Read Kym Kemp’s account at the Lost Coast Outpost.
I am informed that Clif is also submitting a My Word piece to the Times Standard. I’ll also keep an eye out for any responses from Estelle’s team. Will this resolve the issue? Ernie posted a dissenting opinion in Kym’s thread. Plenty more debates on calendar. Let’s see how it plays out.
I haven’t read Kym’s post yet, but I’ll do so and comment later.
Addendum: Okay, I’ve skimmed through her post. Basically, there are credible social servants quoted in the article, who agree that in rough fiscal times the STIP money will be prioritized for state highway projects, and that sometimes you can get them to dribble in some more for local roads. Clif’s vote was based on a strategy, and a desire that the county not lose all of the funding because we are fixated on the ideal. It is a complicated issue, not easily dealt with in milibites. Ernie suggests, I think, that we should have gone for broke and asked for what we really wanted anyway, but public servants have to operate with real world probabilities, and as Clif said on Sunday, we may end up with even less money because of the fiscal realities in Sacramento. By all accounts, he was not happy with the choices at the fateful meeting, but did the best he could with the information presented, and it was an 8-2 HCOAG vote.
And if I understand it right, it’s not that Clif “gave away” any money. We didn’t have the money. The point is that we are trying to get money for Humboldt County during very lean times, and he voted for what he believes to have been the best strategy to obtain it.
Kym posts a trancript of the subject portion of Sunday’s debate (and corrects minor errors made by both candidates). Kym also made some disclosures to be found at the end of the post (she’s biased for everybody!). Anyway, wade through it and the the very long thread which I’ve also only skimmed, and let us know what you think.
One thing is clear though – the meme that Clif voted to screw over Sohum to benefit his Arcata-Clique backers or whatever; it’s really inappropriate. Nothing’s ever that simple, and there’s nothing simple about this issue.
39 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 18, 2012 at 10:05 am
Anonymous
Are you kidding? Nothing is ever “resolved.” Not when it’s a convenient campaign issue.
April 18, 2012 at 10:28 am
Anonymous
Where does one start? With estelles cell phone ringing at the beginning of the “debate”. Or With all of her non answers. Or that the last question that was not given in advance, estelle could not answer. estelle is wrong on this issue, she has negative baggage not only from the reggae controversy, but her campaign sign that is an “ad”.
Being SO wrong on the STIP issue, being unaware of issues in NoHum,
ESTELLE IS NOT A GOOD SUPERVISORIAL MATERIAL.
Of course, the list of things that are “wrong” with estelle is a long one.
April 18, 2012 at 10:46 am
Anonymous
“Estelle built her reputation as a journalist, acquiring and verifying facts about a situation and earning the trust of her audience with stories they recognize as true. Here, however, she appears to be misrepresenting the facts to tell a story – that Clif voted for the Safety Corridor over fixing
roads in SoHum – that is politically useful to her, if not actually true. As a journalist and a politician, she should know better.”
estelle does not have a full time job like Clif does. She has all the time in the world to chekc and check and check the facts, ernie. she did not do her job.
Some of estelles followers would follow her off the precipice. ernie is one. And the folks who are only voting for her because of the Buck Mtn Ranch,McKee lawsuit. Selfish, self-serving folks.
Is all this information going to be on KMUD news tonight?
April 18, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Ernie's Place
I’m not about to follow anybody “off the bluff”, but looking at it from my standpoint, that’s where it looks like we are going. Everything that I’ve read indicates that the naysayers have been diligently interviewed. All agree that, yes indeed, Clendenen did the right thing. Are you sure? Clendenen was the pivotal vote on the Board of Supes. Did anyone ask the two that voted to not give the money away. (I know it wasn’t really money, it wasn’t really ours, and we really didn’t have a chance anyway, I think that I will just got outside and eat worms, oh, woe is me.)
I think that a more enthusiastic approach to acquiring road money is much needed. I’ve never been much good at covering my losses, so possibly I don’t see the ultra-cautious approach as a viable option. But, it is now in the past. They failed to move to acquire money for the Safety Corridor when it may have been available, so that is past. Now they need STIP money. Woe is us. What choice do we have… oh woe.
I don’t think that Eric, Kym or I want to be the focus of a political debate. The candidates should debate for themselves, and we should stay out of it. Kym foisted the oh-woe-is-me angle on us when that may not be the case. Fact is, we will never know if a proactive approach might have worked. From that standpoint I just thought that it was unfair to declare that Estelle is wrong.
I fully realize that our Supervisors are stuck with problems that are handed down to us from poor managmnet at the very top, politicians in Washington D.C. There is a horrendous bleed of American dollars to offshore countries because of stock market influence. Even though the major players in the stock market and the ultra wealthy are doing just fine, thank-you.
Just like this on blog, the Democrats blame the Republicans and the Republicans blame the Democrats,and we all rally around our favorite party while they take our jobs and pick our pockets dry. We at the county level are our own victims. We get the government we deserve. Oh, woe is me.
April 18, 2012 at 6:43 pm
Anonymous
Is is legal for Doug Green to go over the KMUD airwaves as “Doug Green from the Mateel Community Center” and say “support the candidate that would vote to end the lawsuit” ?
Isn’t it illegal for non-profits to endorse political candidates?
And why would the Mateel be supporting the person who tried to help sink them?
April 18, 2012 at 6:50 pm
Anonymous
hahahahahahahaha, that is a good one ern.
Now what’t your spin on estelle not being able to answer, and her lack of knowledge on the last question of the forum, a question that was NOT given in advance?
April 18, 2012 at 9:58 pm
Kym Kemp
Ernie, the reason I interviewed Lovelace was because he was one of the supervisors who voted against it (the other was Smith) see http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_19338432
While he appears to still have concerns about the project, he also appears to agree that Humboldt either took the STIP funding for the Corridor project or basically it wouldn’t get any funding.
I do think there are things we can do to improve our local roads (okay, everyone get ready to jump on me) We could pass a sales tax to fund transportation. We could band together and raise a stink about the federal funds always going to the more populated areas similar to the fuss SoHum schools raised about the bus situation. But, I think Clif and all the other folk who voted for the phased in Corridor project made the best decision they could under the circumstances. That isn’t woe is me. That is look at the reality and figure out how the hell to twist it the way we want.
April 18, 2012 at 9:59 pm
Eric Kirk
Isn’t it illegal for non-profits to endorse political candidates?
Ostensibly, although the 501c3 restrictions are being called into question by First Amendment advocates, and Citizens United is actually raising some eyebrows on the question.
http://brighton-community.blogspot.com/2010/01/will-supreme-court-decision-allow-non.html
However, there is no prohibition against individuals endorsing a candidate even if he identifies himself as a member or officer of a non-profit corporation. Often you will see endorsement lists of individuals with organizations’ names after them with an asterisk footnote which reads “for identification purposes only.”
April 18, 2012 at 10:17 pm
moviedad
Use Ctizens United to destroy corporate power? It’s so crazy, it’s brilliant!
April 19, 2012 at 12:23 am
pathetic actually
>>>Isn’t it illegal for non-profits to endorse political candidates?
>>>Ostensibly, although the 501c3 restrictions are being called into >>>question by First Amendment advocates, and Citizens United is actually >>>raising some eyebrows on the question.
>>>http://brighton-community.blogspot.com/2010/01/will-supreme-court->>>decision-allow-non.html
>>>However, there is no prohibition against individuals endorsing a >>>candidate even if he identifies himself as a member or officer of a non->>>profit corporation. Often you will see endorsement lists of individuals >>>with organizations’ names after them with an asterisk footnote which >>>reads “for identification purposes only.”
whether or not dg violated the rules for 501(c)3 orgs depends on just what he said. mateel cannot make electoral endorsements–but its president can make his own. so did he say anything to make you think he was advancing a mateel position? or was he just spouting off on his own? maybe you should call the attorney general’s office and ask them what they think.
i might quibble with eric on his apparent position which equates how an endorser identifies him/herself during an endorsement, and identification added to an endorser’s name BY THE CANDIDATE(or election committee). it may just be that the 501(c)3 president has a responsibility NOT to appear to make an organizational endorsement that the candidate does not.
it is interesting to think about the possibility of citizens united applying to candidate endorsement by non-profits, but i’m just cynical enough to think that the voices of the orgs i might support will be drowned out by those of mega-orgs who may not advance any of the ideals i hold dear. quien sabe?
April 19, 2012 at 8:29 am
Anonymous
IRS Issues Guidance on Prohibited Political Activity by Nonprofit Organizations
The IRS takes this very seriously and says it has “zero tolerance” for political activity on the part of section 501 (c)(3) organizations.
Endorsing Candidates. The organization itself is prohibited from endorsing candidates. The IRS will allow personal endorsements of candidates as long they do not use the organization’s financial resources, facilities, or personnel. Also, the officials must clearly and unambiguously indicate the actions taken or statements made are those of the individuals and not of the organization.
Advocacy of Candidates. The IRS prohibits 501(c)(3) organizations from engaging in either the expressed or implied advocacy of particular candidates. Express advocacy exists when a statement or publication encourages the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate. Implied advocacy exists when a communication does not clearly identify the candidate to vote for or against, but instead makes statements such as “Remember, vote conservative.”
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.
On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition.
Violation
A tax-exempt organization violates the IRS regulations under two circumstances: If the partisanship is done in an official capacity or is done “in the name” of the organization.
The result is that leaders or board members of tax exempt organizations as individuals are free to endorse or reject candidates. The organization is another matter. For example, if the head of the Rockefeller Foundation decides to support publicly a candidate for the governorship of New York, and does so in an official publication of the foundation, then the laws are violated. If this same head were to do so in a local newspaper as an individual, without reference to the group, then the law has not been violated.
The director of a community organization gives a speech urging listeners to vote for mass-transit funding in a state senate race, when mass-transit funding is an issue on which the senate candidates differ in their views. This is prohibited political activity.
eric, my partner is of the opinion that Doug Green broke these regs by asking people to “support the candidate who would vote to stop the law suit”(because the other candidate has a different view). Doug asked the listeners of his All Sides Now to go to certain stores and sign petitions to send to the BOS, using the weight of the words “of the Mateel Community Center” behind his request. The lawsuit is a political issue. A slippery slope.
April 19, 2012 at 11:09 am
pathetic actually
what she said(ANON 8:29). but what difference does it make? is someone planning to call the irs or attorney general and report him? not likely, if you’re unhappy with doug, why not write a letter to the editor?
April 19, 2012 at 11:13 am
Anonymous
According to Rigge, the billboard was brought to the city’s attention days after Fennell’s message was posted. The municipal code doesn’t distinguish the difference between a small-size lawn sign and a billboard, he said. Rigge said campaign sign violations are typical every election.
Rigge said he consulted with city attorney David Tranberg prior to requesting that Fennell remove her campaign’s message from the billboard. Rigge added that the letter he sent to Fennell’s campaign is compatible with Tranberg’s opinion.
”It’s my responsibility to enforce the municipal code,” he said. “We’re saying we have a sign law and we interpret it to mean including billboards. And, therefore, we’re asking her to honor our rules.
April 22, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Eric Kirk
eric, my partner is of the opinion that Doug Green broke these regs by asking people to “support the candidate who would vote to stop the law suit”(because the other candidate has a different view). Doug asked the listeners of his All Sides Now to go to certain stores and sign petitions to send to the BOS, using the weight of the words “of the Mateel Community Center” behind his request. The lawsuit is a political issue. A slippery slope.
I don’t find that in any of what you posted. The organization can’t participate, but there’s nothing to prevent a Board member from participating. I don’t see any prohibition of identifying yourself as a Board member of a non-profit organization so long as you don’t say or imply that you are speaking for the organization.
April 22, 2012 at 4:52 pm
knot-ed
I guess the problem comes with “imply”. Doug said Doug Green of the Mateel Community Center etc. etc.. Guess it’s a matter of how one hears things.
April 22, 2012 at 6:23 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, personally, I wouldn’t assume from what you’ve described that the Mateel Board decided to make an endorsement. But there’s nothing in the law that says that Doug Green can’t endorse someone just because he’s on a non-profit Board. If so, that law is being violated thousands of times across the country as we speak, including by me.
April 23, 2012 at 12:42 am
WTF Eric
Eric, just because people break the law thousands of times across the country every day, doesn’t make it legal, you should know that, or have you lived in SoHum too long?
Here is what the IRS states:
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to all campaigns including campaigns at the federal, state and local level. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Those section 501(c)(3) organizations that are private foundations are subject to additional restrictions that are not described in this fact sheet.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html
BTW, the Mateel is a 501c3.
April 23, 2012 at 8:17 am
EstelleSucks
Doug is just upset because his son is one of the people who bought land on the Buck Mountain/ Tooby Ranch.
April 23, 2012 at 8:20 am
Doug'sEgo
Why didn’t Doug Green identify himself as being Doug Green of Doug Green .com Master of Ceremonies.
April 23, 2012 at 8:21 am
Eric Kirk
WTF – I don’t see anything in that paragraph which prohibits non-profit Board members from endorsing a candidate on his own.
April 23, 2012 at 8:50 am
WTF Eric
That is correct Eric. With the key point being Doug Green on his own, not at a Mateel meetings or in his duties on the Mateel Board and not having any reference to the Mateel used with is name what so ever. The problem being, Doug Green or anyone else on the Mateel Board is elected from the public membership of a 501c3. Doug Green or anyone else on the Mateel Board needs to be very careful with how he/she are endorsing a candidate for public office in public. It just takes common sense, knowing the law and abiding by that law?
Sorry my link didn’t work above, just cut/paste it to Google, it has a great deal of information along the lines of what we are talking about, you should read it?
And Eric, there are as you call them “non-profits” that can endorse.candidates for public office (501c4), but just not a 501c3. My point, not all “non-profits” are the same. Just thought you should know.
April 23, 2012 at 9:21 am
Michael
Saying “of the Mateel” implies more of an official statement to me, as would “from the Mateel” (especially from the board president), than saying “Mateel board member” or “long time Mateel volunteer” or something like that. Perhaps the Mateel should do an all sides now to clarify things. Wording aside, I am shocked that any Mateel supporter who remembers Estelle’s behavior at the time would support her. Of course Doug did participate in the origanal actions that inevitably led to the disaster. If the IRS had been paying attention then I think the Mateel would have lost it’s tax exempt status back then. (As an aside, I think there should be no such thing as a tax exempt organization, as it is abused by the 1% far more then it helps anyone else. Most people I know don’t donate for an exemption. Try searching “Tax Exempt IKEA”.) Working for HumCPR was just another insult. I thought at the time that she was the person who had destroyed the most of their good will in the whole fiasco. I guess I held concert promoters to a lower standard.
April 23, 2012 at 10:01 am
WTF Eric
Michael, if you look up “time heals all wounds”, you will note the exception is with Native People and in Southern Humboldt.
April 23, 2012 at 11:08 am
knot-ed
Maybe someone should call the Mateel?
April 23, 2012 at 11:16 am
WTF Eric
Maybe someone should call the State Attorney General or the IRS!
April 23, 2012 at 11:50 am
Eric Kirk
That would be funny! I wish I could be there to hear their silent pause and suppressed laughter affected response.
April 23, 2012 at 12:32 pm
WTF Eric
That’s because you know that a Public Benefit Corporation (501c3) is just like any other private Corporation. They all play by the same rules, except NPO’s are excempt from paying tax, So whom is worse? It may seem they have oversight, but its the fox guarding the hen house. Thay want people to have that warm and fuzzy feeling all up inside.
And there is that one in a million chance you are wrong, would you want to bet the farm on that one?.
Eric, your on a NPO Board now? You were a past Board Chair at the Mateel during all the dark days of summer, just before it all unraveled in public? Its called CYA.
April 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Eric Kirk
I’ve been on non-profit Boards pretty consistently for the last 20 years. I’m on the Community Park Board now. I was on the Mateel Board about 10 years ago. The CLMP Board before that. The Open Forum Board before that. I’ve endorsed candidates throughout the past 20 years, and will continue to do so until someone shows me some law that convinces me that it’s in violation of law to do so. And if it is, I will promptly resign from any Board I’m on. But in all the years that I’ve helped set up non-profit corporations, I’ve never encountered any suggestion that when you join a Board you give up your own Firsrt Amendment Rights, and I doubt such a law would actually survive a First Amendment challenge, because nobody would want to be on a Board.
What is going on in this thread is that you don’t support Estelle and you don’t like the Mateel because they support the Community Park, so you’re fishing for some basis to attack. But unless the Mateel Board takes a vote to involve itself in an electoral campaign and actually does so, I think the IRS rep you contact will dismiss your complaint by return mail, if that.
In any case, Doug did not say that the Mateel endorses any candidate, and I know for a fact that some of the Mateel folk support Clif, so I don’t think such an endorsement is even possible.
April 23, 2012 at 1:18 pm
knot-ed
“Also, the officials must clearly and unambiguously indicate the actions taken or statements made are those of the individuals and not of the organization.”
Doug Green did not “clearly and unambiguously” make it clear that he WAS NOT speaking for the Mateel. He “implied” that he WAS speaking for the Mateel.
Personally, I do not support estelle. I do support the Mateel. And what Doug Green did is wrong. He should do another All Sides Now and clarify that he was speaking AS AN INDIVIDUAL, not for the Mateel.
April 23, 2012 at 3:38 pm
WTF Eric
Well done Eric, well said, but you have missed something along the way. That is, nobody is saying a Board member can’t endorse anyone running for public office using his or her name only, I think I have been clear in this matter. However, that person’s name should not be included as a Board member of or representing the 501c3 to endorse a public election candidate.
For example, could you place an ad in the paper that said you; Eric Kirk Community Park Board member supports so and so for Supervisor?
For example, could you make the same statement in a Community Park Board meeting?
What did Doug Green say and where did he said It?
April 23, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Eric Kirk
I would avoid saying something like that to avoid any confusion, and because my Board membership is irrelevant to my endorsement. However, I am not convinced that it amounts to a violation unless there’s something in what you’re saying to suggest that the rest of the Board is with you. I might be annoyed if I’m one of those other Board members, but the key is in what you are representing in your words, not the mere possibility that someone might be confused.
April 23, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Anonymous
KMUD, All Sides Now, Doug Green said:
Doug Green of the Mateel Comunity Center. He proceeded to ask us “to vote for the candidate that would stop the lawsuit against Bob McKee”. He then told us where we could go to sign petitions that will be sent to the BOS.
April 23, 2012 at 5:48 pm
michael
WTF-Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
April 23, 2012 at 6:34 pm
WTF Eric
Well Eric, thats why a 501c3 should have nothing to do with any kind of public election candidate one why or the other, so they don’t confuse the public. Even though it seems the goal of most NPO’s is to confuse the public anyway, one way or the other.
Its all relevant Eric. You think anyone running for 2nd DS just wants the backing of Doug Green without the Mateel attached to his hip? It makes no sense. Are you that naïve or do you know better. I think you know the différence in translation! Yeah, you do…..
April 24, 2012 at 7:41 am
Eric Kirk
Okay, well, I’m moving away from the silly topic and back to the substance for a minute. I’m told that Estelle’s people have put out a radio ad on the STIP money issue. I’m hearing rumors about what’s in it, but I haven’t heard it myself. But I guess the issue is not resolved, at least not as far as the campaign is concerned.
April 24, 2012 at 8:00 am
Anonymous
Fill us in eric, as soon as you can.
April 24, 2012 at 8:10 am
WTF Eric
Yes Michael, George Santayana said some great things:
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”
“Only the dead have seen the end of war”
April 24, 2012 at 9:55 am
Eric Kirk
Fill us in eric, as soon as you can.
As soon as I hear it, I’ll report on it. I’m assuming it’s on KHUM.
April 25, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Anonomous
Doug Green said to vote for the candidate that would put an end to the county’s 10 million dollar tax payer lawsuit against bob mcKee. So that would be Estelle Fennell. Not clif, he had 4 years to help with that and he was completely silent on it. When asked in the debate about it, he was so meely mouthed it was pathetic.
Estelle gets our vote.