From the Jackson campaign:
Humboldt Builders Exchange Endorses Allison Jackson for DA
The Board of Directors of the Humboldt Builders Exchange has unanimously endorsed Allison Jackson for Humboldt County District Attorney.
“The board believes that Allison’s proven record as a prosecutor, along with her work as an award-winning child protective advocate uniquely qualifies Allison to bring about the needed changes to the DA’s Office,” said Humboldt Builders Executive Director Charlene McCombs.
“We’re confident that Allison can take on and be a strong administrator to manage the DA’s Office.”
The Humboldt Builders Exchange represents more than 300 local businesses and more than 4,000 employees.
The Humboldt Builders Exchange endorsement is the latest of several key endorsements, which include the Humboldt Deputy Sheriffs’ Organization, the Humboldt County Correctional Peace Officers Association AFSCME Local 1684 and the Fortuna Police Officer’s Association. Jackson, a partner at the Eureka-based Harland Law Firm, has worked since 2004 representing clients in civil litigation, land-use, employment and other areas of law. Jackson has worked in the Humboldt, Santa Cruz and Santa Clara county district attorney offices.
For more information about DA candidate Allison Jackson, visit her Web site at www.aj4da.com.
13 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 1, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Anonymous
Didn’t know the builder’s exchange was an expert in child advocacy or prosecution of crime. Why do these groups endorse and give reasons that have nothing to do with the group’s own activities? Who cares what the Humboldt Builders Exchange says about anything outside of building and even then you would have to weigh that against what would obviously include a personal economic bias. The only interesting question here is what is the builder exchange’s economic interest in this? Any thoughts Eric?
June 1, 2010 at 7:59 pm
humboldturtle
This is news?
June 1, 2010 at 8:23 pm
the reasonable anonymous
I always love how these trade groups always say that they “represent” thousands of employees. Guess how many of those employees got to vote on the Jackson endorsement? None, just the Board of Directors voted.
I’m OK with their claim to “represent” 300 businesses, since presumably the business owners voluntarily chose to join the group. I’m not sure how the group is structured, but it may be that business owners get to vote for the group’s Board of Directors. And even if they can’t, they voluntarily joined the group, and could pull out of the group if they don’t like the endorsements.
But the employees of these businesses have no say in the matter, so saying the Builder’s Exchange “represents” those 4,000 employees is simply false. Now if they simply said they represented 300 businesses that employ 4,000 people that would be fine with me. But when they claim to “represent” those employees, I have a real problem with that. It’s arrogant, as well as inaccurate.
June 1, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Eric Kirk
Any thoughts Eric?
Not really.
June 1, 2010 at 8:32 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Eric, have you decided who you’re supporting in the DA race? The other day you said you were nearing a decision and might put up a post about it. No pressure, I’m just curious.
June 1, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Matt
I don’t like any of them, so I’ll probably reluctantly vote for Gallegos, but my mind’s not made up yet
June 1, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Anonymous
“I always love how these trade groups always say that they “represent” thousands of employees. Guess how many of those employees got to vote on the Jackson endorsement? None, just the Board of Directors voted.”
Kinda similar to the local Democratic endorsement, the Times Standard and all the union endorsements too. I agree, the system sucks but it sucks both ways not just when your guy (or gal) wins or loses. None of us should pay any attention to endorsements we should become involved and educated. Fat chance.
June 1, 2010 at 9:53 pm
the reasonable anonymous
‘Kinda similar to the local Democratic endorsement…”
Well, “kinda,” — except Democrats CAN vote for members of the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee, and union members DO get to vote on their leaders as well.
In those situations, there is at least some mechanism for accountability, so it would be reasonable to say that these groups “represent” their members. But employees don’t get to vote on their boss, or what trade groups their boss joins, or who sits on the board of those trade groups.
And by the way, when making endorsements, the Times-Standard doesn’t claim to “represent” their readers.
So, basically you’re comparing apples to oranges Anon 9:12.
June 2, 2010 at 6:31 am
Fred Mangels
I don’t like any of them, so I’ll probably reluctantly vote for Gallegos,….
Maybe you just shouldn’t vote in that race? That’s what I often do if I can’t find a good reason to vote for any of the candidates.
June 2, 2010 at 6:34 am
Anonymous
Reasonable,
Oops, I musta forgot that workers are indentured to their employers, that they can’t leave their jobs if they don’t like the policies or politics of the company or the boss they work for. Certainly most of us need to work, though work too is seeming to become more optional, but we can exercise free will about where and for whom. At one time I worked for a right wing, wacko who left NRA literature on our desks and other propaganda all over the office. Once I figured out the program I found another job and quit. It was a voluntary program. This was a far easier process than removing a DCC member or even a union rep both of which are near impossible and neither represent my interests much. Point is that in one way or another we we all have a variety of groups or individuals who say they represent us, many assume they should be in charge cause they are smarter or are better informed. Most aren’t. Perhaps the difference is red apples to green if any at all. The best answer is unfortunately the least likely, that we not allow any group to make up our minds for us. I maintain that we should all become informed and involved as a civic duty and responsibility and then vote for ourselves. Ignore all the endorsements and know them for the political manipulation that they are.
June 2, 2010 at 7:34 am
brian
the reasonable anonymous: are you a union member?
June 2, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Developer's Dream?
I love seeing the lawns filled with all of these signs: Virginia Bass, Ryan Sundberg, Johanna Rodoni, Mike Downey and Allison Jackson. I wonder what it means?
June 2, 2010 at 3:57 pm
the reasonable anonymous
I don’t think most people really have the luxury of leaving their job because they don’t like who their employer or a trade group joined by their employer is endorsing. By contrast, any Democrat has the ability to vote for the HCDCC members of their choice, and if they are a union member they certainly get to vote for their union leadership. No, those are not perfect mechanisms of accountability, but they are miles ahead of the total non-accountability of the Builder’s Exchange board to the employees they claim to “represent.”
No I am not at present a union member, though I have belonged to two unions in the past: UAW and Health Care Workers 1199. Unions have their plusses and minuses, but they certainly have a more valid claim to “represent” their members, who at least have voting rights, than a trade group like the Builder’s Exchange has in claiming to “represent” the employees of the companies that belong to the Exchange, since those employees have zero voting rights in terms of electing the Exchange’s board of directors.