, do you know what it means to be a party member in name only?

  171. Anonymous
    May 16, 2012 at 10:35 am

    Rex Bohn wants that same kind of paycheck Virginia gets, to conduct his business outside the Democratic agenda as usual. Those positions need to go to people who are honest starting at square one. These candidates have a lot of money to promote themselves and have used it to be intentionally vague to the public. Their past and current advertisements say nothing. In my opinion they are insulting the general public by so obviously representing themselves in such a shady way. It’s politics and business as usual, against their own cries to stop politics and business as usual. If the vote for allowance into the HCDCC were to happen again based on these candidates growing track record of important decision making. Rex Bohn has already been caught including at least one false endorsement on his list. He cannot be taken seriously to begin with. It’s what the every day person calls “bullshit”, and a line can be drawn very easily in this case, as it should finally be.

  172. Anonymous
    May 16, 2012 at 10:40 am

    My sentence disappeared….”if the vote for allowance of these members into the HCDCC were to happen again today based on the continued track record of these politicians in important decision making, they would never have been allowed to use the Democratic party as their publicity tool.” They are not representing the platform they claim to be representing. They are, in no uncertain terms, lying to the public about the decisions they are going to make. Party affiliation is important, and it has become obvious they were not true to the words they used to solicit membership. They were allowed into the HCDCC on a generous leap of faith, it is now obvious they were intentionally misleading from the beginning.

  173. Anonymous
    May 16, 2012 at 10:45 am

    …and whether anybody else is doing it as well, within the ranks of this or the Republican or the Green party is a distraction and completely beside the point regarding these specific members. The Democratic party of Humboldt County, and the voting public, is much greater than this clique of good ol’ boy business buddies.

  174. Anonymous
    May 16, 2012 at 10:45 am

    As a lifelong Democrat, I grew up believing that the ”values” of the Democratic Party would always put people first. Democrats were always on the forefront on issues such as protecting worker rights, worker safety, livable income, and helping families succeed in realizing their own American Dream.
    I have worked hard as a labor organizer and leader to help those who needed and hand up, not a hand out. You anti union commenter’s just remember, “United we Bargain, Divided we Beg.” I have witnessed this all over the west coast when I organized. Why do you think companies fight so hard against labor!
    On the above topic. All of the accused are really Democrats and hold true Democratic social values. Marian and Melinda lifetime I believe. None of the accused is voting members of the HCDCC. The ones who are running for the HCDCC will be judged by their Democratic constituents in the 4th District this June 5th.
    Linda Atkins is calling out a select few Associate Members for their endorsement of a non Democrat. All of these endorsements were made way before a Democrat even entered the race. (The HCDCC should have recruited someone way before the fact!) No one on the HCDCC asked any of them to recant those endorsements. Why? Because this has been common practice by the actual voting HCDCC Members of “this” committee for years! Almost every Executive Board members and many rank and file Members have been guilty of the same thing Linda is calling out others! Of course Linda didn’t realize this as she has only been a member a short time.
    I have called out this committee on their practices of endorsements in the past. I have recruited other Democrats to fill open spots on this committee only to have those people attacked as spies even though they voted against my views while I was on the Executive Board. They all thought for themselves! Imagine that. But paranoia reigns supreme with this committee. I have helped local Democrats go through the vetting process to be placed on this committee this June. The HCDCC is broken. Hopefully the repairs and healing will take place after the elections.

  175. Anonymous
    May 16, 2012 at 10:52 am

    What a lengthy crock of shit, 10:45.

    “Linda Atkins is calling out a select few Associate Members for their endorsement of a non Democrat.”

    They are being called out by more than just Linda Atkins and for far more reasons than their endorsement of a non Democrat, you know that.

  176. Anonymous
    May 16, 2012 at 11:38 am

    Those in question didn’t just endorse Rex Bhon. They gave him permission to exploit the HCDCC’s name and reputation as speaking for Democrats. I assume that the committee members are aware that their names and positions are being used in advertizements by candidates. A committee member that authorizes the HCDCC’s name to be used to promote candidates that the organization is actively campaigning against is acting counter productive to the organization and should be held accountable.

  177. Amy Breighton
    May 16, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    “In my view, that’s the core issue here: Who should decide…a couple of dozen party insiders, or the tens of thousands of rank-and-file Democrats?”.

    To me, the core issue is about “a couple dozen party insiders”, (ONE VOTE SHY OF 2/3!), who are already legitimate members representing the rank and file charged with the responsibility of determining if other members are, or are not, qualified to serve on the Committee.

    It’s a democratic process that is not made less-democratic by the mere count of times its used. It remains a democratic process.

    I wasn’t born here, but after 40 years, if the local rank and file can get “outraged” over anything…(let alone having 2/3 of their Committee determine that several members are frauds), and it actually gets half of them to turn out to vote once….GREAT!

  178. Saul Goode
    May 16, 2012 at 2:58 pm

    Just got the text that Linda Atkins was seen shopping at a bog box yesterday.

    Maybe now she will have to file a petition against herself at the next HCDCC meeting as big boxes are very Republican.

    Goona be interesting to see which Proggies show up to see Virginia Bass, Marian Brady and Richard Marks get sworn in.

    Just remember you have to use your real name to whine, no anonymous allowed at a public meeting.

  179. Percy
    May 16, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    Great work getting that info out to us Saul. Keep it up. Us Proggies need to be in the know. Do you have any info on republicans shopping at Piersons?

  180. Anonymous
    May 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    I just saw Virginia Bass in a commercial for Rex Bohn. Neither of them said anything specific whatsoever, just patting eachothers’ backs on TV, paid for with money they raised from the public while pretending to be Democrats.

    If you don’t believe name recognition is critically important, just look how these people are promoting themselvs right now. They are neither honest nor forthright. And they are obviously “playing the field”. They need to be disinvolved from public office. They can get jobs at the big boxes they want to help their business sponsers build, and live in the apartments they want to help their business associates build. I’m sure their sponsers will start them above minimum wage, and maybe give them a break on rent.

    It will be good when they are gone. The changing climate is enough to not tolerate anymore crap from such obvious fakes. The decisions they make are very important in the long run.

  181. tra
    May 16, 2012 at 3:28 pm

    Okay, Amy, I get what you’re saying. We just disagree about which is more (small-d) democratic — less than two dozen current HCDCC members deciding who is or isn’t “qualified” to serve on the HCDCC, or tens of thousands of rank-and-file members deciding for themselves. To me, it seems like a pretty clear-cut issue of more direct democracy = better.

    I would also add that the current makeup of the HCDCC does not provide anything close to equal representation to each of the supervisorial districts. There are currently six members each from the 1st and 3rd supervisorial districts, but only four members from the 4th district, and only three members each from the 2nd and 5th districts. The following list is from the Humboldt Democratic Party’s website:

    District 1 Representatives

    Heidi Benzonelli
    Michael Finley
    Joan Hubbard
    Tom Preble
    Phillis A. Seawright
    Julie Timmons

    District 2 Representatives

    Estelle Fennell
    Barbara Kennedy
    Kris Renner

    District 3 Representatives

    Chris Beresford
    Milt Boyd
    Pam Cahill
    Barbara M. Carolan
    Isabella Phipps
    Michael Winkler

    District 4 Representatives

    Linda Atkins
    Charlene H. Ploss
    Pam Service
    Bob Service

    District 5 Representatives

    Sid Berg
    Chuck Harvey
    Jim Smith
    Roger L. Smith

    Ex-Officio Representatives

    John Driscoll for Representative Mike Thompson
    Zuretti Goosby for State Senator Noreen Evans
    John Woolley for Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro

    http://humboldtdemocrats.org/members

    I’m not sure why this huge imbalance exists (retirements/resignations?) but clearly it’s seriously skewed in favor the Arcata and Eureka area, and against McKinleyville and the north, and against Fortuna and SoHum. Not exactly “one person, one vote,” now is it?

  182. tra
    May 16, 2012 at 3:32 pm

    Oops, that’s four HCDCC members from the 5th district, not three. Still quite an imbalance.

  183. Anonymous
    May 16, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    Who are you voting for, tra? And who have you voted for? Please be honest.

  184. High Finance
    May 16, 2012 at 4:10 pm

    The “problem” is not which district the Central Committee members come from.

    The problem is those extreme partisans trying to inject partisanship into local offices like the Supervisors & City Council. Partisanship has grounded Wash DC & Sacramento into stalemates. Do you wish that ugliness forced upon us at the local level as well ?

  185. tra
    May 16, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    “The “problem” is not which district the Central Committee members come from.”

    Well it’s a problem if you think equal representation is important.

  186. A-nony-mouse
    May 16, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    I guess many of you just don’t get it. The by-laws state that a member cannot openly campaign for a candidate RUNNING AGAINST an endorsed candidate. That means any one of them can openly endorse Cliff because Estell IS NOT an endorsed candidate. That leaves the field wide open for Cliff. However, Cheryl IS an endorsed candidate which makes Marion Brady’s obvious support for Wrecks a clear violation of those by-laws if she has chosen to join the Democratic Party. She is under NO pressure or requirement to join. It is entirely voluntary. But if she (or anyone else) chooses to join, then the rules apply to her and she must abide by them. Sure, she can vote for anyone she wants in the privacy of the booth and who will know, but actively campaigning for sonmeone running against an endorsed candidate is grounds to be invited to leave.
    It ain’t rocket science.

  187. tra
    May 16, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    A-nony-mouse,

    You seem knowledgeable about this, so perhaps you could confirm a few points for me:

    (1) Was Estelle Fennell endorsed by the HCDCC during the last election (when it was Fennell vs. Clendenen vs. Rodoni?)

    (2) If so, did some members of the HCDCC publicly support Clendenen in that contest anyway?

    (3) If so, were any of those people held accountable for breaking the “HCDCC members are not allowed to support candidates running against HCDCC-endorsed candidates” rule?

    (4) Are any of those people still serving on the HCDCC now?

    (5) Is there any “statute of limitations” on the gag rule in the HCDCC by-laws, or are those people also eligible for removal / refusal to seat on the same grounds as Atkins is proposing to remove / refuse to seat Marks, Bass, etc.?

  188. Anonymous
    May 16, 2012 at 5:57 pm

    “. She is under NO pressure or requirement to join. It is entirely voluntary. But if she (or anyone else) chooses to join, then the rules apply to her and she must abide by them.”

    This is among the obvious facts that resident wasted of time like “high finance” and “tra” refuse to acknowledge and attempt to distract from. They are ignoring why the members in question are there as well as how they got there. This isn’t the November election, this is within a RESPECTABLE party’s cooperative interest for very important reasons, primarily to have a unified party on which the disinterested voting public can TRUST.

    If this were a business matter, these candidates would be in very serious violation of copyright infringement considering the long term consequences. They would be facing jail time. They are promoting themselves and others using a cooperative and member-driven identity that doesn’t endorse what they are doing. They are lying to the public.

    tra, who are you voting for? Why aren’t you proud to tell us?

  189. tra
    May 16, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    I’m not going to share who I’m voting for at the Supervisorial-district level, because that would reveal which district I live in. Sorry, but I’m not interested in doing that.

    I will tell you that I’m planning to vote for Susan Adams for Congress. By the way, Adams has been endorsed by Mark Lovelace and she has also been endorsed by Virginia Bass and Richard Marks. Good luck applying your black-and-white thinking to those facts.

  190. Anonymous
    May 16, 2012 at 6:26 pm

    Who would you vote for if you lived in that district, tra? See how painfully obvious your bullshit is getting?

  191. tra
    May 16, 2012 at 6:50 pm

    6:26,

    I guess you mean the First District? Well, in the First District I’m leaning towards Seidner. Rex Bohn obviously cares a lot about the community, and deserves a lot of credit for his many years of volunteer work — but his support for Wal-Mart, for Arkley’s Big Box by the Bay and especially his support for the CalPine Liquified Natural Gas terminal proposal makes me question his judgement about what kind of economic development would be most beneficial and appropriate for this county. DeModena sounds like she’s a nice lady and well-meaning, but I don’t think she has a realistic chance. Seidner is obviously smart, accomplished, and a hard worker, and the more I hear from her the more I like what I hear.

  192. Eric Kirk
    May 16, 2012 at 8:58 pm

    You won’t like her position on the GPU tra.

  193. Eric Kirk
    May 16, 2012 at 9:03 pm

    Just got the text that Linda Atkins was seen shopping at a bog box yesterday.

    Maybe now she will have to file a petition against herself at the next HCDCC meeting as big boxes are very Republican.

    Well, actually, Costco is considered “blue” whereas WalMart is considered “red” based upon their campaign donations. I don’t know where Target and Winco fall.

  194. tra
    May 16, 2012 at 9:23 pm

    Eric,

    “You won’t like her position on the GPU tra.”

    Maybe so. I haven’t heard much detail on it yet. Her overall take on land use sounded O.K., but of course it was pretty vague…same as most of the candidates…(sigh).

    I did like her take on how we might go about increasing oyster farming in the bay.

  195. Eric Kirk
    May 16, 2012 at 9:27 pm

    She basically wants to vote on it and be done with it for this time around. No 1500 reboot that HumCPR has been looking for.

  196. tra
    May 16, 2012 at 9:42 pm

    Well I guess the real question is what would she vote to include and not include in the GPU? For example, does she favor continuing to allow a home on a TPZ parcel as a “principally permitted use,” involving the existing “ministerial” permit process — or does she support requiring a new “discretionary” permit process?

    By the way…did I miss something, or do we still not have a straight answer from your man Clif on that one?

  197. Eric Kirk
    May 16, 2012 at 11:24 pm

    He supports a process consistent with the statutory scheme, and is waiting for County Counsel to provide some feedback, as is everyone.

    By the way, the existing process is not “ministerial.” There’s discretion involved. Nor would the “new” statutory requirement set back in the 1970s be completely “discretionary.” We’re talking relative terms here. I know that HumCPR likes to talk in absolutes, but it really doesn’t apply.

  198. Eric Kirk
    May 16, 2012 at 11:26 pm

    And another by the way, has Estelle, since declaring her candidacy, have a straight answer? I doubt it, because it would be irresponsible on her part. Notice Rex doesn’t have a straight answer. Nor even Karen. Nor did Virginia or Ryan.

  199. What Now
    May 16, 2012 at 11:45 pm

    No doubt Rex, Karen, Virgina and Estelle will happily share their answers just as soon as their handlers give them the memo and talking points.

  200. tra
    May 16, 2012 at 11:50 pm

    Here’s what Estelle had to say in the recent HumCPR candidate questionnaire:

    “I do not support any further erosion of our right to build a home on our property. I disagree strongly with those who advocate for removing that right from TPZ landowners.”

    Seems like much more of a “straight answer” than your explanation that “He supports a process consistent with the statutory scheme, and is waiting for County Counsel to provide some feedback.” That is basically a meaningless statement, since obviously “the process has to be consistent with the statutory scheme.” The question is, what is Clif’s preference for what that process should be, and why doesn’t he want to make a clear statement about what that preference is.

    Look, if Clif supports the current system and his only concern is that it might run afoul of some potential new interpretation of the law, he could say “I support continuing the existing system for approving homes on TPZ parcels unless a court of law requires it be changed.”

    What would be irresponsible about that? Nothing.

    Hiding behind “waiting for the County Counsel” is pretty weak. If he supports changing the rules, he should just say so.

    It seems like perhaps team Clendenen has realized that taking a clear position will lose him votes from one side or the other, so he’s just going to try to keep playing “hide the ball” until after the election. And hey, it might work. Pretty lame though.

  201. Eric Kirk
    May 17, 2012 at 12:47 am

    So what does Estelle’s statement mean exactly? “Further erosion?” Who advocates removing the right to build a home on TPZ land? That’s not even in Plan A.

    I don’t know what the “current system” is. I’m not sure that there is a “new interpretation” of the law. There is evidence that there has been non-enforcement of the law in the past. Is that the “current system?”

    If her position is that there should be no difference between regulation of building homes on TPZ and rural residential zoned land, then why doesn’t she say that?

  202. 713
    May 17, 2012 at 6:07 am

    Who advocates removing the right to build a home on TPZ land? That’s not even in Plan A.

    County staff.

  203. UrbanSprawl
    May 17, 2012 at 6:44 am

    713, perhaps county staff realizes
    that homes are not timber production
    and that the road to the home
    will negatively effect timber potential. Estelle sounds more
    Republican everyday.

  204. Mitch
    May 17, 2012 at 6:55 am

    Eric @ 9:03,

    Costco vs Walmart goes well beyond campaign donations to the core principles and behavior of each company.

    http://www.ou.edu/russell/UGcomp/Cascio.pdf

    In recent years, in the stock market, the results have been clear:

    http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=58cfe657-a90e-46cb-9d80-c2960f8c72a5

  205. Mitch
    May 17, 2012 at 7:04 am

    Three quotes from the first link at 6:55:

    “Costco’s business model is based on that of Sol Price: sell a limited number of items, keep costs down, rely on high volume, pay workers well,
    have customers buy memberships, and aim for upscale shoppers, especially small-business owners. In addition, don’t advertise—that saves two percent a year in costs.”

    “Note the modern-day heresy in Costco’s numbered code of ethics: taking care of customers and employees takes precedence over rewarding shareholders.”

    “Costco also has some rules about discipline and promotion. An employee
    with more than two years of service cannot be fired without the approval of a senior company officer. (It used to be that only one of the cofounders, Sinegal or Brotman, could issue this approval.) The company also requires itself to promote internally for 86 percent of its openings in top positions.”

  206. May 17, 2012 at 7:23 am

    Thanks for the links, Mitch. While WalMart exploits workers to squeeze more pennies for its billionaire owners, Costco kicks back to the employees with promotions and benefits.

    To sum up the previous two sections, a reason- able conclusion is that Costco offers high-quality merchandise at low prices, and it does not hesitate to lean on its suppliers—all of its suppliers—to ensure that it is getting as good a deal as any other retailer. What it sacrifices in margin it makes up in volume. Such frugality extends to the chief executive officer’s pay, but when it comes to Costco employees, generous benefits and accom- modation to labor unions set Costco apart from almost any other retailer.

  207. Green Partier
    May 17, 2012 at 8:52 am

    I guess Tom Peters just doesn’t get it.

    The by-laws state that Shane Brinton cannot openly campaign for Dave Meserve RUNNING AGAINST endorsed candidates (Alex Stillman and Mark Wheetley).

    However, Stillman and Wheetley WERE endorsed candidates which makes Shane Brinton’s obvious support for Meserve a clear violation of those by-laws if he had chosen to leave the Green Party join the Democratic Central Committee.

    Shane is under NO pressure or requirement to join.

    It is entirely voluntary. But if Shane (or anyone else) chooses to join, then the rules apply to him and he must abide by them.

    Sure, he can vote for anyone he wants in the privacy of the booth and who will know, but actively campaigning for MESERVE running against endorsed candidates is grounds to be invited to leave.

    It ain’t rocket science.

  208. Anonymous
    May 17, 2012 at 9:10 am

    So go raise hell about it at the next meeting, 8:52am. It doesn’t change the facts about this specific instance, the topic of this thread. Kick them all out if that’s what it takes, these obvious fakes are a necessary start.

  209. Common Sense
    May 17, 2012 at 1:48 pm

    10:05 am “They are expected to support the party’s agenda for the 99.999% of the public that will never meet them in person.”

    And I thought are local elections were non-partisan.

    Thank you for correcting me.

    Is this the Tea Party talking or are you going to claim you are a Democrat?

    Do Congressman Thompson and Assemblymember Wes Chesbro (who are in partisan offices) realize that they are currently endorsing a Decline to State over the Democrat in the Supervisor’s race?

    How about when Thompson and Chesbro campaigned for Republicans over Democrats?

    The duplicity of our local Democrats never ceases to amaze me.

  210. Anonymous
    May 17, 2012 at 5:58 pm

    “And I thought are local elections were non-partisan.”

    Tell that to the fakes who are so desperate to fly the Democrat flag all of a sudden.

  211. A-nony-mouse
    May 17, 2012 at 5:58 pm

    tra, I don’t know the answer to your question. I don’t recall there were any endorsed candidates for that district. If there were not, anyone would be free to support anyone they wanted. That is the case this year since the Committee DID NOT endorse Estelle. Open season for that one.
    As for Shane, once the last election was over, he was free to switch from Green to Dem and have his say.
    Why is this so hard for some to understand? I bet all you Elks and Rotarians have bylaws and rules you’re expected to obey and honor under penalty of being removed from the organization. It was ever thus.

  212. Anonymous
    May 17, 2012 at 6:00 pm

    These candidates certainly aren’t ashamed to take money from people as they say they are supported by the Democratic party.

  213. Anonymous
    May 17, 2012 at 6:28 pm

    “Why is this so hard for some to understand?”

    It’s not. The usual gang of idiots are just trying to change the subject as always.

  214. Anonymous
    May 17, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    During the course of the next US presidency, regardless of who it will be, discussion of abolishing the party system altogether will become a national topic. It’s become too easy for politicians like the ones being asked to leave the HCDCC to lie their way into what was once a trusted means of representation. Too many have already gotten away with it all over the nation on every level, as obviously as in this case. The planet’s climate is dramatically changing and not for the better and it’s only going to get worse. Time to be real.

  215. 713
    May 18, 2012 at 7:27 am

    “713, perhaps county staff realizes that homes are not timber production and that the road to the home will negatively effect timber potential.”

    So the argument is that the person who lives out there will not cut enough trees down?

    Interesting.

  216. Green Partier
    May 18, 2012 at 9:24 am

    “As for Shane, once the last election was over, he was free to switch from Green to Dem and have his say.”

    Tom, I’ll explain this to you SLOW…

    Shane Brinton was not only a DEMOCRAT, an elected official, and a member of the HCDCC when he ran Dave Meserve’s (Green Party) campaign against two endorsed DEMOCRATS.

    Shane was expected to obey and honor under penalty of being removed from the HCDCC.

    Why is this so hard for you to understand?

  217. Amy Breighton
    May 19, 2012 at 1:18 am

    It’s hard to believe how far tra and G-Pee’er have persisted on their incredibly irrational argument.

    Under their ludicrous standards, to be “fair” there would have to be compulsory hearings every time a member campaigned for a non-endorsed candidate!

    Instead, the HCDCC by-laws provide a rational, democratic process requiring a stiff 2/3 vote to eject party-frauds. It’s not the Magna Carta, it’s the by-laws of a political party requiring a large majority vote to take action that any member can initiate at any time!

    Honestly, Meserve vs Stillman vs Wheetly? Each one of them have strong democratic credentials!

    R. Bohn? Are you kidding? He’s the voice and face that excused the highest gas prices in the nation for his corporate master for 20 years! R. Bohn The Wal-mart activist, R. Bohn the Cal-Pine activist, R. Bohn the Arkley big box on the bay activist?

    Any HCDCC member supporting R. Bohn over Seidner belongs on the republican central committee where they will be most welcomed.

    How long do you think the republican central committee would have Meserve, Stillman, Wheetly, and Glass joining their committee around the same time while endorsing Seidner and Solomon?

    Just because the rules are rarely invoked by members does not make the process undemocratic or unfair.

  218. Anonymous
    May 19, 2012 at 8:32 am

    Amy Breighton, where does one start?

    Dave Meserve is a registered Green Party member. For Shane Brinton to bring him to a HCDCC meeting and pimp him over Mark Wheetley is a shame and against the HCDCC bylaws.

    If Meserve has such strong Democratic credentials, then he should change political affiliations from Green to Democrat and join the HCDCC.

    We’ll get to Milt Boyd and Chris Beresford next and how they also broke the HCDCC bylaws and need to be removed.

    Next, Rex Bohn did not call the House of Saud every morning to set the gas prices. If you had any formal economics education you would understand that the market sets prices.

    Costco has a corporate policy to only have a minimum mark-up on all their products, including gas. Renner’s gas prices are at or near Costco’s prices, which is why I shop local.

    Rex is not in favor of Wal-Mart. You would know that if you watched the KEET forum.

    Rex was not a Cal Pine activist, but this lie is big on anonymous blogs.

    Rex may be in favor of the Marina Center, but so are 70% of the Eureka voters.

    Finally, I do hope you are at the June 13 HCDCC meeting where we can put a name with an anonymous blogger.

    Besides we will have all new elected HCDCC members and a new Executive Board at that meeting.

    Remember it’s best to be thought a fool, then post your comments on an anonymous blog and remove all doubts.

  219. Amy Breighton
    May 19, 2012 at 11:47 am

    R. Bohn was a 20-year republican PR hack for republican activist Corp. Renner Petroleum. R. Bohn wore those pro-Wal-mart buttons in 1999. R. Bohn wore those pro-LNG buttons. 50% of Eureka’s eligible voters are either unregistered, or abstain in every election.

    You can spin the truth any way you like.

    All HCDCC members are charged with enforcing their by-laws as they see fit. In this case, the Bohn-supporters squatting on the HCDCC generated a near 2/3 majority to consider their ouster!

    The Green party shares 95% of democratic values, while the republicans share 5%.

    It requires a whopping 2/3 vote to decide who the obvious frauds are…

    Thanks for the June 13, date.

    I’ll be there.

  220. Anonymous
    May 19, 2012 at 11:57 am

    Amy: You will be there under what name? I don’t recall ever seeing an Amy Breighton living in Humboldt.

  221. May 19, 2012 at 3:47 pm

    It’s always fun to see Anonymous demanding other people’s personal information.

  222. Percy
    May 19, 2012 at 5:42 pm

    Congrats 8:32, your Rex Bohn hoddie is on it’s way!

  223. Anonymous
    May 19, 2012 at 7:02 pm

    “Rex is not in favor of Wal-Mart. You would know that if you watched the KEET forum.”

    No, but he was, and he was very proud about it,when walmart was part of his business network’s financial and real estate planning. He is still very much apartment complexes and Big Box On The Bay. Excuse me, Marina Center. And who knows what else, right? His advertisements and outreach say NOTHING. He’s a joke, completely not deserving of the job. The public should not start paying that guy over $6,000 per month to be the same real estate mouthpiece he has always been.

  224. What Now
    May 19, 2012 at 7:25 pm

    Someone posted the most appropro assesment of rex Bohn on the North Coast Journal blogsite.
    To paraphrase, the writer stated they’d never met rex, but his entire career as a community volunteer appeared to consist of “playing with little boys and the writer closed by saying they were
    “tired of seeing his balls all over my town”.
    Couldn;t agree more.

  225. Jeepers
    May 19, 2012 at 8:10 pm

    At the LNG hearing in front of a packed crowd in the Muni, Rex was the very picture of pandering, blissed ignorant ambition. He was serving as a sort of floor leader for Cal-Pine Corporation.

  226. Creepers
    May 19, 2012 at 8:17 pm

    I remember him from his bar, Fourth Street Connection. Yeek.

  227. Dan
    May 20, 2012 at 8:40 am

    Anon@8.32 “Rex was not a Cal Pine activist…..”

    Yes he was.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,161 other followers