A, sort of, controversy is brewing about Paul Gallegos at the Arcata Eye and a couple of the conservative blogs. I think the two points being made are that a campaign-related email was sent to the various local media from the D.A. office, and that the email did not only contain the press release itself (consisting of a thank you to his volunteers and supporters), but a string of emails from campaign workers which indicate that Paul had help from his campaign writing a thank you to his volunteers.
Sending a campaign related email from the government office itself may be a violation of campaign laws. Though so far none of the sites has cited a specific provision, my general knowledge is that incumbents are supposed to keep the office itself completely free from campaign related activity, especially anything amounting to fund raising. Kevin quotes Richard Salzman indicating in one of his emails that it will be easier for him to raise money once the thank you notice is published, ergo, it is a campaign fund raising letter.
It was emailed on November 12 at 10:28 a.m. using a government email address. What if the email was sent remotely from away from the office? Is it illegal to use the email address itself? I don’t know. But I think it would be a stretch to say that Richard’s remark (“But getting this out now will make it easier for me to raise money”) transforms a simple thank you into a fund raising letter. I assume that someone will post some text from the applicable laws so we can evaluate it for ourselves. Anyone who is alarmed anyway, as it seems pretty trivial to me.
On the other hand, allowing even trivial violations could lead to bigger ones. So has this happened before? Would anyone have noticed the email address of origin but for the email thread contained therein?
Kevin spends more time on criticism that Paul is not writing his campaign statements by himself because there will be a longer editorial which Michael Evenson will help him write. Apparently Allison and all the other candidates write everything on their own? I guess that’s the implication.
In any case, due to a bit of carelessness we’re treated to a little bit of behind the scenes sausage making.
The Humboldt Mirror has it up, and of course WatchPaul.
Yes, the 2014 campaign has begun!
….
Just a little caveat here. Elizabeth Connor, whom I respect, misattributes in her posted email the quote “Don’t mourn, organize” to Mother Jones. It is actually attributed (though slightly misquoting him) to Joe Hill, the IWW organizer accused, probably falsely, of murder and executed. His last letter to fellow organizer “Big” Bill Haywood read in part as follows:
“Goodbye Bill. I die like a true blue rebel. Don’t waste any time in mourning. Organize… Could you arrange to have my body hauled to the state line to be buried? I don’t want to be found dead in Utah.”
I don’t know. Maybe Mother Jones said it too.
82 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 13, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Kevin Hoover
Eric, set aside for now the skeezy of use of government e-mail for campaign fundraising. Take the satellite-lookdown view of this.
Who does Salzman really work for? Gallegos, or himself? As a PG supporter, does the gulf between Gallegos’ high-minded rhetoric and the stiletto-weilding practices of his henchdude, oh I don’t know, give you any pause? Do you write it off to realpolitik or what?
I’m trying to get inside the mind of a Gallegos supporter and understand what the mechanism is; how someone so performance-lacking can maintain appeal.
November 13, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Someone
“It was emailed on November 12 at 10:28 a.m. using a government email address. What if the email was sent remotely from away from the office? Is it illegal to use the email address itself? I don’t know.”
I happen to know that the person who sent the e-mail was personally in her County office at the time the message was sent.
November 13, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, Kevin, I’ve worked in probably a couple of dozen campaigns and I’ve helped candidates write their statements. I guess I’m missing that whole part of the point. The discussion in the emails is hardly atypical.
The email may be a violation, whether incidental. I don’t know. Probably a little research would help. But it’s hardly the story of the century.
November 13, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Kevin Hoover
C’mon Eric, you know what a straw man is. I didn’t purport that it’s the story of the century or whatever.
My question has to do with the open disparity between Gallegos’ Captain Integrity message and the bloodthirsty tactics of his operatives. Is that the new normal, the old normal or just business as usual? Are we expected to sign on to the cynicism required to make this A-OK?
November 13, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Rose
Who wrote Joyce Moser’s “My Word”? And how many other Gallegos employees were ordered to write them?
Who slipped in the self-congratulatory propaganda about Gallegos having “created” the Domestic Violence Vertical Prosecution Unit? The one he did NOT create. Provably. Unequivocally. The granting documents prove it (I have them, btw, from a public records act request to the granting agencies.) The minutes and agendas of the County Board of Supervisors PROVE it as well. Not just for that Unit but the others as well.
Gallegos could not run on his own record and so he tried – or Salzman and Evenson/Conners/DeLapp/Conrad what’s his name? tried – to construct a false record.
They tried – by putting that paragraph into his ballot statement, using the employees’ “My Word” to postulate the lie, and then to slip it in to a Board of Supervisors Proclamation that was supposedly to honor the WORKERS, but was really a scam, designed to allow Gallegos to trumpet his (false) accomplishment – all designed to LIE to the voters.
And how do we know this? Because another emailed press release DID trumpet that phrase. Not knowing it had been REMOVED before approval, because EVERYONE IN THE ROOM, WHICH INCLUDED JOYCE MOSER, BUT NOT PAUL GALLEGOS* KNEW IT.
KNEW IT. Eric. Knew it. So she did not write that line, did she?
(*And how many times has Mr. Dept. head been to a Board meeting? Only when forced.)
Plagiarism, Eric. Lies, eric/ Calling himself a Professor at HSU, Eric. Claiming to have created the DV Unit, Eric. And the Bad Check Program, Eric.
Lie upon lie upon lie upon lie. Twisted and dishonest, and provably so.
November 13, 2010 at 11:50 pm
Anonymous
It’s this same old Central Committee/Loco Solutions crowd that’s killing the local left in every other local election, Eric. It’s about time their underhanded shenanigans are exposed (and in the case of Elizabeth Conners, they were exposed by her resignation in disgrace from the Arcata City Council over six years ago).
November 14, 2010 at 12:05 am
Eric Kirk
My question has to do with the open disparity between Gallegos’ Captain Integrity message and the bloodthirsty tactics of his operatives. Is that the new normal, the old normal or just business as usual? Are we expected to sign on to the cynicism required to make this A-OK?
Can we be specific about his bloodthirsty tactics? I keep hearing that anybody opposing him gets the slash and burn treatment, but I supported his opponent in the primary. I got a few grumpy emails and an annoying lecture or two, but nobody threatened me in any way. Nor did others who supported Hagen.
It’s this same old Central Committee/Loco Solutions crowd ….
Actually, a portion of that crowd supported Hagen too. Richard and Local Solutions don’t talk much anymore after a falling out, and that’s one of the major reasons progressives have been getting their asses kicked in Eureka elections when they had been winning them hands down. I won’t deny that there are big egos involved, but as I brought up on Humboldt Mirror, I wonder if local conservatives aren’t generating a mystique around Richard S. that is way beyond proportion to his influence among other things. But he and Local Solutions divorced back in 2006, and to my knowledge they haven’t really patched it up.
November 14, 2010 at 12:15 am
Eric Kirk
Rose – I’m not up on what you’re talking about, but I wonder if it isn’t something like the attribution of Gore and the Internet. While Gore certainly did not “invent” the Internet, he was a major engine behind the R&D funds to create it. Snopes discusses it in more detail.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
The point is, the campaign’s over. More likely than not he won, but can’t we have a little down time break from the gotcha crap? You made your case and the majority, however slight, drew different conclusions. Give it a rest, pick up the pieces, and try again in four years. That’s how a democratic republic works.
November 14, 2010 at 12:27 am
Anonymous
Point is Eric, it’s the same controllers behind both Loco Solutions and the Central Committee who backed this no-questions-asked attitude towards Gags PLUS the purge of Richard Marks and the unquestioning loyalty to proven loser candidates in two out of three Eureka races this year.
November 14, 2010 at 12:45 am
Eric Kirk
And who are the evil controllers?
November 14, 2010 at 7:36 am
Jackie
The e-mail issue is by no means incidental. It raises the question, “What other campaigning has been going on at the peoples’ expense?” It’s egregious.
As for the help writing, it’s commonplace for candidates to have assistance. However, if people knew his real level of capability of stringing two words together, I’m confident every one of you would be shocked that you gave this guy the time of day. Forget televised debates. Have an essay contest. You think you’re hiring intelligent, eloquent people. Really. Hold an essay contest and see what he’s made of. You’ll be sorely disappointed.
November 14, 2010 at 7:53 am
Mitch
Richard wins campaigns. Of course the developers hate him. And the local press obviously considers Richard’s behavior far more relevant than candidate convictions and their magic invisibility.
I actually bought the press’ Caesar’s wife bullshit, until I saw how it only applies against the good guys.
November 14, 2010 at 8:12 am
brian
Poor Mitch……just can’t get over it.
November 14, 2010 at 8:28 am
tra
“stiletto-wielding” “bloodthirsty”
Congratulations on achieving such a laughable level of exaggeration and hyperbole.
November 14, 2010 at 8:42 am
Anonymous
This goes beyond sending campaign stuff over government email. Eric do you really believe that all of the DA’s office employees that supported PVG, on the side and in the wide open, conducted their pro paul campaign stuff from their homes and away from work?
Do you think those election videos were done after five P.M. or on a Saturday? Maybe you think they did it Sunday after church? I seldom agree with you but I know you are not that thick, or stupid, or even gullable. What would be very telling would be to get the county cell phone records and e-mail traffic for those DA office employees during the time of the election.
How much DA office work do you think was done on November 2??
PVG has a history of being fast and loose with the truth and don’t even joke that you don’t know that.
November 14, 2010 at 8:54 am
Heraldo
The Central Committee did not endorse Gallegos.
November 14, 2010 at 9:15 am
Anonymous
do any politicians write their own stuff? not as far as i know, and bush with the famous hearing aid helping him during the prez debate against kerry.
November 14, 2010 at 9:18 am
Mitch
Last I looked, The Arcata Eye asserts that it covers Blue Lake. Last I looked, Blue Lake is in the fifth district.
Anyone wanting to form their own opinion about the objectivity and/or the credibility of The Arcata Eye need only check for coverage of Ryan Sundberg’s drunk driving incident in The Arcata Eye. Check for yourself, and decide for yourself which is more heinous: endangering lives on the freeway and then withholding information about your conviction from the public, or helping a winning candidate write a thank you letter to his friends and supporters.
November 14, 2010 at 9:20 am
mresquan
“Actually, a portion of that crowd supported Hagen too. Richard and Local Solutions don’t talk much anymore after a falling out,”
On Kaitlin’s recommendations on her facebook page,she said she would be voting for Paul,with reluctance,as he was simply a better choice than the alternative.
November 14, 2010 at 9:33 am
Anonymous
maybe y’all should read gw’s book and see how he lifts thoughts from everyone and everywhere, and claims they are his own thoughts! are you the pot calling the kettle black?
November 14, 2010 at 9:35 am
Anonymous
it is clearly not a fund raising letter, you guys are like a bad dog with a bone in it’s mouth that it ain’t gonna let go no matter what.
November 14, 2010 at 9:54 am
Eric Kirk
do any politicians write their own stuff? not as far as i know, and bush with the famous hearing aid helping him during the prez debate against kerry.
Jesse Jackson wrote his own speeches, but speech writing is actually an established paid position at the White House and they have a whole team. Most pols do at least participate in the speech writing. I think Bush probably did because I don’t believe that a professional would have come up with “evil doers.”
November 14, 2010 at 10:17 am
Now I understand
Mitch’s mom taught him that two wrongs make a right.
November 14, 2010 at 10:51 am
Redwood
The Eye editor using the word “gravitas” to describe AJackson was a stretch at best.What in his personal experiences with the former DDA brought him to that conclusion? He didn’t give one specific instance of proof or case history that he has seen AJax’s “GRAVITAS” with his own EYE.
Karl Rove used “Gravitas” in describing Sarah Palin’s lack of it. Then all of a sudden the EYE borrows the phrase to describe KH’s chosen candidate.How convenient? I’d like to see how many times ,if ever,the word “Gravitas” appeared in the Eye before news media reports of Rove’s use of it.
November 14, 2010 at 11:14 am
Eric Kirk
People, the campaign here is over. Somebody won, and it was probably Paul G. In any case, there’s nothing left to argue about in terms of which candidate was better.
The only issue really is whether the email constituted a potential violation which warrants independent investigation, and that should start with somebody actually digging up some law. It may have been a violation, but also a thank you from an incumbent coming from the office after an election may also be perfectly legal and within the realm of official business, even if he has help writing it. Sure it helps to fund raise to defray the debt, but then so would a successful prosecution of a big case, or a popular policy initiative, etc. That it has fund raising value does not render it campaigning.
Therefor, instead of assuming , maybe someone who has the time and is really interested can look up some law. I’ll do it when I’m back in the office and if I find some time, but until somebody does the work we’re all just speculating that it was in fact a violation. If we conclude that it was we can discuss whether this was a simple error or the tip of the iceberg of a hidden pattern of sordid crimes and oppression or whatever.
It was worth mentioning but it’s not worth the carrying on.
November 14, 2010 at 11:51 am
Redwood
Thanks I needed that.
How bout that AG’s race? And didn’t both the LA & SF DAs’ have a lot of inter-office turmoil in the past year?
Finish this sentence – Keeping politics out of an elected DA’s office is … (fill in the blank).
November 14, 2010 at 11:53 am
Now I understand
There should be a county policy. If there isn’t, then one needs to be written.
At HSU, you get your hand slapped if you so much as attach your university job title to a letter to the editor because it implies endorsement by your employer. Actually using state resources for campaigning or a private business is a big no-no there. Does the county not have a similar policy with sanctions spelled out?
November 14, 2010 at 11:55 am
Mitch
Hey now,
My mom was pretty smart. Among the things she taught me was that when anyone makes a big deal about Person A doing thing B, I should check to see whether Persons C-Z also do thing B (or far worse). If they do, but only person A is being called out for it, that’s a sign of discrimination against Person A, not evidence against them.
And I figured out on my own that if Person A is actually way better than average, the things they’ll get called out on will be remarkably trivial, because the people that want to get at that person won’t be able to find any substantial wrongdoing.
November 14, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Anonymous
What if it’s not Paul? What if it is? If it is not and the new DA chooses to investigate or forward the investigation you Eric, and your pals, will call foul.
Yes the election is over and soon we will learn the outcome. I personally want Paul to be back at his wifes office. But if he win’s he won and I, we, will have to live with his incompetence and crime will continue to soar.
November 14, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Eric Kirk
Does the county not have a similar policy with sanctions spelled out?
Probably the county relies on state and federal law.
What if it’s not Paul? What if it is? If it is not and the new DA chooses to investigate or forward the investigation you Eric, and your pals, will call foul.
Whatever we call it would be irrelevant. It would be Ms. Jackson’s call.
That being said, I think the point is moot because I just don’t think Allison can make up a thousand vote difference with 13,000 votes if statistics hold true.
November 14, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Hank Sims
I think it’s Government Code Section 8314 and/or Penal Code Section 424(a). But I suppose everything hinges on what the courts consider “incidental and minimal.”
November 14, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Redwood
Late votes are trending left all over the West.
Arizona announced Yes on MMJ won by 4000 votes after most news outlets called it for the No’s a week ago.My apologies for mis-informing that it had failed on earlier posts. The point? Gallegos wins by 2000 at least.
November 14, 2010 at 1:11 pm
anonymous
How dare you suggest that a “thank you letter” could be “incidental and/or minimal”. Did you not hear Kevin say it was major? And Rose Welsh and Jack Durham agree with him! Are they not the arbiters of what is and what is not significant?
Meanwhile, what did the letter from Paul (and/or his campaign and/or his office) say? Do we want to consider the content of the letter to which he put his name.?
November 14, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Anonymous
What’s the county’s data retention plan? Are e-mails kept permanently? Can a journalisitic organization request all e-mails sent and received from certain e-mail addresses?
I believe schools back-up everything and have to keep staff e-mails for many years. What about the county? Is there a record of how e-mail has been used in the office? How about web usage of web-based e-mail sites like Gmail?
November 14, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Bolithio
Give it a rest, pick up the pieces, and try again in four years. That’s how a democratic republic works.
I heard on the radio, on November 3rd, that is was the official kick off for the 2012 elections. Seems like the republic is working a little differently…
November 14, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Not A Native
Gotta say Eric’s choice of this as blogworthy is poor judgement. There’s no issue here other than some resentful sore losers trying to salve their egos.
Hey, I’ve got another one for you all. When Paul Gallegos shits, its comes out very smelly. Isn’t that newsworthy? Consistent with his publication standards, Kevin Hoover should really eat that up.
November 14, 2010 at 5:42 pm
mresquan
After having some bit of time to read the links provided by Hank,I’m sure that what happened could be interpretted as illegal.It certainly is a petty thing though regardless,which could cause a little headache for Paul,but probably wouldn’t end in his removal from office,although I certainly wouldn’t rule out that Rose and co. would attempt to bring on another recall of him.And truly I could see where those most interested in making a huge deal out of this may have something backfire,as it simply sets a tone for all elected officials running in an election,which could include Jill Duffy,Mike Downey,Virginia Bass,or any candidate with access to a taxpayer funded computer.
But hey,if he committted a crime,let him pay.It isn’t the crime of the century though,but hope that candidates or office holders that you support haven’t done what the codes could define as a crime as well.
November 14, 2010 at 5:50 pm
law school
Here is what the letter said (according to Kevin Hoover):
To the People of Humboldt County,
I want to say thank you to those who voted for me and to those who gave so much of their time, energy and resources to this election season, including the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office, my campaign volunteers, supporters and staff for their hard work and dedication. I appreciate all the support I have received from around the county.
While politics tend to polarize, now it is time to get back our shared values, and continue making Humboldt County safe, secure and prosperous for All people.
Thank you for you your confidence in me and our District Attorney’s Office, and I look forward to continuing to serve the People of this county.
Sincerely,
Paul V. Gallegos,
District Attorney Humboldt County
November 14, 2010 at 7:30 pm
anonymous
“…Shared values…”.
I don’t suppose Kevin Hoover and Rose Welsh share many values with the rest of us, which would explain Kevin’s reaction to the letter.
November 14, 2010 at 7:32 pm
anonymous
Did you just remove the letter Eric?
November 14, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Redwood
So the penalty is $1000 a day fine split between all who were involved whether “intentional or neglectfulness”.
Other key words :”personal purpose”,”campaign activity”,Public resources” “use”. Does the fact that the campaign & election were over have any “sway” here?
Isn’t this sort of like getting caught using a private jet and “Oops…That’s wrong?”.. “Really!!!”..”Oh Ok” “How much $$$?”….The End.
November 14, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Eric Kirk
(2) “Campaign activity” means an activity constituting a
contribution as defined in Section 82015 or an expenditure as defined
in Section 82025. “Campaign activity” does not include the
incidental and minimal use of public resources, such as equipment or
office space, for campaign purposes, including the referral of
unsolicited political mail, telephone calls, and visitors to private
political entities.
I think that an email thank you to volunteers and supporters after the election would constitute an “incidental and minimal use of public resources” and therefor it does not appear that the campaign violated state law. Possibly federal law is a little more strict, but I doubt a federal prosecutor could even spare the time to consider it.
Late votes are trending left all over the West.
And apparently California voters did not give any additional seats to the Republicans, not even in the two “vulnerable” districts defended by Costa and McNerney. Basically, the tea party revolution stopped at Nevada, and even got slowed up there.
November 14, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Eric Kirk
Gotta say Eric’s choice of this as blogworthy is poor judgement.
Well, then as I tell others, start your own blog and do it the right way. Maybe people will head over to yours instead of mine.
November 14, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Eric Kirk
What’s the county’s data retention plan? Are e-mails kept permanently? Can a journalisitic organization request all e-mails sent and received from certain e-mail addresses?
I believe schools back-up everything and have to keep staff e-mails for many years. What about the county? Is there a record of how e-mail has been used in the office? How about web usage of web-based e-mail sites like Gmail?
I really doubt that would apply to a legal office. In fact I’m certain it doesn’t.
November 14, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Anonymous
can we talk about a board member of the mcc who has a family member on staff? don’t think that’s kosher. is that legal, e, or ethical, is it allowed?
November 14, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Eric Kirk
Yes, it’s legal and allowed.
November 14, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Anonymous
the email case would have a better chance that his PL prosecution.
November 14, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Un-Named
Unless you’re calling for absolute anarchy everywhere starting tomorrow, you’re clueless…IMHO or whatever you call it. If any of this is real, that is…I’m clueless.
I fuckin heard greg took a piss in the fry grease yesterday. Yeah, it was right before he changed it but still…
November 14, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Anonymous
I don’t find any reliable source that attributes the don’t mourn quote to Mother Jones but there are a lot of forum and blog posts which do.
November 14, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Anonymous
Once again, I will remind you all that Paul Gallegos was the legal genius who thought Measure T was a-ok, a boondoggle which thanks to him (and those Democracy Unlimited cultists) cost the county over $140,000.
November 14, 2010 at 10:13 pm
anonymous
And what did the pepper spay incident cost the county? We’ll thank Farmer and the Board of Sups for that one (makes $140k seem like small change, doesn’t it)?
November 14, 2010 at 10:15 pm
anonymous
Funny how much attention Hoover and Durham will pay to a minor email error and how little attention either of them paid to a Supervisor candidate in their districts (Blue Lake and McKinleyville) that had a DUI.
Of course no email were ever in danger during that drunken drive home, only human lives.
November 14, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Eric Kirk
I would agree that a DUI is exponentially more serious than an errant email, however, there were circumstances which led some of the media to decide not to cover it – something about not wanting to reward the individuals who sprung the story at the last minute. You can disagree with the decision, but those factors are not present here – certainly not when the election is over.
Just overheard a great quote from Tina Fey accepting the Mark Twain award on KEET – “I’m not going to get emotional tonight, because I’m a stone cold bitch.”
No, it’s not on topic.
November 14, 2010 at 10:30 pm
mresquan
Eric wrote,”but those factors are not present here-certainly not when the election is over.”
Eric,I just may agree with you if I hadn’t read this comment left by Kevin Hoover over at the Arcata Eye site,which to me hints that something is brewing.
“Gallegos is clinging to the most slender of majorities; it’s shaky and he’s deep in debt. A few more of the regularly scheduled Gallegos debacles and it may be time for another recall, a grassroots version.”
November 14, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Rose
Oh, for Pete’s sake, Konkler, NO ONE is planning a Recall. Jesus.
November 14, 2010 at 11:16 pm
tra
“Planning” a recall? Probably not. But apparently Hoover is at least fantasizing about one.
November 14, 2010 at 11:33 pm
Eric Kirk
Don’t see it happening.
November 15, 2010 at 12:14 am
Anonymous
Sprung the story at the last minute? Who covered it up in the first place is question one, but beyond that, the story broke in the spring. Hoover and Durham has the entire fall campaign to discuss the story, to investigate if the candidate was given special treatment (like not be put under arrest, how does that even happen with a DUI?), and if it would effect his job as Supervisor. How is this not a major story for both the Eye and the McKinleyville Press? Even their own reporter seemed to say so in last weeks edition of their papers.
November 15, 2010 at 12:15 am
Anonymous
Oh, I’m sorry. Was that a candidate they supported? Oh. Never mind then. I understand.
November 15, 2010 at 12:24 am
Eric Kirk
I agree that it was a major story which should have been covered, whatever the intent of the person dropping the story. The sole issue for media coverage in my mind is whether it is a story of interest to readers, not whether you’re being used. But we’ve had this discussion.
November 15, 2010 at 12:25 am
Eric Kirk
I don’t find any reliable source that attributes the don’t mourn quote to Mother Jones but there are a lot of forum and blog posts which do.
Didn’t see that one before. In any case, it’s possible she said it. Howard Zinn also apparently said it before he died. But it originated with Joe Hill.
November 15, 2010 at 6:15 am
Anonymous
Who covered it up in the first place is question one
The DUI was pretty well known in the district, before the paper had it. There was no cover up. It did come up in a voter’s forum once and Sundberg gave a solid, honest, answer. Had he messed that up, you would have seen a lot more about it I’m sure. Plus Sundberg & Cleary didn’t seem to get off on attacking eachother.
November 15, 2010 at 6:44 am
Mitch
Eric,
We disagree slightly on the reason for “media coverage.” I think newspapers have some eat your spinach responsibilities to the public if they want to be thought worth reading. Even the gone-completely-to-seed national papers still recognize that. Anyone is entitled to run a newspaper however they like, but the public can (or should be able to) recognize what is a credible news source, what is “a fun read,” and what is neither.
If the public doesn’t seem to care about some things, I still expect a newspaper editor to recognize their importance. Kevin’s done that about grow houses in Arcata, even at some risk, and probably would have done that even if he thought no one else cared. Yet, and I simply cannot understand it, he doesn’t appear to see the concealment of a serious current candidate DUI as rising to the significance of a ghostwritten thank you note.
November 15, 2010 at 7:59 am
Eric Kirk
Good points Mitch.
November 15, 2010 at 10:07 am
Anonymous
Very good point. This might explain the Eye’s current financial situation and his inability to pay for staff. I understand that Jack has also been unsuccessful in finding a buyer for the McKinleyville Press, though I’m hard pressed to put him in the same category as crazy Kevin, even if he keeps insisting on identifying with him, himself.
Still it seems odd that neither of them felt the DUI was a bigger story. Think about how big a deal’s been made during locally of people who killed people while they were driving drunk. Putting lives in danger should be a consideration as to the severity of the crime.
Can anyone explain how the perpetrator avoided being arrested? I still don’t understand how that’s possible.
November 15, 2010 at 10:10 am
George Shieman
Paul Gallegos sent me an email way before the June Primary that made it absolutely clear that no one should “ever” send a campaign-related email to his office/county email address. He and the campaign each provided me with two of his personal {outside the office} email addresses.
If someone, not Mr. Gallegos, did send an email from the office {and I am not sure that is the case here} then how can anyone attribute the action to him?
It would also be helpful to the discussion if some of the main bloggers would stick to the issues… rather than constantly calling other writers “liars” and a host of other personal insults. The writings of some people, who could really add to the discussion,…totally lack credibility because of the apparent personal hostility shown to other writers who do share their issue-related opinions. Frankly, most people who read these blogs and comment sections are totally capable of discerning the credibility of the writings without having to read slanderous comments from people who think they are adding something important to the discussions.
Cats a caterwauling make it very difficult for any sane cat to be in the room.
George Shieman Eureka/SanFrancisco gshieman@aol.com
November 15, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Anonymous
Sorry, but back to my question:
Can anyone explain how the perpetrator of a DUI, avoided being arrested? I still don’t understand how that’s possible.
November 15, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Redwood
The Eye has made his bed and now this is what he gets.Marginalized?Petty?
Since his Grow House activities cost him almost all the Grow-Scene money from readers and advertisers alike, 2 head-shops & 3 Grow shops have either opened or expanded in Arcata and 3 others opened in areas the Eye claims to cover.He’s like the little Dutch boy with all 8 fingers & both thumbs trying to plug the Pot4Profit dike.Talk about biting off more than you can chew?
November 15, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Anonymous
can anyone explain why the president of the board of the mcc is allowed to have his son on staff? why isn’t that a conflict of interest? the son disrespects the staff. who do they go to, to complain? the board? board family members should not be allowed on staff.
we were expecting to watch branzei on the hospital board, she at least has the ethics to be resigning from the hospital as an employee.
why is it allowed, eric, for members of the mcc board to have their family members on staff?
November 15, 2010 at 7:35 pm
moviedad
The saner the cat; the harder to herd.
November 15, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Anonymous
They did it just to piss you off.
November 15, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Anonymous
well damn, they did piss me off. the whole mcc board should be fired. bunch of elite potsmoking, bean fartin’, smelly hippies that they are.
November 15, 2010 at 10:43 pm
ED Denson
Can anyone explain how the perpetrator of a DUI, avoided being arrested? I still don’t understand how that’s possible.
If you mean someone accused of DUI rather than someone you somehow know is guilty, it is possible for such a person to be detained until felt to be sober, and/or they can be released to another person who is sober (eg partner, passenger, parent, child). That doesn’t mean they don’t get prosecuted, it just means if the DA feels the report warrants it, charges are filed and a letter is sent to the accused saying show up or face an arrest warrant.
if the DA does not prosecute you can be pretty sure the report was too weak, since this DA likes to prosecute DUIs. But not everyone accused is guilty and not everyone who is guilty can be proven so. Also not everyone accused actually knows themselves whether they are guilty or not.
DUI is a field unto itself with lots of pseudo-science (“Breath testing machines” and “Field sobriety tests”) and lots of poorly trained cops out there (CHP usually are best trained). Small town cops usually the worst, and in many cases call in the CHP to do the DUI investigation.
I know nothing of the particular case that this series of comments is about, but taking your question at face value, there’s the answer.
November 15, 2010 at 11:16 pm
tra
I believe that the commenter was refering to Ryan Sundberg’s DUI. Supposedly he was already in his driveway by the time the cops got to him. He blew a .16, but the cops just cited and released him, leaving him drunk and in full possession of his car keys in his driveway (with only his word that he wouldn’t hop back in the car for another little drunken joy ride). I guess the question is, if it were you or me, would we have received such tender treatment, or would we have had to get booked, jailed, sleep it off in the drunk tank, and arrange bail in the morning?
November 16, 2010 at 10:16 am
anon
“can anyone explain why the president of the board of the mcc is allowed to have his son on staff?”
because, 5:51pm, its a small town with interlocking boards and volunteers and workers and that’s just how it is…in small towns…or so goes the theory…
November 16, 2010 at 10:19 am
anon
that’s right TRA–they would have locked you up…cops have power and discretion to do whatever they want…not cool…
November 16, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Sally
Back to the Gallegos email: What’s the big deal? At least he didn’t spam anyone!
November 16, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Redwood
I have a real issue with how the DA’s staff is being trashed by Kev in the comments section under the editorial.He obviously has never dealt with DDA MFleming.
Mark Sailors gives him the “common man” low-down in defending a vote for Paul. Great little dialogue about Hansen’s PlanCo days. Richard’s there too, many almost comical comments had me grinning. Plus all this may be kosh anyway.
November 16, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Anonymous
I didn’t realize that Ryan Sundberg was already in his driveway when the sheriff’s deputy got to him. That seems fair, that if the guy is at home, and maybe if the deputy knows who he is, that he site him and let him go in his house. Thanks for that information.
As to the Gallegos email, I’m sure it is perfectly legal for a DA or any elected official to send a thank you letter to the editor from his office to the citizens of the community. How could it NOT be legal would be the better question. To call that letter as it’s printed above a “campaign” activity is absurd. The “campaign” is over on November 2nd, anything after that is simply the District Attorney talking. Should he not be allowed to thank people? This whole episode is so much sour grapes from the sorest of sore losers this county has ever known. Just take a moment and go back and read what Gallegos’ letter says (… now it is time to get back to our shared values, and continue making Humboldt County safe, secure and prosperous for All people.) and compare that to what Rose Welsh, Kevin Hoover and the rest of the Jackson campaign want us to focus on, and you can sure see why would NOT want to have Jackson as our D.A..
Thank you Kevin Hoover for making that so very clear one more time!
November 17, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Kevin Hoover
“To call that letter as it’s printed above a “campaign” activity is absurd.”
According to the Gallegos campaign staff (Salzman), the letter is being leveraged by the campaign to raise money to repay campaign debt.
November 17, 2010 at 1:18 pm
tra
So what? This seems like a pretty flimsy complaint.
November 17, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Redwood
So has Gallegos announced he’s running again in 2014?
Is that what he’s “campaigning” for now?
When the polls close a campaign for public office is officially over. But the campaigns to slander a man/woman & divide a community/county/country never cease…Just ask Speaker Pelosi?