Home > Uncategorized > Hank Sims to Join Me (Eric Kirk) on KMUD Thursday Night

Hank Sims to Join Me (Eric Kirk) on KMUD Thursday Night

That’s Thursday night at 7:00 – call-in format on my show, All Things Reconsidered.  If you’re in the northern part of the county, I think you can get it at 88.1 (not 88.3 as it used to be).  We’re going to talk election.

Oh, in case you haven’t noticed, I’ve joined the Humboldt Herald pantheon.  Yes, the club is going downhill!  Other than Mitch, I have no idea who my HH colleagues are, so don’t bother asking me!

As homework, you should read Hank’s endorsement of Norm Solomon, though we’ll probably spend the most time on the Supervisor races.

  1. May 16, 2012 at 9:42 pm

    Affirmative: KMUD is now loud and clear at 88.1 in the Humboldt Bay area.

  2. anon
    May 16, 2012 at 9:47 pm

    And reaching up to Crescent City.

  3. Gil Yule
    May 17, 2012 at 6:48 am

    I’m confused about who authored this posting. “My show?” “I’ve joined the Humboldt Herald pantheon” (this statement confused me twice)? Has Heraldo gone mainstream and got his/her/themselves a radio program on KMUD?

  4. May 17, 2012 at 7:08 am

    I’ll agree. the switch to 88.1 has it working better for me. I can actually listen to KMUD on the radio in my garage now. I could rarely pick it up in there before.

    Firenza Pini for 2nd district, state assembly!

  5. May 17, 2012 at 7:09 am

    This post is from Eric Kirk. Unfortunately, the format of the Humboldt Herald does not list the author when you are viewing a post’s permanent link. However, if you scroll down the homepage you will see authors listed at the bottom of each post.

    To address this, we will have to change the blog theme. With reader cooperation it could be done with a minimum level of freak-out.

  6. Anonymous
    May 17, 2012 at 8:28 am

    So the question is ,” Why did KINS let Karen Brooks do a community comment ? Do your home work. As usual the progressive will think the ends justify the means.

  7. Gary Graham Hughes
    May 17, 2012 at 8:33 am

    I hope everyone who lives in Northern Humboldt who is stoked with the new digital upgrade signal for KMUD at 88.1 has made their spring donation. If you did not do it during the pledge drive it is easy to do online at kmud.org or just write them a check and put it in the mail. Everyone who listens to KMUD should be a member.

  8. Susan Adams for Congress
    May 17, 2012 at 9:54 am

    Hank’s breezy dismissal of Susan Adams is presumptuous and condescending, as usual. But should we expect anything less from the King of Snark? Apparently Hank learned nothing from his firing as editor of the North Coast Journal.

    Given her comparatively limited campaign contributions, Susan’s degree of support up and down the 2nd District is highly encouraging. Make no mistake, she has a real shot at making the runoff. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

  9. Ross Rowley
    May 17, 2012 at 10:07 am

    “Everyone who listens to KMUD should be a member”.

    Gary, that’s not how it works. Transmitted radio broadcast signals, whether commercial or public, are free to the end user. That’s the whole Federal Communications Commission’s schtick. You wouldn’t care for it if a commercial radio station began asking it’s listeners to send them a check just for the privilege of being a listener, now would you?

    I’m gathering you meant to say, “It would be nice if everyone who listens to KMUD (or KHSU or JPR) could donate to help with operating expenses and programming costs.” Should is an awfully strong word for convincing listeners to give donations freely.

    I’m a non-member and I love listening to KMUD. If I were brow-beaten into being a member instead of being conjoled into making a donation, I would tune away.

  10. May 17, 2012 at 10:29 am

    I’ve felt like contributing to both KMUD and KHSU in the past. The main reason I decided not to contribute to KMUD was after listening to one of their pledge drives a couple years ago.

    They had a couple guys on doing some fringe left- wing chat as they were trying to raise funds. I found that offensive. I realize that left- wingers- fringe and otherwise- probably make up the majority of their listening audience, but I felt they should at least cool it during a pledge drive since such talk might offend potential contributors that weren’t on the fringe left.

    You know: Don’t offend anybody. Try to appeal to everybody?

    Don’t know that I noticed much of that last time around, though.

  11. alley
    May 17, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    Ross said: “I’m a non-member and I love listening to KMUD. If I were brow-beaten into being a member instead of being conjoled into making a donation, I would tune away.”

    So, Ross, why aren’t you a member? Have you not been”conjoled [sic] into making a donation?

    If you were a member of KMUD you would enjoy listening even more. Trust me.

  12. May 17, 2012 at 4:38 pm

    I do not know who:

    Susan Adams for Congress:
    May 17, 2012 at 9:54 am

    As Susan Adams Humboldt County Field Organizer I would take a slightly different tack in that I didn’t so much find Hank’s comments “snarky” as simply misguided. I suspect he’s only looking at the fundraising and not any of the recent polling or even the extensive coverage in the papers to the South. The SF Chronicle suggested that Adams is the most qualified to be the second on the ballot and both the Marin IJ and the Sonoma papers have been suggesting that it’s all but a dead heat as to who will get that slot, but they all agree that Adams has the best skills for the job based on her experience in government, something none of the other challengers have.

    The one key point that Hank did not expound on is who is most likely to upset Huffman if they were on the November ballot, and there Susan Adams has the clear advantage.

    As it’s been reported by others Norman was twice a Ralph Nader delegate and like Nader voting for Solomon is a principled vote, but also a wasted vote in my opinion in that Norm is simply not a contender to win in a general election run off with Huffman. He does not and can not draw Republican or moderate independents. Where as in spite of Susan Adams sharing most all of Norm’s liberal positions from Single Payer Healthcare, to opposition to these senseless wars, a woman’s right to choose, fully funding Social Security by lifting the contribution cap, increasing funding to education and investment in our infrastructure, she continues to win support from what is commonly referred to as “cross over” supporters. It does not hurt that she’s shown herself to be fiscally responsible, such as not taking the county’s pension that all of the other board members in Marin happily accept and promising to decline the Federal one if elected, nor does she take her significant car allowance which all of her colleagues on the Board of Supervisors accept, but these voters are also attracted to her working class background, her rural roots and her close ties to the Northcoast. Her political experience includes a proven track record of winning over those in opposition to he, by listening, …rather then lecturing, and the fact that she is not backed by the Democratic “party machine” means she’s not the establishment candidate and in a general election that gives her appeal to voters looking for an alternative to the status quo, who in this case arguably carries the weight of an incumbent from his years in the state legislature (some feel things haven’t been working out all that well under his leadership in Sacramento…).

    If all Hank wants is someone to get on his soapbox and challenge Huffman with out actually being a threat to defeat him, then his choice is sound. If however he wants to see November be an actual contest, he should reconsider his position, as Susan Adams is the contender with the best chance of upsetting Huffman in the General Election.

  13. Eric Kirk
    May 17, 2012 at 10:53 pm

    The one key point that Hank did not expound on is who is most likely to upset Huffman if they were on the November ballot, and there Susan Adams has the clear advantage.

    I think we discussed it somewhat on my show tonight, although his primary emphasis was on the substance of the debate if Solomon gets into the runoff and how good that would be for the party.

  14. May 18, 2012 at 6:58 am

    Susan has my heartiest endorsement as a bright, experienced, effective professional who will make a valuable addition to the Congress. I am proud to be one of her sponsors.

  15. Anonymous
    May 18, 2012 at 8:33 am

    While Susan Adams may be able to afford to refuse taxpayer funded pensions, do we really want to limit our representation to those who are rich? I don’t find this a compelling reason to elect anyone to office, just the opposite.

  16. Mitch
    May 18, 2012 at 8:38 am

    Oh for crying out loud. Anonymous 8:33 takes the cake.

    Here’s an excerpt from Adams email in response to the endorsement thread:

    I am not getting rich being on the county board of supervisors. I made a better living as a professor of nursing and a women’s health nurse practitioner (especially because I do not take the county pension plan or $9600/mon car allowance because I ride my bike and use public transit when in county)…and if the voters do not chose me, I will be satisfied that I did what I could and offered what I could to my community to make things better…and happily go back to bringing babies into the world.

  17. Anonymous
    May 18, 2012 at 9:24 am

    “I am not getting rich being on the county board of supervisors.”

    By whose standards? They’re rich as fuck compared to anybody I know. Virginia Bass gets over $6,000 a month. That, to me, is rich. Adams is a Marin County Supervisor, a very wealthy county. Internet says they get $94,000. That’s over $7,000 a month. I’m sure plenty left after taxes. I would suspect anybody who opts out of the pension plan does so to increase their monthly income (salary). That’s what I would do if I had the option…give me the bigger paycheck, rather than put that money in a county-run retirement program. Then I could do with it as I pleased, as I’m sure she’s doing herself. She still qualifies for social security, which will still be rich by the commoners’ standards considering her income.

  18. Mitch
    May 18, 2012 at 9:38 am

    Anonymous 9:24,

    If you think the problem is that nurse practitioners, nursing professors, and county supervisors are making too much money, I think you’ve totally missed the point Occupy is trying to make.

    The resources of this country (and of the world) have been stolen by a tiny fraction of a percent of the people — maybe 0.01%. They are billionaires, not people who are earning $100,000 or $200,000 in exchange for years of higher education and hard work.

    Yes, the minimum wage is too low. Yes, there is not enough of a public safety net for people who are struggling. But to complain that a County supervisor is being paid too much at $94,000 is, IMO, just silly. They have the ultimate responsibility for a workforce that probably numbers in the thousands. Check out what that responsibility pays in the private sector.

  19. Anonymous
    May 18, 2012 at 9:43 am

    Too much money? No. I want the person who stitches my wounds to be happy. That’s not what I said at all. For the most part I agree with everything you’re writing. They are, however, rich. Susan Adams is definitely rich.

  20. Anonymous
    May 18, 2012 at 9:50 am

    “Check out what that responsibility pays in the private sector.”

    That’s kinda my point. Why does she say she’s not getting rich being on the Marin County Board of Supervisors? What kind of credit card debt did SHE ring up? I could work a year and take the next six or seven years off. IMAGINE THAT! That kind of money is easily seven years worth of financial stability for the typical big box employee (basically the everyday employee of a big company), with bonuses, perks and paid vacations etc. working the same amount of hours.

    Thus the importance of their positions and why things like how they represent themselves, and who is really supporting who to do what, is VERY important in the long run. Unlike the person stitching up my wounds, politicians get rich being puppets.

  21. Mitch
    May 18, 2012 at 9:51 am

    OK. It’s certainly not poor.

    Keep in mind that buying a modest stick-built home these days costs $200,000, and new mobile homes are going for the vicinity of $100,000.

    I’m not sure that being able to buy a house should be our threshold for “rich,” but maybe it is, these days.

  22. Anonymous
    May 18, 2012 at 10:01 am

    Cost of living vs. income. Hours worked vs. income. Pension, perks, bonuses, paid vacation etc. factored in. Let’s not get into home prices, the politicians are the ones buying mansions ($80k/year and you can buy buy buy stuff until your heart’s content) and the $200k homes are being pushed on the renters (typical employees per above).

    How do you define rich?

  23. Anonymous
    May 18, 2012 at 10:06 am

    …I forget they don’t refer to them as “mansions” or “estates” anymore as that’s too much of a giveaway that they are rich. They refer to them as “ranches” and “acreage”…in the same way they refer to a one bedroom apartment as “cozy” and “cottage style living”. In the 80’s they’d be bragging about their mansions, it’s come to be that politicians do everything within their power to avoid the general public witnessing their excessive lifestyles.

  24. Mitch
    May 18, 2012 at 10:09 am


    You might try calling Jimmy Smith, and asking him what he does in a typical day for his salary.

    I’m not saying the pay isn’t good, but I’m not at all sure that it’s out of line.

    I think it’s very reasonable to pay someone in charge of a workforce of thousands the same salary that a firefighter, cop, or nurse might make with a bit of overtime.

    Does a big box employee make that? No, I’m sure they don’t, but they get to go home at the end of their shift and not think about the big box until their next shift. And they don’t need to have their names constantly in the press. And they don’t need to supervise anyone else, which can be a major pain. And they don’t have to take complaint phone calls at 8 pm, unless they work the late shift at the complaint desk.

    For me, the problem is not the salary, but their decisions, and their willingness to let some department heads destroy their departments.

    I wouldn’t want the salary to be so low that any professional would have to make a major sacrifice to become a supervisor.

  25. Anonymous
    May 18, 2012 at 10:19 am

    “For me, the problem is not the salary, but their decisions, and their willingness to let some department heads destroy their departments.”

    I haven’t argued against this at all. I agree. I am saying they are rich. A typical social worker makes or breaks a family’s month every single day, face to face, and they get peanuts compared. I’m not impressed with their workload vs. income. A typical national retail manager works over 60 hours per week and has to come to all kinds of decisions about running the store. “Politics” should be straightforward if the person is as dedicated and willing as they claim to be while campaigning. They tell the public they WANT to HELP us. Very convenient that they get paid so well, no?

    If it were up to me, government positions starting around the board of supervisors would pay the equivelant of full time minimum wage and a pension no greater than the cost of living. Let’s see how many of these politicians are suddenly so wanting to help everybody for the greater good of all life on earth from now into the future. Government is hopefully about improving and stabilizing everybody’s quality of life. There are plenty of people who would be willing to do what these politicians do for minimum wage, because they really care.

  26. Mitch
    May 18, 2012 at 10:26 am


    $80K and you can buy buy buy to your heart’s content?

    The funny thing is I’ve made that and more in a year, and I sort of agree with you personally, but I don’t think most people who have tried raising kids will agree.

    Once upon a time in America (like 40 years ago), a single salary sufficed to support a family of four or five. With an $80K salary today, I wouldn’t call you rich unless you’re single and young.

    On $80K, you’re going to keep around $4,000 to maybe $5,000 a month after taxes.

    Your mortgage and home insurance, if you bought a $250,000 house, is probably going to be in the vicinity of $2,000 per month.

    If you need health care for a family of four and it’s not a benefit, you’re looking at another $1,000 a month or more.

    You’d better be prepared to save a bunch of what’s left if you want your kids to get to go to college, because even “public” colleges are expensive now.

    You’d better be prepared to save a bunch of what’s left if you want to live comfortably in retirement, because if the Tea Partiers keep at it, social programs to provide a decent standard of living to the elderly will be gone.

    So, no, I wouldn’t really consider $80K enough to make someone rich.

    But I completely agree that it’s a lot more than most people make these days. That’s not because of the people making $80K — it’s because of the people making a hundred times that.

  27. Anonymous
    May 18, 2012 at 10:31 am

    …I will add that, as the situation stands in the US, government could focus entirely on improving and stabilizing the quality of life for the minimum and lowest wage employees and their equivelant “retirement” on social security. That would improve the quality of life for the most people, improve the quality of their public and natural resources, etc. etc. Instead, cost of living goes up disproportionately, resources are disappearing and polluted, etc.

    The whole thing’s a clusterfuck of global proportions. In our little bubble of Humboldt we can make it right by not putting up wiht the bullshit any longer. It can start with zero growth coupled with complete focus around preserving and restoring natural open space. Humboldt can “fortify” instead of “sprawl”.

  28. Anonymous
    May 18, 2012 at 10:33 am

    “but I don’t think most people who have tried raising kids will agree.”

    You should stop right there. You’re talking about it being difficult to raise kids on $80k/year. I can introduce you to some families…really, I don’t want to think you’re that out of touch.

    Virginia Bass can afford to put her kids through college, can a walmart employee? Virginia Bass’ kids will get the degree and high paying job that requires it, and the cycle will continue as it is all over the world.

  29. Anonymous
    May 18, 2012 at 10:38 am

    Wouldn’t it be great if politico’s in office were as glad and willing to have a realtime person to person conversation as in depth and as often as people like mitch and others on various “blogs”? They don’t talk with us. They tell us.

  30. Anonymous
    May 18, 2012 at 10:40 am

    …I posted 10:38, and it’s sincere. All these big money politicians are intentionally vague and out of sight. Locally no different. Not the proud and vocal pushers of righteousness they pretend to be while campaigning.

  31. Mitch
    May 18, 2012 at 10:54 am

    I can introduce you to some families…really, I don’t want to think you’re that out of touch.

    No, I’m not that out of touch, as I think you’ll have realized if you read the rest of what I wrote.

    But a family of four living on one $80K salary, especially if it doesn’t come with health insurance, doesn’t strike me as rich. I think they’re just living the middle class dream of forty years ago, and probably having a tough time of it.

    Sure, they’re rich compared to most working class American families today, and that strikes me as criminal for a society with as much money as ours.

  32. Anonymous
    May 18, 2012 at 11:13 am

    “Sure, they’re rich compared to most working class American families today,’

    Most to say the least, and that’s the whole point. Virginia Bass, $6,000/month, in her words, doesn’t understand why people are against her and her business associates who “just want to give something to the community”. It’s in the form of more apartments and minimum wage retail on our dwindling coast. She and her business associates (sponsers) obviously aren’t trying to give anything to all the people hwo already live in apartments and already have retail jobs around here. I use her because she’s such a glaring example, but others are no less obvious and are pushing for the same thing.

    ” and that strikes me as criminal for a society with as much money as ours.”

    Regarding what both you and I have written, absolutely.

  33. High Finance
    May 18, 2012 at 11:57 am

    Which is preferable, a Wal Mart job or no job at all ?

    Why all the hatred toward Wal Mart ? No such hatred is expressed here towards the McDonald or Burger King jobs who pay less. No hatred expressed towards all the small shops in Old Town who pay their employees minimum wage.

  34. Eric Kirk
    May 18, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    HF – WalMart has destroyed towns, literally. McDonalds and BK have their faults, but unless you count the epidemic of adult-onset diabetes, they really haven’t exacted the same level of carnage on communities.

  35. Anonymous
    May 18, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    “Which is preferable, a Wal Mart job or no job at all ?”

    kmart, target, kohls, petco, costco, safeway and winco are all hiring right this very second, as are more local shops in eureka than I could think to name in an hour.

  36. tra
    May 18, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    I think Supervisors’ salaries should be at least a little bit closer to the median income in the county, especially since they also receive pretty generous benefits. How about no more than 150% of the median income? I’m not sure exactly what that would come to in Humboldt, but I’m guessing that it would put Supervisors’ pay somewhere in the range of $45,000 or $50,000, right? It seems like that would be enough to guarantee that we wouldn’t end up in a situation where middle-class and working-class people would literally be unable to afford to take on that role, leaving it only to wealthy folks who could afford to more or less “donate” their time for a couple of years, living off their savings/investments/other income (which is what would happen if the salary was down around the poverty level). And at the same time, even though the savings would really be a drop in the bucket in terms of the overall county budget, scaling back the Supervisors’ pay to that level would demonstrate solidarity with the rest of the populace, many of whom have seen their own income drop with the recession.

  37. Mitch
    May 18, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    Wow, tra.

    Maybe this would be a good idea if you could also insure that no supervisor would ever again be employed by any business interest, or be allowed to accept any money from anyone else, ever.

    If you’re supervising department heads who make $150,000, should you really be paid $45,000?

    Or do you think the $50,000 for Supervisors should be the top of the county’s management pay scale? If so, how do you keep the rare good county manager from leaving for the private sector, where they’d double their salary in a flash?

  38. Eric Kirk
    May 18, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    Or attract them to begin with. The lower the salaries, the more the the process selects for independently wealthy candidates. And as the NCJ article points out, they have huge costs which don’t get reimbursed.

  39. Mitch
    May 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    Most well-run businesses pay their people at or slightly below the market median for the jobs in question, and really focus on creating a pleasant workplace with happy employees. The salary choice is not to save money, but to ensure their people are fairly reimbursed according to the market, but still WANT to be at the place they are working. On occasion, when a really critical employee will leave for a higher offer, the company will match it.

    Paying too much can actually be harmful, because people will stick around for the salary, even if they can’t stand the workplace. Better to let those who become dissatisfied hunt around and leave. (Of course, if you’re a well-run business, you probably have a new and better job lined up for the best people, well in advance of their tiring of their existing job.)

    You will always be able to find the occasional oddball who is willing to work on a pet project for next to nothing, but the more I’m that oddball, the more I think we’re basically foolish.

  40. retired guy
    May 18, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    Jeez–WTF. How much money is a supervisor worth? $80,000 a year makes you rich? You’ve lived in Humboldt County way too long. In the real world, $80,000 is probably about average for someone with a college degree and some experience in a professional position, where the duties performed, the consequence of error and other factors demand such pay. You simply don’t get qualified people if you underpay them.

    Why do you think people are leaving this area? There are few positions here that pay enough to raise a family, have a decent car, a house, etc., etc.

    Anyway, the pay here for county supervisors and others in government service, is probably about average compared to other similar counties. If you meet the qualifications for these jobs, I suggest you apply and be hired instead of bitching about “high” pay, ’cause it ain’t.

  41. Anonymous
    May 18, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    “You’ve lived in Humboldt County way too long.”

    Perhaps you haven’t lived here long enough. Maybe you would like to move someplace where you have less spending power. Places where the kind of development supervisors like Virginia Bass and her candidate du jour Rex Bohn want to put right on our coast have already destroyed the economic base of the “lower class” and general tranquility of the environment.

    Their salary isn’t the problem, they are the problem.

  42. Anonymous
    May 18, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    “You will always be able to find the occasional oddball who is willing to work on a pet project for next to nothing, but the more I’m that oddball, the more I think we’re basically foolish.”

    Nope! We are for real. I’m getting nothing out of participating in political commentary…this is my free time. They are the ones who wouldn’t dream of doing it for free. They are getting paid by us, where are they to address us? Where are they discussing the specifics with the public? They pay to drill their names into our immediate conscience at the voting booth, that’s all they’re doing right now. They’re engaging in politics as usual, riding their party’s name and dropping the word “community” into every other sentence.

  43. Mitch
    May 18, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    Sorry, 2:27. They are us. It would be easier if that weren’t the case. People like Jimmy Smith didn’t run for office for the glory.

    Once you are in office, you face the actual constraints involved in governing. You can’t pretend they aren’t there, like we can.

    The most discouraging thing about politics is that, way too often, when really good people get into office the kibbitzers take them down with the “they’ve turned on us” line.

    There are lots of AWFUL people in politics. But there are also a depressing number of people who really want the best, but have no way of making it happen, because of the political realities. They really, really don’t deserve our contempt. Their decisions may deserve contempt — I sure feel contempt for the urgency ordinance about the courthouse, and for the continuance of various bureaucrats in their positions — but the politicians come to their decisions out of their own analyses of what’s necessary.

  44. Anonymous
    May 18, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    I get what you’re saying. I mean that I, at least, am completely disassociated from their personal influence. I only see what they claim to be the cause and consequences of eachother’s actions, as well as what those actions and consequences are. That’s the world real people live in. Constraints aside, governing boils down to specific decision making, whether introduced to them or presented by them.

  45. tra
    May 18, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    Eric and Mitch,

    Well, look at it this way — which members of the current Board of supervisors be unwilling to do the job for $50,000 or so plus generous benefits? Clif? Mark? Ryan? Virginia? Jimmy? I doubt it would be a deal-breaker for any of them. Would any of their opponents in recent or current races have been unwilling to seek the job if that was the compensation? My guess is no. And other than Patrick Cleary, I don’t think any of those folks would qualify as “independently wealthy.” So while I recognize (and stated explicitly in my previous comment) that if you lower the pay too far you’re going to end up in a situation where only the wealthy can afford to serve, I just don’t think something like 150% of the median income in the county would actually create that situation.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that $80,000 a year makes them “rich,” as the Anon commenter has claimed. But, yeah, I do think it’s a bit much for someone serving as a Supervisor for a fairly small, economically struggling county.

    As far as the issue of elected officials supervising paid professional staff who earn more than they do, well, so what? Serving in political office has other benefits, including status in the community, the ability to (at least somewhat) influence policy to your liking, and of course an impressive item on your resume (not uncommonly leading to other work and income down the line). So the salary should not be so low as to be prohibitive, but I don’t think it’s a problem that paid staff sometimes make more in salary than their elected supervisors. It’s a whole different type of employment, and the motivations and incentives are not quite the same.

    Now I also tend to think that perhaps some of the top-level administrators in Humboldt may also be a bit over-compensated (how much does Phil Crandell make these days?), but that’s another issue, and there you can argue that there is more of a direct competition between the county and other governments (as well as in some cases private industry) in terms of recruiting and retaining staff. In that case, salary is, understandably, one of the most important motivations for the person seeking that job. But not necessarily so with elected officials — or at least it shouldn’t be.

  46. Anonymous
    May 18, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    “that if you lower the pay too far you’re going to end up in a situation where only the wealthy can afford to serve”

    That is simply not true. There are lots of people who do more work for less in every area of employment. There are lots of people who would love to govern. You’re all muddling your perception with philosophy and hypotheticals. Blog loop thought. Losing sight of the big picture, out of touch with the real everyday person who has no idea the degree to which people like us are disecting specific political activities, let alone what they are. They aren’t obliged to, either. They should be able to rely on their “party’s candidate”, a system that has been corrupted for so long, insincere salesmen basically dominate the practice. In Humboldt as well. We can’t afford to let anymore of them make any governing decisions. This isn’t the latest news, people hve been saying this forever. See how well it’s been working? It hasn’t because they got $$$ and they are lying to everybody who believes in “the system”. Two bit phonies like Rex Bohn and Virginia Bass and Karen Brooks oughta be laughed back to their favorite pubs where they can discuss this stuff like we do.

  47. Mitch
    May 18, 2012 at 4:41 pm

    Well, tra, as usual you are nothing if not reasonable.

    Food for thought.

  48. Mitch
    May 18, 2012 at 4:47 pm


    I’m sure you are right that plenty of people do more for less money than any Supervisor. But I guess I still feel that Supervisors should be paid a pretty good income for being the governors of the county. I just don’t think their salaries are excessive, and I do think that a salary less than they’re making now would cause a lot of competent people to rule themselves out.

    I also think a really low salary would increase the temptation to take direct bribes, and might attract candidates who were more inclined in that direction.

  49. Anonymous
    May 18, 2012 at 5:53 pm

    I don’t disagree with you mitch, that’s your conversation with the (other) blowhard. I wrote that their pay isn’t the problem, they’re the problem.

  50. Anonymous
    May 18, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    “I also think a really low salary would increase the temptation to take direct bribes, and might attract candidates who were more inclined in that direction.”

    entirely hypothetical, but demonstrative of how we’ve all come to lose faith in the system because of so many obvious bullshitters buying their way it into office.

  51. tra
    May 18, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    I think those inclined to take bribes are just as inclined to take bribes on top of a large salary as they would be to take bribes on top of a small salary. I don’t think that, for the most part, people who take bribes do so out of economic necessity. Nor do I think that very many of those sorts of people have any point at which they become satisfied with what they’re making — when you’re greedy AND unethical, I think usually it’s a “sky’s the limit” situation. Also, my guess is that people who are in it for the money, including potential bribe-takers, are probably less likely to try for an office that comes with a modest salary, not more likely.

  52. Eric Kirk
    May 18, 2012 at 7:47 pm

    I don’t know. It’s a pretty thankless job in many ways. And it’s not just any job. How much we’re willing to pay is in part a reflection of how important we consider the position. It doesn’t have to compete with the private sector (and it doesn’t in terms of money), but it does have to reflect the value we place on the position.

  53. High Finance
    May 18, 2012 at 8:21 pm

    Here is another idea.

    Why is a Supervisor a full time job ? They have a Tax Collector to collect taxes, an Auditor to do the bookkeeping, a Recorder to do the recording, a Tax Assessor to do the assessing, a Sheriff to do the sheriffing, a Public Works Director to do the public working and a CAO to watch over and direct all of them.

    All the Supervisors do is general direction and work at getting re elected.

    Yet any professional who wants to run basically has to give up their career to serve. Then they have the possibility of losing their job after just four years after their main career has been upended and maybe ended. Why not cut their pay in half and make it a part time job ? We could attract professionals who could keep their careers going and could afford to serve. In the meantime we would save $250,000 a year in salaries & benefits.

  54. Anonymous
    May 18, 2012 at 9:27 pm

    Because we will wind up with only people in office who can afford to work part time or not work at all. Although right now, the average working Joe can not afford to run a campaign for Supervisor anyway. Last week Storme said that a win in the Primary will save the Bohn the campaign $50,000…$10,000 a month! Who can afford that!

  55. Jack Sherman
    May 19, 2012 at 12:06 am

    It’s absolutely scandalous…and Eureka?

    A rural small town of 28,000, with record poverty, crime, drug abuse, homelessness, shuttered schools and decaying infrastructure, saturated in low-wage jobs and homes off-limits to 75% of taxable incomes?

    And Rex Bohn spent $125,000 for a Eureka City Council seat that pays $500/month?

    When in the Hell will “community” media tell the people what the development community is up to, and why?

  56. High Finance
    May 19, 2012 at 7:13 am

    More phoney “outrage” by Jack.

    The same “Jack” who thought it fine that his idol, Bonnie Neeley, spent $250,000 for a Supervisor seat.

  57. Anonymous
    May 19, 2012 at 8:09 am

    “And Rex Bohn spent $125,000 for a Eureka City Council seat that pays $500/month?”

    This is all anybody needs to know. The term “puppet” wholey applies. He would be getting away with a crime if elected, and he knows it.

  58. Anonymous
    May 19, 2012 at 8:15 am

    …and why isn’t anybody in our media putting these people like rex on the spot for this stuff? They should be eager to talk about it, no? Both the papers and the politicos.

  59. Jack Sherman
    May 19, 2012 at 11:18 am

    Raising $230,000 to win the county’s top government post that pays $80,000/year, still leaves the question of how the working-poor citizens of Eureka need $50,000 to effectively run for a city council seat that pays $500/year.

    Isn’t this why their neighborhood schools are shuttered while the Eureka Chamber of Commerce continues amassing millions in Eureka public subsidies?

    Aside from the blogs, not one media source has dared to explain it.

    The informed are outraged.

  60. Anonymous
    May 19, 2012 at 11:47 am

    Power. Worth something.

  61. High Finance
    May 20, 2012 at 9:20 am

    Jack, as usual, is hysterically wrong.

    The C of C isn’t “amassing millions”, the City Council has nothing to do with “shuttered neighborhood schools”, the City Council seat doesn’t pay “$500/year” and one does not need “$50,000 to effectively run for a city council seat”.

  62. Anonymous
    May 21, 2012 at 8:48 am

    “one does not need “$50,000 to effectively run for a city council seat”.”

    Yeah you’ll need about twice that going by what’s was spent by the folks sitting behind the desk right now.

  63. High Finance
    May 21, 2012 at 10:45 am

    I wonder how much Linda Atkins, Melinda Ciarabellini, Lance Madsen spent on their last election ?

  64. Fact Checker
    May 21, 2012 at 10:50 am

    Keep “wondering”, never mind the facts. You can make them up.

  65. High Finance
    May 21, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    As you so obviously do almost every time.

    See Facts are alien to you, let me give you a hint Factless. All three of them spent less than $50,000 and all three recently won.

  66. Goldie
    May 21, 2012 at 1:16 pm

    Melinda Ciarabellini did not win.

  67. Fact Checker
    May 21, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    Goldie said: May 21, 2012 at 1:16 pm
    “Melinda Ciarabellini did not win.”

    Hi Hater said “See Facts are alien to you, let me give you a hint Factless….all three recently won.”

    Goldie, Now THAT is an interesting fact.

  68. What Now
    May 21, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    FC, it’s all dependent on what part of the drinking cycle Darth Finance is in when he posts.
    Evidently, the thought of full blown sobriety still sends him scurrying away in terror.

  69. High Finance
    May 22, 2012 at 8:42 am

    Conversing with you & your many other personnas would be enough to drive anybody to drink “What Now”.

    That is, if I respected your & Factless’s opinion.

    Ciarabellini was appointed. But that does not change the assertion that you need $50,000 to “effectively run for City Council” is false.

  70. Fact Checker
    May 22, 2012 at 10:52 am

    High Finance said: May 22, 2012 at 8:42 am

    “Conversing with you & your many other personnas would be enough to drive anybody to drink”

    It’s “personas”, one “n”. Many people rationalize why they drink, but you can get help Hi Fi. There is AA and many other groups in our community which are available to help you with your drinking problem.

  71. High Finance
    May 22, 2012 at 6:02 pm

    I guess your feelings are still hurt by my showing you up for a fool again on the Zoe student topic and on this one Factless. Sorry.

    Uh, no I’m not. You should hang up that moniker in shame.

  72. Jack Sherman
    May 23, 2012 at 1:05 am

    In 14th Century Britain, Highly Mistaken would be known as a “Do-Downer”, ie, getting the better of someone through trickery, called a sophist today. When he/she gets caught, it merely reappears onto Heraldo’s next post to repeat the immature game.

    His/Her recent examples are merely more of the same:

    The C of C isn’t “amassing millions”, the City Council has nothing to do with “shuttered neighborhood schools”, the City Council seat doesn’t pay “$500/year” and one does not need “$50,000 to effectively run for a city council seat.”

    The facts are quite different.

    The Eureka Chamber of Commerce has received millions in unaccountable public subsidies since their inception. The City of Eureka could have secured grants to keep Jefferson open, at least, as a community resource; Eureka city council seats pay $500/month, ($500/year was a typo but doesn’t change the point!)… begging the question of exactly what justifies spending $90,000 to $125,000 in a Eureka city council race as in Kerrigan versus Bohn. With 2-3 exceptions in 30 years, liberal candidates are always outspent by the development community, sometimes 5 to 1.

    Yet, only one local newspaper has EVER had the guts to report that the development community dominates local contributions….we have yet to read why.

  73. High Finance
    May 23, 2012 at 10:01 pm

    Sorry Jack, I can’t help it that I am so much smarter than you.

  74. Jack Sherman
    May 23, 2012 at 11:46 pm

    Say it to yourself every morning 50 times and everything will be OK.
    Poor, sick puppy…

  75. May 24, 2012 at 11:08 am

    exchanging insults doesn’t advance the important discussion and is

  76. Jack Sherman
    May 25, 2012 at 12:33 am

    Yes, there’s a dwindling number of us still engaging the Highly Mistaken troll…..where important exchanges generally end in insult.

    My bad.

    Feel free to respond intelligently to 1:05AM.

  77. High Finance
    May 25, 2012 at 6:45 am

    Perhaps you should read Jean Doran’s post again Jack.

  78. Anonymous
    May 25, 2012 at 7:00 am

    I liked the old Hi Fi better – he generally had an alternative point to consider. He even told us some things about his up-bringing and family struggles (my guess is the new Hi Fi doesn’t know these details). He would not have used Lance Madsen (in an uncontested election), Ciarabellini (who was appointed), and Adkins (who was elected several years ago) as examples of City Council races not getting expensive. Come on “new” Hi Fi, that’s just stupid – we all know that “generally” elections have gotten more expensive.
    Give the job back to your predecessor (who posted a lot less but had more to say). Your posts have been rather embarrassing; you just don’t do justice to the role of High Finance on this blog.

  79. High Finance
    May 25, 2012 at 10:09 am

    Come on Factless, give us some facts to back up your assertion this time.

    All you are doing is trying to make excuses for the losses your candidates had last elections.

  80. Fact Checker
    May 25, 2012 at 10:15 am

    I have made no assertions regarding “my” candidates, I have only been fact checking your wild hallucinations and allegations. Heraldo, call me on this if I am not being honest.

  81. Jack Sherman
    May 25, 2012 at 11:36 am

    Feel free to respond intelligently to 1:05AM. High Blowhard.

  82. High Finance
    May 25, 2012 at 8:33 pm

    You all made the claim that it takes $50,000 to effectively run for City Council.

    So prove it Factless/Sherman/Anonymous7.00am/What Now (or are you all the same person?), provide some facts. Tell us how much the winners from the last ten years have spent.

    You won’t because your claim is without basis. Winners like Jeff Leonard, Mike Jones and others did so.

  83. Jack Sherman
    May 25, 2012 at 10:47 pm

    I concur with Highly Mistaken on this.

    You can count on one hand the number of city council candidates that won without the support of the development community in the last 30 years.

    There are always exceptions to the rule, but the rule is unchanged… most winners outspent their opponents in the tens of thousands of dollars range for a job that pays $500/month.

    Corrupt to the core.

  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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s