richardslist

Framing Democracy: How We Defeated a Corporate Recall in Humboldt County

2012-03-03T13:48:00.000-08:00

Framing Democracy: How We Defeated a Corporate Recall in Humboldt County

by Michael Shellenberger, Breakthrough Institute

You’ve heard of corporations sponsoring political candidates, athletes, stadiums, and even schools. But did you hear about the corporation that paid for a special election to recall a District Attorney who had sued it for fraud?

That’s exactly what happened in Humboldt County, California, home to giant redwoods, endangered salmon, and a timber company called Pacific Lumber (PL).

Fortunately, on March 2, 2004 we beat back the Houston-owned company’s attempt to recall Paul Gallegos, the county’s new DA. The margin of our victory—61 to 39—gave Humboldt County activists new hope that they could create an economic future free of control by big corporations. This is their story.

The Headwaters Forest Deal

In 1996 I was hired by activists in Humboldt County (population: 130,000) to help increase environmental protections for the Headwaters redwood forest. That work resulted in the Headwaters deal, finalized in 1999, in which the US and California governments paid an astounding $480 million for about 7,500 acres of PL’s old-growth redwood forest. In addition to the money, the Headwaters deal granted PL a “Habitat Conservation Plan” (HCP)—a provision in the Endangered Species Act that allows private landowners to destroy habitat critical for endangered species (in this case, other old-growth redwoods).

One person who understood the complexities of the Headwaters deal inside and out was my friend, Dr. Ken Miller, a retired emergency room doctor who moved to Humboldt from the Bay Area in 1997. He and several other north coast activists founded the Humboldt Watershed Council to organize property owners whose homes had flooded due to PL’s logging.

Along with the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC), the Humboldt Watershed Council filed lawsuit after lawsuit against PL. In 2003 a judge ruled in EPIC’s favor against the timber giant, invalidating a major component of the Headwaters Deal—the “Sustained Yield Plan” —but rather mysteriously refused to penalize the company or slow the logging.

Just when local environmentalists were beginning to despair, Paul Gallegos was elected District Attorney in March, 2002, in an upset victory over a 20-year incumbent. Gallegos took office in January, 2003. Within weeks he had discovered evidence that PL committed fraud as part of the Headwaters deal. Miller paid the 41 year-old DA a visit and became a key expert for the case.

The DA’s lawsuit alleges that PL lied about the science so it could cut far more trees than is possible before Humboldt’s steep hillsides collapse—setting off mudslides and destroying watersheds that are critical habitat for endangered salmon and other animals.

Gallegos’ deputies warned him that crossing PL would end his career. An avid surfer of Humboldt’s big waves, Gallegos told a local reporter about the time he realized a shark was circling him in the ocean, “Sometimes when you get afraid and you try to paddle out of danger, you paddle into worse danger. So you can’t let fear dictate your conduct.”

Two months into office, Gallegos sued the company for fraud and deceptive concealment, seeking $250 million in damages.

Recall Reaction

Gallegos’ lawsuit hit like a tidal wave in provincial Humboldt County. Overnight Gallegos became a hero to some and a villain to others. A week after filing the suit a self-appointed representative of the “good old boy network” announced he would pay to gather signatures for a recall.

Paul responded with an op-ed for the local paper titled, “Nobody is above the law.”

Richard Salzman, a recent Bay Area transplant to Humboldt who had helped Gallegos raise money and run TV ads for his 2002 campaign, rushed to Gallegos’ defense. Salzman hired me to help start the Alliance for Ethical Business and defend Gallegos. We did a poll and discovered that while most people opposed the idea of a recall, the community was evenly divided about PL—about 40 percent were pro-PL and 40 percent were anti-PL. (Gallegos, who has a portrait of his hero Abe Lincoln hanging in his office, often referred to Humboldt as “a house divided.”)

To avoid the traditional fault lines we focused our attention on the fraud—not the company’s environmental track record—and put forward a former PL logger to drive home the point that you can be pro-timber and anti-PL. We created special bumper stickers and ended each TV, radio and print ad with our new slogan: “Timber Yes, Fraud No.” (TV ads are extraordinarily cheap in Humboldt—$40 buys you a 30-second spot on Wheel of Fortune; $150 gets you on the local news).

After a three month quiet period—just as people were wondering whether the recall would happen at all—Salzman discovered aggressive signature gatherers in front of the local supermarkets. He found out they were being paid a record-breaking $8 per signature to get the signatures in on time.

Richard called the media and the local press played the story big. Not only was the recall election on, it was being financed almost entirely by Pacific Lumber.

Competing Frames: “F is for Fraud” vs. “Soft on Crime”

In late November Salzman become campaign manager for the anti-recall committee. We held a strategy retreat and invited a large group of supporters.

Inspired by the documentary, “The War Room”, I encouraged Salzman to emulate Clinton campaign manager James Carville’s relatively open meetings to get everyone on message. During that campaign, Carville held strategy sessions in large rooms and invited literally dozens of campaign volunteers to attend, trusting that the benefit of energizing campaign volunteers outweighed the risks of secrets leaking out.

During the final three weeks of the campaign, Salzman held daily 6:15 PM war room meetings and conference calls so that activists from across the sprawling, rural county could participate. After the 15-minute meeting, volunteers would start phone banking. Tied to the volunteer effort, these War Room meetings dramatically expanded the number of people who felt like they were part of a movement.

Realizing that PL would pull out all the stops, my wife and son and I moved up to Humboldt—about five hours from the Bay Area by car—for the final three weeks of the campaign. Shortly after we arrived, PL struck with a barrage of attacks: glossy, three-page direct mail pieces; full-page newspaper ads; wall-to-wall radio and TV ads; and calls from paid, out-of-state phone bankers to voters.

The most disturbing aspect of the campaign was the way the local police unions jumped on board the recall bandwagon. They persuaded a veteran deputy DA to run against his boss. And they attacked Gallegos for having liberalized medical marijuana enforcement guidelines and for emphasizing the need for crime prevention. Gallegos was, they said, “soft on crime.”

The label troubled me. I had seen how such a tag could hurt progressive politicians, from San Francisco District Attorney Terrence Hallinan to Michael Dukakis.

The opportunity for our opponents was that plea bargains—which are a routine part of the DA’s work—sound like ways to let criminals off the hook. The truth is that every DA, however “tough” makes plea bargains based on the strength of the evidence and the circumstances of the crime. It’s easy sport for political consultants to dig up a plea bargain and blow it up into a major scandal.

Our strategy was to frame the recall as PL vs. the DA whereas PL’s strategy was to frame it as Cops vs. the DA

Aiming to get PL into the news as much as possible, our campaign filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission saying that because PL was funding more than 90 percent of the recall they had to change the name of the committee from “Safety Yes” to “The Pacific Lumber Committee to Recall Paul Gallegos.” We got no action out of the commission but the complaint generated headlines and reminded voters that this recall was all about PL.

As expected, Pacific Lumber brought in top political professionals to create its TV ads. Its first ad was beautifully shot in a sun-lit warehouse.

The ad started with a couple saying that “drive-by shooters” (teenagers who hadn’t injured a soul) had fired at their house and that “Paul” (they always referred to him by his first name) “did nothing.” The camera then cut to a mayor from a local timber town saying that cops arrested marijuana dealers in a safe-school zone and “Paul didn’t even file charges.” The next shot was of the head of the Eureka Police Officers Association saying that Gallegos had let a child rapist off the hook. In its closing seconds the ad had the spokespersons repeat, mantra-like, “We can’t wait. We can’t wait. We can’t wait.”

The ad sent chills up my spine. As the father of a four-year old boy, if I had no other information than the ad, I would have voted to “recall Paul” right then and there. (Always good for a metaphor, Gallegos said this part of the campaign was “like a knife fight in a phone booth.”)

Their ads got more and more gruesome. Towards the end they unleashed a series of rough attacks that focused on a Mexican immigrant father who had molested his daughter. The TV, newspaper, ads and direct mail pieces put the Latino man’s face underneath headlines that read, “This man raped a little girl 1,900 times and Paul let him off with one count.”

The truth was that Gallegos prosecuted the particular individual with “one continuous count” so that, if the case went to trial, the eight year old girl in question wouldn’t have to be ripped apart by a defense attorney seeking verification of each count.

Because the family members were Mexican immigrants in the country illegally, the DA’s office considered the victim child and her witness mother a flight risk. If the mother and daughter fled (fearing deportation) before trial, Gallegos would have had no case––and the molester would have gone free for lack of evidence. Gallegos actually got the toughest sentence possible for the man––16 years in prison.

The challenge for us was, how do you answer such charges without allowing the frame to shift to whether or not Gallegos is “soft on child rapists”?

For the year before the campaign I had been studying “strategic framing” with George Lakoff, a University of California linguistics professor introduced to me by Peter Teague of the Nathan Cummings Foundation. One of Lakoff’s axioms is that “negating a frame elevates the frame.” By going into the media to deny that Gallegos was soft on child rapists we would be elevating the frame “soft on child rapists” ––and thus perpetuate a discussion we simply could not win.

We did two things. First, we emphasized that Gallegos has three young children and has their protection at the top of his mind at all times. We emphasized the Gallegos children at every opportunity.

Second, we bracketed our defense of Gallegos by starting and ending our ads with, “This recall is a fraud” and “PL is lying about the DA.” It helped that the recall was listed as “Measure F.” In all of our ads we said, “F is a Fraud” and “Vote No On Fraud.” Within the ad we had a local judge say that PL was lying about the child molester case.

Amazingly, the more we were attacked, the more the grassroots responded. The campaign was flooded with volunteers asking to help phone bank and walk precincts. The money flooded in. Copying MoveOn.org’s email style, we raised about $28,000 on-line––over $3,000 per day toward the end of the campaign. We raised $240,000 in total––an unprecedented sum of money for a county with only 130,000 residents.

There were a few scary moments. In the final two weeks of the campaign the Gallegos home was broken into twice. Nothing was stolen either time, but in the first instance the perpetrators raised the thermostat to 90 degrees––literally “turning up the heat” on the DA. PL was also sending private investigators to dig up dirt on all of our campaign spokespersons.

A poll taken a week and half before election day showed we had lost 15 points since June and were in a statistical dead heat. The soft-on-crime attacks appeared to be working.

Victory and Beyond

On Election Day my stomach was tied in knots. If we lost I would share much of the blame with Salzman and Miller (all three of us had become public figures). But I was scared less of the finger-pointing and more of the possibility that Maxxam-PL would get away with it—and set a precedent. That afternoon I went for a long run along the Mad River and practiced what to say if we lost.

The results were expected to come in between 8 and 9 PM. Hungry but unable to eat, we joined about three hundred other Gallegos supporters at the Eureka’s Lost Coast Brewery starting at 7 PM.

At 8:15 PM I called the Elections office. Only the absentee ballots had been counted so far – and we were losing. I was upset, but I kept in mind that conservatives vote absentee in higher numbers than progressives.

At 8:30 PM I called back. We were up—but just slightly.

By 8:45 PM we were up by 60 percent. Other people were calling too, and a cautious whoop went through the crowd.

Finally, at 9 PM, all the votes were counted and a supporter shouted from the balcony, “The recall has been defeated, 61-39!”

The Brewery erupted. People jumped up and down, and literally started pounding the rafters. The building shook. The floor wobbled. People were screaming, laughing and crying—in some cases all at the same time. Flashbulbs were everywhere and people mobbed those of us in the campaign leadership. For about 15 minutes we felt like rock stars.

It was time for Paul to make a victory speech. The whole brewery quieted down. From the balcony Gallegos thanked the crowd and said he was going to read a quote from Gandhi:

“There are seven sins in the world: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality”…

—at this last sin the crowd interrupted with applause and hoots before Gallegos finished—

— “science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, and politics without principle."

It may have been the first time any American politician had ever quoted Gandhi in a victory speech.

Maintaining the Momentum

We took almost no time to savor our win. The next day the campaign leadership met to figure out what to do with the grassroots energy the attempted recall had generated. (One astounding fact was that, thanks to the intensity of the campaign, over 60 percent of eligible voters went to the polls in Humboldt—twice the percentage that voted in the Bay Area).

At the top of everyone’s list was stopping energy giant Calpine’s liquid natural gas plant—proposed to be built right on Humboldt Bay—which would have had a devastating impact on the marine environment. Rather than attack it on environmental grounds we decided to frame the proposed facility as unsafe and as a job-killer because of its expected impact on the fishing economy.

Again our team came together. Five days before the Council meeting, Richard emailed his 2,000 person list asking them to call and fax Council members and show up at the March 16 meeting. Salzman’s email read: “Stop the Dangerous, Job-Killing LNG Plant.” And we released to the media a copy of a poll that found that six out of ten Eureka residents opposed the plant.

Still high from our victory against the recall, over 1,500 Humboldt citizens turned out to the city council meeting to oppose the plant. The front page of the next day’s Eureka Times-Standard showed a picture of a man holding up a sign reading, “Cal-Pine’s LNG Plant = Job Killer.” Within hours of the paper hitting the newsstands, Calpine sent a letter saying it was dropping the project because of the public opposition.

In the end, defeating PL and Calpine were small steps for corporate responsibility but giant leaps for Humboldt County. What we learned in Humboldt went beyond technical campaign skills. We learned that building a movement and framing a political debate require a moral imperative. By making a moral argument around justice, democracy and freedom, we both mobilized our base and appealed to swing voters.

As Humboldt’s progressive community looks ahead, Salzman and other campaign leaders are fleshing out a Humboldt-specific strategy for sustainable economic development and crime prevention—the intellectual ground on which Gallegos and other politicians can stand to articulate a new politics grounded in old values.

Michael Shellenberger is the president of Lumina Strategies (www.luminastrategies.com) and is executive eirector of the nonprofit Breakthrough Institute (www.thebreakthrough.org). He can be contacted at Michael@thebreakthrough.org.
http://www.ega.org/resources/newsletters/sum2004/humboldt.html

---

Also read Paul V. Gallegos: Courage Under Pressure:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Education/Profile-in-Courage-Essay-Contest/~/media/73615DE38F8E41C190E9E602849DE134.doc

Time to consider a municipal bank

2011-10-19T11:55:00.000-07:00

Time to consider a municipal bank
The Eureka Times-Standard
Richard Salzman
10/19/2011

Ten days into the Occupy Wall Street protests, I wrote a letter to the editor complaining about the lack of mainstream media coverage. By the time that letter was printed, they finally got to the story, to their credit.

There are now “Occupy” actions taking place in 1,482 cities across the country (as tracked at OccupyTogether.org), including in my own town of Arcata in Humboldt County, California.

Surprisingly, even as the media has covered the story, many in the mainstream press seem mystified by the motives and/or lack of cohesive message. Does “people's needs, not corporate greed” explain it?

San Francisco Supervisor John Avalos, a mayoral candidate, wants his City Hall to pull its money out of corporate financial institutions and start a municipal bank “so we can control how we are investing in local businesses.” I hope Humboldt County will also consider that option.

Long ago, I pulled my money from a big bank and put it into a local credit union. Then, it was recently publicized that the CEO of my small “nonprofit” credit union was taking home just shy of $1 million a year in compensation (making the $160K that our county administrative officer earns seem pretty reasonable). I'm sure people would love to put their money in a county-owned bank whose CEO doesn't get $1 million (see publicbankinginstitute.org for more on this subject).

Here are six more excellent ideas taken from Sens. Bernie Sanders and Matt Taibbi, writing in Rolling Stone magazine:

1. Break'em up. If a financial institution is too big to fail, it's too big to exist. Start with repeal of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and mandate the separation of insurance, investment and commercial banks.

2. Pay for bailouts. A Wall Street speculation fee on credit default swaps, derivatives, stock options and futures would both pay for the bailouts and do plenty to fight the deficits.

3. Cap credit card interest rates, end usury. Citigroup, Bank of America, and JP Chase should not be permitted to charge 25 to 30 percent interest when they received over $4 trillion in loans from us.

4. Tax hedge-fund gamblers. Repeal the carried-interest tax break, which taxes hedge-fund titans only 15 percent on their income.

5. The Federal Reserve needs to provide small businesses in America with the same low-interest loans it gave to foreign banks.

6. Stop Wall Street oil speculators from artificially increasing gasoline and heating oil prices.
--
Richard Salzman, who lives in Arcata, works as an illustrators' rep and political consultant.

http://www.times-standard.com/guest_opinion/ci_19145550

Occupy Wall Street deserves our support

2011-10-10T17:26:00.001-07:00

SUPPORT THE PROTESTERS

Letter to the Editor
Posted: 09/29/2011
Times Standard

If you've not seen coverage of the protests happening on Wall St. for the last two weeks (since Sept. 17th), and you likely have not if your only news comes from mainstream media sources, then you should take a moment to read about (and offer support to) them at the organizers' website OccupyWallSt .org. It's been thousands of people holding rallies day after day to protest the class war that's been waged by Wall Street and the banking industry and corporations against working Americans for the last 30-plus years and finally, people are starting to fight back. I support these protesters and I hope you will too.
Richard Salzman
Sunny Brae

http://www.times-standard.com/letters/ci_19002371

2011-05-26T09:32:00.000-07:00

Lawsuit Targets Arcata Panhandling Law
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
by Daniel Mintz - Eye Correspondent

ARCATA – Having declined to strike aspects of its panhandling ordinance, the City of Arcata will have to defend itself against a lawsuit from a well-known political consultant.

Arcata resident Richard Salzman, who has helped coordinate the campaigns of District Attorney Paul Gallegos and several other liberal candidates, announced his filing of the lawsuit on May 19. It attacks the ordinance’s prohibitions against spoken and written requests for handouts, arguing that they’re unconstitutional.

The complaint, filed by Salzman’s attorney, Peter Martin, states that the ordinance’s ban on panhandling signage and comments “places an impermissible burden on the free speech rights of citizens in a public forum” and “presents an unacceptable risk of chilling and/or suppressing protected speech.”

Salzman is asking the court for an injunction on enforcing the ordinance, a declaration that it’s unconstitutional and recovery of costs involved with filing the lawsuit.

The ordinance’s prohibition of aggressive panhandling isn’t being challenged in the lawsuit.

In a press release, Salzman alleged that the City is violating basic civil rights and targeting the poor. “If first they silence the poor and the homeless, and I say nothing, who will speak up when they try to silence me?” he asked.

The City Council approved the ordinance last year but Arcata Mayor Susan Ornelas and Councilmember Shane Brinton voted against it. The council recently voted not to amend the ordinance, with Brinton casting a lone dissent vote.

In addition to banning aggressive panhandling and solicitations, the ordinance prohibits begging within 20 feet of businesses, parking lots, banks with automatic teller machines, bus stops, foot bridges and intersections.

Its findings section states that other city laws have failed to have an effect on a situation that has “generated an enhanced sense of fear, intimidation and disorder, and has caused many retail customers to avoid shopping or dining within the City.”

In an interview last February, when Salzman notified the City of his intent to sue, City Attorney Nancy Diamond said the ordinance is modeled after what’s been done elsewhere in the state and country, and what’s been tested in court.

“We are not the first community to look at panhandling ordinances,” she said. “This is very widespread and there is a fair amount of judicial law we were able to look at … we weren’t acting in a vacuum.”

http://www.arcataeye.com/2011/05/lawsuit-targets-arcata-panhandling-law-–-may-25-2011/comment-page-1/#comment-31373

Arcata Panhandling Ordinance lawsuit filed 5.19.11

2011-05-20T21:36:00.000-07:00

Arcata, CA – On Thursday May 19th Richard Salzman filed a lawsuit in Superior Court of California against the City of Arcata claiming that their Panhandling Ordinance is unconstitutional.

In March the City of Arcata declined Salzman’s request to amend its panhandling ordinance. ”I requested that they amend their ordinance so as to comply with our guaranteed protection of free speech as outlined in the United States Constitution. Since they declined to do so I felt compelled to file a complaint yesterday in the Superior Court of California against the city” said Salzman.

Salzman has stated that he is a proud lifelong member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and staunch defender of the Constitution of the United States and the First Amendment right to free speech.

As written, the ordinance makes it a crime to merely hold up a sign asking for a hand out. By denying citizens constitutional right of free speech, Salzman contends the City Council overstepped its authority.

“If first they silence the poor and the homeless, and I say nothing, who will speak up when they try to silence me?” Salzman asked. He notes that the section of the ordinance against “aggressive panhandling,” including blocking one’s path, any physical contact or shouting, was left unchallenged by this legal action.

read lawsuit here: http://humboldtherald.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/salzman-complaint.pdf

Read article in: The Arcata Eye

Read article in: The Times Standard

Protect the Humboldt brand (TS My Word)

2009-05-15T13:09:00.000-07:00

Protect the Humboldt brand

Richard Salzman/For the Times-Standard
05/15/2009

Governor Schwarzenegger said he is open to hearing the debate on legalizing marijuana for adults, and Assemblyman Tom Ammiano has a bill (AB 390) pending before the California Legislature to do just that.

There will certainly be much debate here in Humboldt around this issue, particularly on its effects on our local economy. If and when legalization comes, the best-case economic scenario for local growers and our local economy may be a model similar to that of the wine industry, where there is a market for small-scale operations to compete with larger commercial growers, based on vintage and variety.

Knowing that such a market is even a possibility should motivate our elected officials to act now to protect the Humboldt name or brand, in the way that the name Champagne is protected, and not to let the name fall into the public domain or to take on a generic meaning. In Europe and elsewhere, for a product to be called Champagne, the wine must come from that region of France -- and this distinction is protected by international laws and treaties going back as far the 1891. There is also the “Protected Designation of Origin” (PDO), as defined in European Union law and recognized in other countries, to protect the names of regional foods. That law from 1992 ensures that only products genuinely originating in a region are allowed in commerce as such.

A more recent example, but without the legal teeth, is Napa's “Declaration on Place,” which
is essentially an agreement among winegrowers internationally, similar in scope to the PDO.

I hope our county supervisors and state and federal representatives will explore our options to protect the Humboldt name -- as others are already planning to profit, by having trademarked variation on the name Humboldt, and we should limit its use to products actually produced in Humboldt County.

Richard Salzman
Arcata, CA.

http://www.times-standard.com/othervoices/ci_12376676

HELP is of no help to Humboldt [TS My Word]

2006-04-13T13:46:00.000-07:00

HELP is of no help to Humboldt

4/13/2006

My Word by Richard Salzman

Eureka Times Standard

In response to Kay Backer's My Word of March 22, Getting Humboldt leaders to lead: Kay Backer is a paid professional spin doctor from Sacramento. Hired by local developers, she is paid to badger county government and bamboozle the public. She feigns concern for our families by shedding crocodile tears about so-called affordable housing here in Humboldt County.

It's ridiculous that Kay Backer is even treated as a legitimate voice in our local affairs just because Rob Arkley and HELP summon her to town for a meeting, or to send off an e-mail full of accusations and threats to the media. She represents nothing other than a handful of developers. Are there even five people who will admit to being a member of HELP?

It's absurd that those who pay her (they call themselves HELP but really should be called HELP-Yourself) are implying that the reason they want to build more houses is because they want to see home values drop. When has any developer ever wanted to see any housing prices drop? Do you want to see the value of your home decline?

In the Sacramento area, where Ms. Backer lives, homes are being built at an astounding rate. Strangely enough, housing prices there are still shooting up and now routinely cost about half a million dollars. Is that what Ms. Backer's backers have in mind as affordable housing?

Now Rob Arkley is threatening to use his money to sue the county unless planning officials buy into HELP's fabricated projections of housing needs. Isn't that called blackmail?

I have no objection to developers making money off constructing houses. But it's an outrage to be told that the reason they want permission to build more -- and forever change the essentially rural character of Humboldt County -- has anything to do with stopping people from moving out of town, lowering home prices or anything other than their search for higher profits.

Where will Kay Backer's concern for our community be the day after her paychecks stop coming in? Will she still be shouting HELP or just go on to her next lucrative public relations campaign?

The big box vs. local entrepreneurs [TS My Word]

2006-01-19T13:43:00.000-08:00

The big box vs. local entrepreneurs

My Word by Richard Salzman
Eureka Times Standard

I want to thank my friend Cletus Isbell for furthering the discussion on big-box stores in his My Word of Dec. 23. I do, however, want to respectfully disagree with three points he makes.

First, I disagree that those consumers now comfortably buying items off the Internet (and getting them home-delivered) will switch to the big boxes. Instead, the big box's customers will mainly be those of us who now frequent locally owned and operated brick-and-mortar stores.

The second and third reasons have to do with the intertwined subjects of jobs and taxes, and can perhaps be best illustrated with the example of Home Depot, a timely subject coming before the Eureka City Council in the form of a zoning change request for the Balloon Track. A Home Depot would have a devastating effect on everyone who sells everything from appliances to flooring, hardware to cabinets, lumber to home heating. The list goes on and on (and a Best Buy -- another possibility -- would include everyone in music and home electronics). Since Home Depot now also does installation, work would be snatched from all sorts of contractors and tradespeople, too.

Yes, some driven out of business will be able to get jobs at the Home Depot, but the ripple effect on our community will be devastating. The key difference is that Home Depot spends most of its money with out-of-the-area suppliers -- and sends all of its profits back to corporate headquarters.

Whatever short-term gains there may be in the tax base would pale in comparison to the money drained from our local community. Because whenever a dollar is spent at a locally owned company, it recirculates several times through the local economy. The county has already acknowledged this economic fact of life in a comprehensive study called Prosperity -- The North Coast Strategy? (available at www.northcoastprosperity.com), which the city of Eureka signed onto.

I urge readers to just do a Google search on big box impact? and read any of the myriad studies detailing the disastrous effect these stores can have on the economy of areas with a limited population like ours. Our locally owned and operated small businesses are the lifeblood of what has proved to be a vibrant and resilient local economy, but there are limits to how much more impact we can sustain.

The loss of extraction-industry jobs already has been hard on us, and small businesses are the best hope for living-wage jobs. Yet even those businesses which might survive the initial impact and aren't forced to close down will have to cut back: Cut back on their workforce and downsize their American dream. There is simply not enough business in such a small community to support both the big box and the local entrepreneur.

I don't know that the government could or should stop a big box from coming to town, but business owners, tradespeople and all their customers and neighbors alike ought to tell their elected officials, starting with the Eureka City Council, not to facilitate the process through zoning changes or the rejection of study grants.

Statements Reflect Number Of People Supporting Gallegos [Eureka Reporter]

2004-11-07T13:32:00.000-08:00

Statements Reflect Number Of People Supporting Gallegos [Eureka Reporter]

by Christine Bensen, The Eureka Reporter

January 27, 2004

On Friday, Friends of Paul Gallegos turned in its Jan. 1-17 campaign disclosure statements to the County Elections Office. The Committee to Recall Paul Gallegos missed the deadline, but turned in its information in by Monday afternoon.

In the past 17 days, the recall committee has received no donations; between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31, the committee received $30,973 in monetary contributions and $43,347 in nonmonetary contributions.

Of the $30,973 in monetary contributions, $3,000 came from Steve Wills Truck & Logging and $26,000 from The Pacific Lumber Co. The nonmonetary contributions came entirely from PALCO, with $40,770 going to pay petition signature-gatherers.

Recall committee member Rick Brazeau said he did not know why no donations had been made between Jan. 1-17.

“I just went and picked it up from the account", he said.

Brazeau said the committee is not concerned about the lack of donations during that time.

In the past 17 days, FOPG has received $22,727 monetary contributions and $3,230 in nonmonetary contributions. Of the monetary donations, 40 have been $100 or more and 255 from people donating less than $100.

Between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31, FOPG received $44,617 in monetary contributions and $19,179 in nonmonetary contributions.

“We're just so pleased at people's incredible generosity", said Richard Salzman FOPG campaign manager.

He said people are giving donations ranging from $5 to thousands of dollars and many contributors have contributed at least twice.

Salzman said “it really speaks volumes about how people in the community feel about this attack on democracy."

Although many contributors are Gallegos supporters, he said others are not sure if they support Gallegos, but “sure as hell don't support the recall."

Salzman said he hopes to raise $50,000 in the next week to pay for advertising. He said so far $10,000 has been raised.

He said although comparisons have been made between the amount of contributions FOPG and the recall committee have received, it is difficult to compare the two.

Salzman said all the recall committee has to do is make a call and they can get a check for thousands that day. He said running a "grass-roots campaign" such as FOPG comes with a lot of overhead cost such as installing phone lines and paying utilities at the headquarters.

Affordable Housing, or Starter Castles [TS My Word]

2004-08-31T13:41:00.000-07:00

Affordable Housing, or Starter Castles

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - Eureka Times-Standard
My Word
by Richard Salzman

As the county updates its General Plan, a small vocal group of developers (HELP) say their Plan H would make housing more affordable in Humboldt. While all proposals deserve careful consideration, the Alliance for Ethical Business finds HELP's claim overly optimistic at best -- and perhaps outright dishonest.

These developers and Realtors want the county to assume a 2 percent annual population growth as an antidote to rising housing costs. Plan H calls this a "conservative" rate of growth -- even though it would quadruple the current county target. What's more, it neglects to mention that all of California has a projected growth rate of only 1.19 percent.

When we look at what 2 percent annual growth would really mean to Humboldt County, can we imagine another 80,000 new residents, stuffed mostly between Rio Dell and Trinidad?

In fact, only 18 of California's 58 counties aim for a growth rate of 2 percent or greater. According to HELP's friends at the California Association of Realtors ( www.car.org these high-growth counties, such as Fresno, Kern and Riverside, also have the fastest-rising housing prices, from 24 to 30 percent in the last year. Meanwhile, slow-growing Marin's home prices increased only 9.4 percent.

Developers in once-rural Sonoma have actively encouraged growth and urban sprawl. The results, aside from notorious traffic congestion? Average home prices now exceed $514,000, up $70,000 in the last year. Greater growth does not automatically lead to affordable housing.

Most authorities agree the California housing market is due to cool off. Mortgage rates are bound to rise as the Fed bumps up the prime-lending rate. Northern California foreclosure rates jumped as much as 26 percent in some counties. And that same California Association of Realtors reports that the statewide Housing Affordability Index dropped to 19 percent in May, its lowest level since 1989. So, depending on your point of view, Humboldt County has reached the top (or bottom) of the housing market crisis.

To grow Humboldt County at anything approaching the rate urged in Plan H, developers would have to keep stoking outside investment -- creating an overheated local housing market. This would cost taxpayers like you and me millions in subsidized infrastructure, while primarily benefiting developers.

Although claiming to be "anti-sprawl," HELP also is demanding that the county set aside more than 40 square miles of what is now prime agricultural or timber production land for housing in the next 20 years. That's an average of almost a full acre per unit for over 18,000 units. What HELP means by affordable housing isn't what the average Humboldter means by affordable -- HELP is more interested in "starter castles" costing a million or more.

Besides, no amount of regulatory reshuffling can alter Humboldt County's geographic isolation or flatten our rugged, earthquake-prone topography to accommodate uncontrolled growth that HELP advocates.

AEB (Alliance for Ethical Business) finds it self-serving, unethical -- and perhaps dishonest -- for HELP to seek an unrealistic, unacceptable level of population growth based on the false claim that it will alleviate Humboldt's current housing crisis. Do we need higher housing costs, increased taxpayer obligations and unwelcome urban sprawl just to fatten the wallets of developers? That's not HELP, that's "help yourself."

Gallegos recall effort underway [Arcata Eye]

2004-03-24T13:13:00.000-08:00

Gallegos recall effort underway

By Daniel Mintz, Eye Staff

March 24, 2004

A campaign to recall recently-elected District Attorney Paul Gallegos is in its embryonic stages, but is quickly mounting as the county's progressive activists rally just as hard to bolster the D.A.'s legal moves against Pacific Lumber Company.

Gallegos' filing of a fraud lawsuit against Pacific Lumber (PL) has triggered a battle of public opinion for and against the suit and its opposing sides. Rumblings of a recall effort began almost as soon as the lawsuit was filed, and Arcata resident Robin Arkley, former owner of Blue Lake Forest Products and a locally well-known political motivator, has announced that a campaign to remove Gallegos has begun and is quickly attracting masses of determined supporters.

Soon after the suit was filed in late February, Arkley offered $5,000 to anyone interested in starting a recall campaign. “I have advanced the money and the recall is underway," he said. “We have a terrific amount of support and I can't believe how fervent the response has been."

Take it back from the hippies'

Arkley said the effort will be helmed by “a very, very good campaign manager" but didn't want to divulge the name yet. He did say that Tom Herman, a former PL forester now practicing law with the Eureka-based Barnum and Herman firm, will be the campaign's legal advisor. Herman was out of town and not available for comment.

The first tangible signs of the recall were evident last weekend, when volunteers began a voter registration drive at a logging conference at Eureka's Redwood Acres Fairground. And those who work for and favor PL are eager to vote and do anything else they can to oust Gallegos, said Arkley, who is certain that recall petition drives will be successful.

“Paul's probably done us a favor," Arkley continued. “We're going to take the county back, and we're going to take it back from the hippies."

He said the lawsuit is bunk, and that's why it has provoked people. “We're finally saying, shit, we've just had it, we're just not going to put up with it anymore and we do intend to take this county back Ã¢â‚¬â€œ and that includes all those whackos at HSU [Humboldt State University]."

Gallegos has said the lawsuit has “taken on a life of its own" and it has inflamed the division of opinion on PL that has fermented here for years. The word “outrage" isn't an overstatement in describing reaction to the PL lawsuit, Arkley said. He's sure that the recall campaign will finally magnetize a political force that has been mute until now.

“There is a great, silent, unregistered majority of men and women who work and educate their children, and they have thought that it's futile to vote, but they now know that it's not," said Arkley. “And that's how we're going to do this. We are going to do it, it's for real."

Arkley added that animosity against PL has been tolerated, but now, people “are just sick and tired of it." He portrayed ongoing direct action forest protests as a particularly odious phenomenon, comparing the persistence of tree-sitters to “dogshit on a waffle- sole shoe."

Arkley said he will hire MTC, Inc., an Arcata-based advertising agency that's promoted many high-profile political campaigns, including those for former Humboldt D.A. Terry Farmer (who Gallegos defeated last March), County Supervisor Bonnie Neely, Eureka Councilman Chris Kerrigan, Eureka Mayor Peter LaVallee and the Southern Humboldt Healthcare District's successfulÃ‚Â parcel tax measure.

Rick Brazeau, MTC's owner, said his firm hasn't been contracted yet, but “if something evolves, I'm interested in being involved because this is an important issue Ã¢â‚¬â€œ I, myself, will support it."

And raising money won't be a hard sell, Arkley asserted. “I can tell you this Ã¢â‚¬â€œ we're spending a lot of money, because we've got lots of money."

Plugging for Paul

The other side of what has become a community-wide P.R. battle is also mobilizing. Groups have formed and are raising money to aid the lawsuit and sway public support for it.

Gallegos' key election campaign organizer, Richard Salzman, is the coordinator of the Alliance for Ethical Business, a new group that advocates for fair business practices and whose first project will be to hold forums presenting information on the lawsuit. The first is set for April 9 at the Arcata Community Center, and a Eureka forum will follow later that month.

Salzman said that effort, too, is drawing fast and substantial support, and the Alliance is planning a community outreach campaign that will probably involve print and television advertising.

“We feel that Maxxam [PL's parent company] has a powerful P.R. and media influence here," said Salzman, citing the county's daily newspaper and highest-rating TV station as examples. “We're trying to counter-balance that and make sure that the D.A. gets his voice out there he doesn't have a mechanism to do that, so our work is necessary."

Salzman isn't surprised that a recall effort is blossoming, but he thinks it amounts to an attempt to derail justice. And that, he added, demands a response. “This is not a popularity contest, but nine weeks into [Gallegos'] job, Arkley's already threatened to remove Paul from office just because he's making allegations about one of his friends Ã¢â‚¬â€œ and just because a company is liked by many people doesn't mean that they're above the law."

The cost of a recall election to the county is a questionable expense, Salzman continued. He estimated that the county will pay $100,000 to send sample ballots to voters. And he predicted that it will fail to accomplish anything because “Paul will win by an even greater margin than he did last November (when Gallegos captured 52 percent of the vote to Farmer's 48 percent).

Southern Humboldt activist Jared Rossman has opened a fundraising account the Citizens Fund for Equal Justice at the Community Credit Union in Garberville, and he said that over $5,000 in donations has been deposited in it. Rossman is researching whether the funds can be given to the D.A.'s Office directly, but he said if that's not legally viable, the money might be used to hire a private law firm to file a “parallel lawsuit."

If that can't be done or isn't feasible, Rossman continued, the money will be returned to donors. Another option is to use it for “ publicity to counter-balance the onslaught of misinformation PL is putting out."

Rossman thinks the recall drive “is very sad, because [Gallegos] has barely hit the ground and people are so tired of the same old business' of the past D.A. Ã¢â‚¬â€œ what do we want, a D.A. who's in the deep pockets of folks with money or a D.A. who is independent? I don't think Humboldt County will be fooled."

The need for public interfacing has motivated Gallegos himself. On March 18, he made a presentation on the suit to the county's Democratic Central Committee, which passed a resolution that praises Gallegos' work and “encourages the Board of Supervisors to support the financial needs of his office."

The legal fight

The embattled lawsuit alleges that PL submitted false information on the effects of logging in unstable areas, and then “suppressed" corrected data to facilitate the approvals that led to the 1999 Headwaters Agreement.

The suit argues that PL's “deception" influenced state environmental officials to approve the cutting of an additional 100,000 trees in unstable areas over a 10-year span (to 2010).

An initial public showdown on the lawsuit erupted at the March 11 Board of Supervisors meeting, where throngs of PL employees, subcontractors and supporters lobbied against Gallegos' attempt to enlist the law firm of famed trial attorney Joseph Cotchett. That move requires approval from supervisors.

Some of them were clearly annoyed by the request, but all five expressed doubts, and the contract request failed. A letter from the state Department of Fish and Game refuting the suit's claims was cited by supervisors as a warning flag.

Legal argumentation will focus on how the environmental documents define unstable areas and whether PL's inaccurate study actually influenced approval of additional cutting in them.

Gallegos has alternately been portrayed as a hero and an idiot for filing the suit. It comes as confrontation between PL and tree-sitting activists in Freshwater reach a boiling point. “There hasn't been a week in office when I haven't had to deal with PL issues," Gallegos said wearily.Ã‚Â

Some of the emotional reactions to the suit are influencing misperceptions, he continued. And the D.A. said he doesn't think PL's status as a high-volume employer should steer his office's moves.

“People seem to be saying that we either do, or should, have different rules based on wealth. But we have to stand firm on this, because otherwise, our laws will lack integrity and without integrity, we will have cynicism."

There is plenty of evidence to support his office's case, Gallegos added, and he emphasized that he has no regrets about filing the suit. “One the one hand, people complain that it will cost money, but on the other hand, we have PL asking for substantial assistance from law enforcement to pull tree-sitters out and now we're seeing a recall effort that will further divide this community but this office cannot, and will not, be intimidated."

Tim Stoen was picked by Gallegos for the long-vacant assistant D.A. position and is the suit's engineer and lead prosecutor. He will seek monetary damages ($250 million was initially cited) as well as suspension of logging.

He has said that PL is “scared" of facing the suit in court.

Jim Branham, PL's communications director, responds: “Believe me, we're not scared. We are outraged. We're outraged that Mr. Gallegos would file a suit with no merit, a suit that wastes taxpayers' money and doesn't even demonstrate a basic understanding of [environmental approvals]."

Branham said it's likely that Gallegos has put the county in a position of having to defend itself in a counter-suit. “I think it's important that the Board of Supervisors understands that the D.A. can't run around and sue people without a factual or legal basis for it, the county has a vulnerability here. We will consider all our legal options, and they could well include recovering our costs."

Asked about the recall effort, Branham said his company is “watching it with interest." He also said that that “new faces" are surfacing to support PL. “It's like nothing I've ever seen since working for this company," he continued.

The rules of recall

Election law mandates that petition drives for the D.A. recall can't start until April 7. If 15 percent or roughly 11,000 of the county's 74,000 registered voters sign them within a 160-day window, a recall election will be held.

There are two ballot periods, in June and in November. Recall supporters will have to work hard and efficiently to get a recall election on the November ballot.

The recall voting ballot will cite reasons why Gallegos should be removed from office and will also include his answer to those arguments. Votes will be cast for and against a recall, as well as for a candidate or candidates who would replace Gallegos. Arkley said his team will choose a replacement candidate soon.

Political observers have little doubt that the petition drive will succeed, as PL has almost 1,000 employees and draws strong support from the areas of the county where it has operations. Fortuna is one of them.

That city's City Council recently passed a resolution portraying the lawsuit as a waste of taxpayers' money and in a separate action, voted to research the viability of filing a complaint against the D.A.'s suit with the county's Grand Jury.

Fortuna Mayor Mel Berti is the longtime meat department manager at Hoby's Market in Scotia, a PL-owned town that is the company's center of operations and residential hub. He said that over the last five years, he's seen people in Scotia become increasingly uncertain about their future.

“To see what people go through mentally and physically over things like this is astounding," Berti said of the lawsuit. “All five of us on the [Fortuna] Council are standing strong, and the people of this county will stand strong, too. We've had enough of this, it's time to stand up and say, Whoa, we've had enough and we're going to fight."

Berti added that he's part of the recall campaign and will “work with Mr. Arkley and do everything I can ... we are seeing a sleeping giant wake up."

From the lawsuit's outset, Gallegos said he expected political waves to roll against him. Saying he “loves Democracy," the D.A. accepts the likelihood of a recall election as an aspect of it.

“It will be a test, and it will determine what this community is all about," he continued. “There are good people here, and they deserve the best government, not one that only represents the rich and powerful."

Humboldt D.A. fights to keep job [San Francisco Chronicle]

2004-03-24T13:10:00.000-08:00

Humboldt D.A. fights to keep job [San Francisco Chronicle]

Lumber firm funds recall campaign after being sued

by Greg Lucas, Sacramento Bureau Chief

February 28, 2004

Eureka -- On the wall of District Attorney Paul Gallegos' fourth-floor office at the Humboldt County courthouse is a shadow box containing a hatchet, a pair of pliers and a Yankee screwdriver.

The tableau was assembled by the man who hung signs for Gallegos in his upset 2002 win to become the county's top prosecutor.

"I keep it here to remind me that hard work gets the job done,'' said the youthful-looking Gallegos.

There's plenty of hard work ahead for the 41-year-old former defense attorney before Tuesday's election in which Humboldt's 77,000 registered voters will decide whether to throw him out after a little over a year in his first elected office.

Bankrolling the effort to recall Gallegos is Pacific Lumber, whose contributions represent more than 90 percent of the money Gallegos' opponents have spent against him.

The company's nearly $230,000 in contributions -- and Gallegos' efforts to keep pace -- have made the recall the most expensive campaign in Humboldt County history.

The timber company says its only concern is the district attorney's supposed coddling of criminals.

"There's a lot of misinformation out there that's kept going by the Gallegos campaign,'' said Erin Dunn, a Pacific Lumber spokeswoman. "This is a safety issue, a personal safety issue. There's time after time after time his office has botched cases.''

Despite its claim not to be orchestrating the recall, Pacific Lumber helped hire a consultant affiliated with its Sacramento lobbying firm to manage the final weeks of the recall effort the company is largely financing.

Using office space provided by Pacific Lumber, the consultant has mapped out an aggressive campaign featuring crime victims groups, peace officers and television ads to buttress the claim Gallegos is a wimp on crime.

Gallegos insists the company's real motivation is to punish him for suing Pacific Lumber, the county's second-largest private employer, for providing false information to the state about the impact of its logging on creek ecosystems.

"The recall costs less than attorneys' fees,'' Gallegos said. "Either way, they're not going to pull any punches.''

The power struggle reflects the schism within Humboldt County itself as its old natural-resources-based economy -- where fishing and timber were king -- is eclipsed by newer, more service-oriented industries.

Those divisions are mirrored in the three candidates who want Gallegos' job, should he be recalled.

One is an 18-year veteran deputy in Gallegos' office. Another -- who echoes the criticisms of Pacific Lumber -- is a disgruntled former deputy. The third is a local lawyer who champions Gallegos.

A recall so bitter that school officials keep an eye on his 7-year-old daughter was not something Paul Gallegos imagined he would find in Eureka when he and his wife, Joni, left Los Angeles in 1994 to search for "a beautiful place to live where we would want to raise children."

Not knowing a soul, they hung their shingle in Eureka and built a successful practice as defense lawyers. They also built a family that now includes three kids, ages 22 months to 7 years old.

In 2002, Gallegos ran for district attorney. "Justice for All'' was his slogan.

"Government needs to represent and treat everyone equal,'' said Gallegos in an interview. "It's an issue in this community and it has been for a while -- the perception that not everyone here is treated equally.''

His populist promises of change helped him beat a 20-year incumbent by 52 percent to 48 percent.

Trouble started when Gallegos kept his promise.

First, Gallegos was criticized for expanding the county's limit on pot plants grown for medicinal purposes. He says his standards are more restrictive than his predecessor and mirror the rules in neighboring Del Norte and Sonoma counties.

Unions representing police officers and sheriff deputies grew tepid about Gallegos.

Then, just over one year ago, Gallegos lowered the boom on Pacific Lumber.

He accused the timber company of low-balling the amount of creekside landslides its logging caused in a habitat conservation plan governing tree- cutting on its 211,000 acres.

Pacific Lumber's buy off on the conservation plan was required before the state and federal government would spend $480 million to buy the 7,500-acre Headwaters Forest and two other stands of old growth redwoods owned by the timber company.

Environmentalists, who had made similar claims for years, cheered the maverick district attorney.

The suit seeks the return of some of the money spent on Headwaters and penalties of as much as $75 million.

Pacific Lumber blasted the litigation as frivolous and baseless. Loggers protested the suit by surrounding the courthouse.

State agencies, like the Department of Fish and Game and the attorney general's office, declined to help Gallegos.

Even a request to hire Joe Cotchett, the nimble Burlingame personal injury lawyer, on a contingency basis was turned down by county supervisors.

Saying he wanted to take back the county from "environmentalists and hippies,'' a retired timber executive began a drive to recall Gallegos.

Last October, the effort stalled at 12,000 signatures.

Recall supporters then approached Pacific Lumber, and the company's parent, Maxxam Inc. of Houston, Texas, opened its checkbook.

Since then, Maxxam has spent nearly $230,000 -- $74,000 contributed Monday.

Gallegos refutes charges of weak prosecuting by noting he personally tried four cases last year and won all of them, on all counts.

In the first nine months of 2003, Gallegos charged 994 people with felonies -- a 14.8 percent increase over the 866 felony filings during his predecessor's last year in office.

At Gallegos' storefront campaign headquarters a few blocks from the courthouse, volunteers open envelopes containing checks ranging from $5 to $50.

Gallegos estimates his campaign, which has raised 80 cents for each of his opponents' dollars, has logged more than 700 contributions from county residents.

A lanky supporter in a porkpie hat, a braided beard and nose ring wants a couple of yard signs.

An artist's agent by trade, Gallegos' campaign manager, Richard Salzman, encourages the supporter to leave a donation.

Gallegos also makes the rounds of the candidate forum circuit.

At Humboldt State University, sighs, snickers and chuckles greet two of Gallegos' opponents, Gloria Albin-Sheets and Worth Dikeman.

Dikeman worked for 19 years under Gallegos' predecessor. He claims to have no position on the recall but argues that should it succeed, he is the most qualified to run the office.

"I'm bothered the district attorney's office has fallen into such disfavor. I'm the person to bring it back,'' Dikeman told the 200 mostly college-age people at the forum.

The Fortuna, Arcata and Eureka police associations back Dikeman, as does the county sheriffs association.

Albin-Sheets, who lost her prosecutor job because of budget cuts after Gallegos took office, echoes Pacific Lumber's insistence Gallegos is soft on crime.

"Mr. Gallegos is a defense attorney. He will always be a defense attorney, '' she said.

Both opposition candidates at the forum were periodically skewered by Steve Schectman, a local lawyer and gadfly, who denounces the recall and defends Gallegos' 13 months on the job.

"(The recall) has nothing to do with crime. It has to do with a corporation that wants to control this county,'' Schectman said.

After the candidates pummeled one another for an hour, Gallegos defended his record in a one-on-one interview.

Every decision made by his office is criticized by someone, he says. He cautions against singling out the handling of individual cases from out of the thousands his office processes.

In his personal office, next to the door, at eye level, is a photograph of Abraham Lincoln. The 16th president looks haunted but indomitable.

Gallegos compares Lincoln's recognition of the immorality of slavery to the issues Humboldt faces with Pacific Lumber.

The decline of timber breeds the same fear about the end of a way of life Southerners felt about the demise of slavery, Gallegos says.

"I am just the poster boy. I'm the focus of an issue not just this community but all of America is dealing with -- who is our definition of us? Is it some of us? Or is it all of us?"

Voters Reject Attempt to Recall North Coast D.A. [L.A. Times]

2004-03-03T13:40:00.000-08:00

Voters Reject Attempt to Recall North Coast D.A. [L.A. Times]

A timber company bankrolled the effort to remove the Humboldt County official

By Kenneth R. Weiss, Times Staff Writer

March 3, 2004

Humboldt County voters rallied behind their district attorney Tuesday, rejecting a campaign bankrolled by Pacific Lumber Co. to recall the prosecutor who had accused the powerful timber company of fraud.

With all precincts reporting, voters decided to retain Dist. Atty. Paul Gallegos, 61% to 39%, despite an intensive campaign of radio, television and direct mail advertisements that portrayed Gallegos as soft on crime and a friend of illegal tree-sitters, rapists and pot growers.

"It's a triumph of the people over the influence of money and lies in politics," said a jubilant Gallegos, 41, a former Southern Californian who moved to Eureka a decade ago. "This recall election wasn't about me, it's about a corporation trying to control politics here in Humboldt County."

"This is about a defendant getting rid of the prosecutor," he said. "If this was the will of the people, they [Pacific Lumber] wouldn't have had to spend a quarter of a million dollars to get this on the ballot and convince people I was no good."

The recall election, the most expensive race of any kind in Humboldt County history, generated an unusually high turnout on a day when voters elsewhere in the state largely stayed home.

The race emerged as a test of the century-old political dominance of timber interests in a county of 130,000 people that has seen a sharp drop in logging jobs and a surge in environmentally concerned newcomers who work in the tourism and service industries.

The debate over Gallegos cleaved the county along familiar battle lines in the North Coast timber wars: Whether redwoods should be considered a draw for tourists and a subject of poetry or a source of lucrative lumber and abundant jobs. Passions flared to the bitter end, with allegations of improper electioneering.

Richard Salzman, Gallegos' campaign manager, joined volunteers on a busy intersection to wave "No Recall" signs for the early morning commuters, most of them in pickup trucks.

"We got many more thumbs up than we got middle fingers," he said. "For these guys who gave us the finger, it's not the way Paul [Gallegos] handled a particular case, it's that they fear that their job's at stake."

Last year, Pacific Lumber and its corporate parent, Maxxam Inc., based in Houston, paid $8 a signature to help fill out petitions needed to qualify the recall for the ballot.

Then the timber company and its contractors donated more than 80% of the money, $266,000 disclosed so far, to the campaign to persuade voters that Gallegos should be bounced from the job as the county's top prosecutor.

Pacific Lumber denied that its contributions had anything to do with the civil fraud case that Gallegos and his top assistant, Timothy O. Stoen, filed in March 2003, accusing the company of lying to state regulators during the 1999 Headwaters Forest deal. The deal capped a decade-long battle to save the state's remaining stands of giant redwoods not already protected in parks or preserves.

Prosecutors contend that the fraud has allowed Pacific Lumber to harvest about $40 million worth of trees each year on 211,000 acres that were supposed to be protected under logging restrictions as part of the deal, which cost taxpayers $480 million.

Company spokeswoman Erin Dunn said the firm joined the recall out of a duty to help protect public safety from a prosecutor with a "miserable" record.

Supporters of Gallegos raised $180,000 and put together teams of volunteers to counteract the ad campaign against him. They phoned thousands of supporters in places such as Arcata, a liberal college town, to urge them to the polls.

"We're doing a booming business," said Lindsey McWilliams, Humboldt County's election manager, who predicted a turnout of about 65%. The county issued about 18,000 absentee ballots, about 6,000 more than usual, and he fears it will take weeks to sort through the final 1,500 to 2,000 or so ballots which were smudged, adorned with write-in candidates, or turned in at polling places.

Although these ballots will not change the outcome of the recall election, McWilliams said, "It's going to take us a lot of time to clean this up."

Palco pours another $85K into recall effort [Times-Standard]

2004-03-03T13:29:00.000-08:00

Palco pours another $85K into recall effort [Times-Standard]

Arkleys give $12,000 to Gallegos campaign

By James Tressler, The Times-Standard

EUREKA -- Pacific Lumber Co. continues to bankroll the recall effort against District Attorney Paul Gallegos.

According to financial statements filed late Thursday afternoon, the timber company, which is being sued by Gallegos, put nearly $85,000 into the recall effort in February. More than half the money was used to pay Fifty Plus One, an Arizona company that has been conducting polls on behalf of the recall committee. Another $4,000 went to Sacramento-based Flanigan Group, with which new recall spokesman Rob Flanigan is affiliated.

Palco now has contributed more than $150,000 to the recall campaign since it began last spring. Overall, the Safety Yes, Recall Gallegos committee has raised about $100,000 since mid-January. Besides Palco, other major contributors include: Fortuna-based Lewis Logging, $5,000; Palco contractor Columbia Helicopter Inc., $2,350; and Blue Lake-based Rasmussen Wood Products, $1,000.

Efforts to reach Palco for comment were unsuccessful.

Meanwhile, the Friends of Paul Gallegos raised just over $76,000 between mid-January and mid-February from roughly 1,800 individual contributors. The largest single donation came from Rob and Cherie Arkley who this week gave $12,000 to the Friends of Paul Gallegos, according to a financial statement filed Thursday. Two other large donations also came into the Gallegos campaign this week: $2,173.75 from Bayside resident Barbara Carolan and $1,000 from Eureka residents Kay and Charles Fitts. Most of the other donations were far less than $1,000.

The Arkleys, who own Race Investments LLC in Eureka, were strong supporters of Gallegos in 2002, when he defeated then-incumbent District Attorney Terry Farmer. The Arkleys also own Security National Servicing Corps in Eureka, were substantial contributors to the city of Eureka's waterfront boardwalk a few years ago, and most recently they bought the Daly Building Complex downtown.

Ironically, Arkley's father, Robin Arkley Sr., is a staunch Gallegos critic. Last year he offered $5,000 to anyone willing to run against Gallegos. Arkley Sr. is a former operator of Blue Lake Forest Products.

"There are lots of fathers and sons who disagree on political issues," offered Richard Salzman, Gallegos' campaign manager.

Rob Arkley was out of town Thursday and unavailable for comment.

The senior Arkley expressed surprise at the size of his son's latest donation to Gallegos.

"Wow! He's richer than I thought he was," Arkley Sr. proclaimed.

When asked if he and his son are far apart on the Gallegos issue, Arkley Sr. responded:

"We're a long ways apart -- by about $12,000," he joked.

Arkley Sr. said he doesn't plan to spend any more money on the recall campaign, saying he's done his part.

The three recall replacement candidates, Worth Dikeman, Gloria Albin Sheets and Steve Schectman, did not turn in financial statements on Thursday, the deadline to turn in timely reports.

Recall targets California prosecutor who took on lumber in Redwood Country [AP]

2004-03-01T13:36:00.000-08:00

Recall targets California prosecutor who took on lumber in Redwood Country [AP]

by Paul Elias, Associated Press Writer

March 1, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A new district attorney who has accused a huge lumber firm of fraud in California redwood country could see his political career felled by a threatened recall.

The Pacific Lumber Co., through its corporate parent Maxxam Inc. of Houston, has fueled the recall of District Attorney Paul Gallegos with $229,000 in contributions.

The company and Gallegos detractors say the district attorney is too lenient with criminals, too friendly with radical environmental activists and too accommodating to marijuana smokers who say they use the drug for medicinal purposes.

The district attorney's supporters, though, say the Pacific Lumber-backed recall is retaliation for Gallegos's suit against the timber company in February 2003, a month after he took office.

"There is no way the Maxxam corporation in Houston can be this concerned with the rate of plea bargains in Humboldt County," said Gallegos campaign manager Richard Salzman.

An unusually high voter turnout was expected Tuesday in Humboldt County to determine whether Gallegos should be ousted. With a combined $500,000 in contributions expected to be spent, the campaign has turned out to be the most expensive in county history.

The dispute has exposed long-simmering tensions in this community along California's far north coast, where the old mainstays of logging and fishing have faltered and new industries -- and people -- are moving in.

The dispute is also being closely watched by fellow district attorneys, who are concerned that recall success in Humboldt County will spark similar efforts against them.

"The unusual amount of money being raised is also drawing a lot of interest," said David LaBahn, executive director of the California District Attorneys Association.

LaBahn said the association has no position on the recall.

Shortly after taking office, Gallegos filed suit against Pacific Lumber, alleging the company provided false data during a 1999 deal on the possibility that its logging plans could create landslides. His suit seeks to force the company to pay back part of the $300 million it got for the deal.

Pacific Lumber officials deny the allegations and are seeking sanctions against Gallegos for filing suit. Pacific Lumber spokeswoman Erin Dunn didn't return telephone calls Monday.

Humboldt D.A. fights to keep job [San Francisco Chronicle]

2004-02-28T13:34:00.000-08:00

Maxxam-Palco give another $75K to recall [Times-Standard]

2004-02-25T13:34:00.000-08:00

Maxxam-Palco give another $75K to recall [Times-Standard]

By James Tressler, The Times-Standard

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 -

EUREKA -- Houston-based Maxxam Corp., parent company of Pacific Lumber Co., this week put another $75,000 into the recall of District Attorney Paul Gallegos.

According to a statement filed with the Humboldt County Elections Office on Monday, the Safety Yes, Recall Paul Gallegos committee received the payment from Maxxam and its affiliates. Maxxam and Palco have now put about a quarter-million dollars into ousting Gallegos, who last year sued Palco, alleging the company lied to state regulators during the 1999 Headwaters Forest deal.

The recall election is set for next Tuesday.

Palco spokeswoman Erin Dunn said Tuesday such massive contributions are consistent with other donations the timber company has made to the community over the years. She noted the company gives at least a quarter-million dollars each year to charities and over the years has given millions of dollars in scholarships to children of Palco employees.

"And we support the police officers and safety officers and this is also our way of supporting them," Dunn said.

A number of area law enforcement unions have backed recalling Gallegos, charging him with mishandling cases and maintaining poor relationships with cops.

The recall proponents thus far have raised nearly $300,000. Several other area timber companies have also contributed money, but none have contributed on the scale of Maxxam-Palco.

Meanwhile, the Friends of Paul Gallegos on Monday picked up a $5,000 contribution from Robert Evanson, a Miami Beach, Fla., resident. McKinleyville physician Sara Scher donated $1,000 and George Bouquet with Mad River Glass donated a glass bowl valued at $1,600 for an auction.

The Friends of Paul Gallegos to date has raised around $180,000.

Friends of Paul Gallegos campaign manager Richard Salzman said Maxxam's latest contribution to the recall effort "is yet more proof that this recall is a fraud. PL's attempt to buy its way out of a fraud lawsuit makes this the most expensive election in Humboldt County's history."

Local Doctor, Former PL Employee Endorse DA [Eureka Reporter]

2004-02-05T13:36:00.001-08:00

Local Doctor, Former PL Employee Endorse DA [Eureka Reporter]

by Leann Whitten, The Eureka Reporter

February 5, 2004

Chompers Cook, a fifth-generation Humboldt County resident and former Pacific Lumber Co. employee, and Dr. Anthony Boyce of the Eureka Community Health Center will both be featured in television ads against the recall starting Thursday.

Cook said the contention that Gallegos is soft on crime couldn't be more wrong.

“He's going after drug dealers, child abusers and murderers, as well as crooked businessmen, corrupt politicians and corporations because he promised equal treatment under the law, Cook said in the commercial.

“Plea bargains have been a fact of the judicial system for a long time, Cook said of recent speculation that Gallegos uses plea bargains unfairly. “If it wasn't for (plea bargains) then there would no convictions and people would be walking.

At Thursday's news conference, Cook said the former CDF director Richard Wilson's declaration (See article on Wilson's declaration) announcement on Wednesday “pretty much says it all.

“Paul was right, Cook said.

Cook worked at PALCO pre-Hurwitz, resigning in 1983. He said at that time PL logged on a sustainable basis and never cut more than it could grow.

“People were proud to work for PL before Maxxam, he said. “I didn't like the way employees were being treated and I quit.

Cook said he maintains friendships with his former co-workers, but does expect some “ribbing after the commercial airs.

He said he believes current PALCO employees are intimidated to go against the grain.

“If I did (have a pension) I sure as hell don't now.

Cook said he believes the recall “is just plain wrong and Maxaam has pushed the recall forward.

“So they don't have to face a judge and jury, he said.

In a separate commercial also to begin airing Thursday, Boyce urges viewers to vote against the recall as well.

Boyce also said the contention that Gallegos is soft on crime is false.

“He's tough on the violence I deal with in my practice, Boyce said.

Boyce said many district attorneys don't aggressively prosecute domestic violence and abuse‚ which Boyce deals with a lot because they don't feel it's a real crime.

“I haven't had any cause for concern with the ways he's handling cases, Boyce said.

He said many of his patients are reassured by the way the District Attorney's Office is handling its cases.

“They'll tell me, “(The abuser) is not going to touch me anymore, Boyce said.

Friends of Paul Gallegos Campaign Manager Richard Salzman said there will be more commercials before the election including two more testimonials soon.

Local Doctor, Former PL Employee Endorse DA [Eureka Reporter]

2004-02-05T13:36:00.000-08:00

PL Provided Recall Committee 93 Percent Of Its Contributions [Eureka Reporter]

2004-01-13T13:33:00.000-08:00

PL Provided Recall Committee 93 Percent Of Its Contributions [Eureka Reporter]

by Leann Whitten, The Eureka Reporter

January 13, 2004

Pacific Lumber Co. provided 93 percent of the Committee to Recall Paul Gallegos' campaign contributions from Oct. 1 to Dec. 31, 2003, according to quarterly reports released by the Elections Office on Monday.

The Committee to Recall Paul Gallegos raised $30,973 in monetary contributions: $3,000 from Steve Wills Trucking & Logging, $26,000 from PL and miscellaneous contributions totaling $1,973.

The committee also received $43,347 in nonmonetary contributions: $40,770 for payment of signature-gatherers, $307 for labeling and $2,270 for postage.

Friends of Paul Gallegos Campaign Manager Richard Salzman said nonmonetary contributions are usually things with value but not cash, like a donated computer for example.

“They personally paid the signature-gatherers", he said. “They spent (almost) $50,000 to convince people (Gallegos) was soft on crime", Salzman said.

PL Communications Manager Erin Dunn said some of the nonmonetary contribution used for paying signature gatherers was cash.

“But not all of it", she said.

“I think it's important to note that we entered our support only after (the committee) had 12,000 voter signatures (supporting the recall)", Dunn said.

Dunn said PL decided to support the committee for Humboldt County residents in general and in particular employees who came to them to request it.

“That's why we (funded) work toward getting the measure on the ballot", she said.

Salzman said Friends of Paul Gallegos has raised approximately $45,000 with the help of 430 people.

“It took (PL) two contributions to raise more than $60,000", Salzman said. “You can see what we're up against."

“This may be the first time in U.S. history that a defendant in a fraud case has tried to avoid a trial by financing a recall", Friends of Paul Gallegos spokesman Patrick Riggs said in a news release. “The people of Humboldt County won't stand for it. Once they learn special interests are trying to corrupt our electoral system they will vote no on the recall and yes for democracy.

DA candidates look ahead to March [Times-Standard]

2004-01-01T13:38:00.000-08:00

DA candidates look ahead to March [Times-Standard]

by James Tressler, The Times-Standard

Thursday, January 01, 2004 -

EUREKA -- In 61 days, Humboldt County voters will decide whether District Attorney Paul Gallegos should be recalled.

Given such a tight time frame, Gallegos and the three candidates running to replace him should the recall succeed are facing a short, but doubtless lively campaign in what promises to be a memorable Election Day on March 2.

Projections on how much money will be raised in this election have varied. Gallegos campaign manager Richard Salzman told the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat earlier this month that Gallegos supporters are prepared to spend $250,000 or more. Recall spokesman Rick Brazeau was quoted in the same article as saying he thinks some $500,000 could be spent by all parties by the time March rolls around.

Worth Dikeman, a 25-year prosecutor who says he's against the recall but is likely to draw key support from law enforcement, says he's looking to run an "inexpensive" campaign.

"I can tell you I'm not ready to spend $250,000," Dikeman said.

The prosecutor will campaign while at the same time handling at least three homicide trials, one of which starts next week.

Between now and March, Dikeman said he plans to participate in a number of forums and other speaking engagements, including at Humboldt State University and College of the Redwoods, because he believes young people are taking an interest in the election.

Dikeman, who has described himself as a reluctant candidate, said he hopes to draw support from both Gallegos supporters and critics -- presenting himself as the most qualified candidate to take over as district attorney should his boss be recalled.

"There are a lot of people who dislike Paul (Gallegos), and a lot of people who like him. ... Hopefully both sides will be interested in bringing a real professional in to run the office should the recall succeed, and that person is me."

Gloria Albin Sheets, who worked as a prosecutor for more than eight years alongside Dikeman, is the only one actively campaigning to beat Gallegos. Albin Sheets worked for about five months under Gallegos before being laid off while on medical leave, a job loss attributed to budget cuts.

Like Dikeman, Albin Sheets said she'll raise money, but probably not on as grand a scale as some have projected.

"This is really new to me -- I'm not a politician," she said.

Albin Sheets said she's setting up an organization, fielding calls from potential supporters and speaking before a number of area organizations.

The other candidate in the race, Arcata private attorney Steve Schectman, has said he supports Gallegos and is interested in carrying on Gallegos' policies should the recall succeed. Schectman is out of town and could not be reached for comment.

Recall supporters, which include two of the area's largest law enforcement unions, accuse Gallegos of being soft on crime. He's also been criticized by law enforcement for his broader medical marijuana guidelines. But the biggest issue has been a lawsuit Gallegos' office filed against Pacific Lumber Co. just a couple months after Gallegos took office.

PL proclaims the lawsuit "baseless" and "politically motivated," and the company spent some $40,000 bankrolling the recall petition drive. Recently, company management indicated it's not ready to officially back any of the candidates.

Although she supports the recall, Albin Sheets denied accusations by Gallegos supporters that she's running at the behest of the timber company. She has said that, if elected, she'd review the PL case. Dikeman has also declined to comment on the lawsuit, except to say it's a matter the courts will decide.

Albin Sheets said her campaign will focus on crime issues, such as how Gallegos' office handled a case involving two men who went on a drive-by shooting spree in downtown Eureka earlier this year.

Gallegos, who will wrap up his first year on the job next week, said he's pleased with his performance. Over the past year, he and other county officials weathered arguably the worst budget crisis in the state's history. Gallegos noted his office is running on three fewer attorneys than his predecessor Terry Farmer had.

"We've been cranking it out here, doing more with less," Gallegos said.

He described the recall as "white noise" and said he's trying to focus on his goals of improving the overall efficiency of the office and developing community-driven approaches to tackling crime.

He added he believes the PL lawsuit is the primary reason behind the recall, saying he expected a recall movement to start from the day the lawsuit was filed last winter.

"We'll deal with the recall, then we get to try our case," he said.

It's not clear yet which candidate recall supporters like. Timothy Crowley, owner of North Coast Fabricators and treasurer of the Committee to Recall Paul Gallegos, said the committee members will meet next week to start discussing the candidates. Crowley voted for Gallegos last year, but said the new district attorney has brought changes Crowley didn't bargain for.

While he says he hasn't met the candidates, Crowley said he's talked with some law enforcement officials who say they're impressed with Dikeman.

Crowley conceded the PL lawsuit is a big issue, but his focus remains on crime, particularly what he describes as the area's too-tolerant attitudes toward drugs such as marijuana.

"You're going to see the 'anti-everything' crowd get behind Gallegos because he's giving them what they want," Crowley said. "But from my feelings and from the people who come into my office, he's in for a rude awakening because there's a lot of people in this community who feel the way I do -- and that's 'Do your job, Mr. DA.'"

PL says it backed DA recall effort [North Coast Journal]

2003-11-26T13:23:00.000-08:00

PL says it backed DA recall effort [North Coast Journal]

by Hank Sims, North Coast Journal

The Pacific Lumber Company has recently contributed "significant" time and money to the drive to recall District Attorney Paul Gallegos, according to an internal company letter obtained by the Journal.

The letter, which is printed on Pacific Lumber letterhead, is signed by CEO Robert E. Manne and addressed to company employees.

If the letter is authentic, the move represents a switch in position for the company, which is the subject of a multimillion dollar fraud suit brought by the DA shortly after Gallegos took office. Previously, PL had stated that it would not take a stand in the recall effort.

"As a company, we had not participated in the recall effort until recent weeks when our employees, community members and the recall committee sought our support," read the letter, dated Oct. 24. "We decided to contribute time and money to the effort to give the voters of Humboldt County an opportunity to decide the question of recalling the DA for themselves.

"In that spirit, PALCO and other businesses and individuals, who are concerned about the DA’s actions, contributed significant funds to ensure that the voters would have their say. To date, our support has totaled more than $40,000 in `in-kind’ support of the signature gathering effort."

The Committee to Recall Paul Gallegos’ most recent campaign finance disclosure forms, which cover a three-month period ending Sept. 30, make no mention of any Pacific Lumber donations to the campaign. Instead, they show only $500 in donations from three employees of the company and Britt Lumber, a PL subsidiary.

Committee spokesman Rick Brazeau said that he was not certain what, or how much, the company had given to the campaign, but said that the information "will be filed at the appropriate time."

Manne’s letter was sent the day after the committee handed in more than 16,900 signatures gathered in support of the recall. During the previous week, the campaign hired an out-of-town signature-gathering firm, US Petitions, to orchestrate a last-minute push for signatures. During the push, signature gatherers were paid a fee of $8 per signature, which led some to believe that the campaign had received a large infusion of cash in its final days.

In the letter, Manne calls the county’s lawsuit against the company "baseless and politically motivated," and asks, rhetorically, whether the company should simply "sit back and allow [it] to happen." He also charges that the Gallegos administration undermines the moral fabric of the county.

"[A]re the citizens to sit back and allow the family values of Humboldt County to be deteriorated on a weekly basis by our new DA?" the letter asks. "If we had known this, would we have voted for him? I think not."

Repeated calls to Manne and other PL officials were not returned Tuesday.

Richard Salzman, coordinator of the pro-Gallegos Alliance for Ethical Business, said on Tuesday that the letter confirms what Gallegos supporters had long suspected — that PL was behind the recall drive.

"In PALCO’s world, this is how you fight a lawsuit," he said. "You remove the prosecutor."

The Oct. 24 letter, together with an earlier Manne letter to PL employees on Sept. 11, also provides insight into how the CEO views critics of the company’s logging practices.

In the earlier letter, Manne discusses "character and integrity," and argues that the DA’s office, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Environmental Protection Information Center and residents of the Freshwater area are all lacking in those qualities.

"The only conclusion I can reach as to why they continue their attacks against us is that they lead empty lives and need to put blame on everything around them in order to negatively impact those that are happier than them," Manne writes. "This gives them power with their constituents and importance in the eyes of their friends and other PALCO haters."

Mark Lovelace, president of the Humboldt Watershed Council, said that Manne’s characterization of the company’s critics was wide of the mark.

"I know that there are people in the community who believe that the environmentalists just want to shut down the timber industry," he said. "That is simply not the case, and I would expect a more nuanced view from the CEO of the company.

"I don’t know which is worse — if he believes this stuff or if he doesn’t believe it, and just puts it out there to divide the community."

Reached at his office Tuesday, Gallegos said that he was not a "PALCO hater" and did not have a "get PALCO attitude."

"Pacific Lumber is a defendant, one of the thousands of defendants we have here," Gallegos said. "They are entitled to a presumption of innocence, they are entitled to a day in court. Let’s settle this case in court."

Pacific Lumber Aids Effort to Recall D.A. [L.A. Times]

2003-11-07T13:31:00.000-08:00

Pacific Lumber Aids Effort to Recall D.A. [L.A. Times]

Man who sued the timber firm will face an ouster vote in March
by Rone Tempest, L.A. Times Staff Writer

After an upstart district attorney charged Pacific Lumber Co. with fraud early this year, the Northern California timber giant was not content to just fight it out in the courts.

When a local campaign to recall Humboldt County Dist. Atty. Paul V. Gallegos began to flag last month, Scotia-based Pacific Lumber came to the rescue, providing an infusion of cash, sending out thousands of pro-recall mailers, granting employees paid leave to work on the campaign and paying professional circulators as much as $8 for every signature they could add to the recall petition.

At that point, the campaign organizers had less than a month to garner enough signatures to make the recall effort qualify for the March 2004 ballot.

It appears the company's efforts have paid off. On Thursday, the county elections office ruled that, by a narrow margin, enough signatures had been gathered to force a March recall vote.

Pacific Lumber spokesman Jim Branham estimated the company had spent $40,000 in the closing days of the recall campaign. "The recall campaign had hit a wall," he said. "The organizers had asked for our help. We felt a last push was needed."

Pacific Lumber's involvement in the recall appears to fall outside the scope of any state law, including those administered by the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state agency that regulates campaign finance.

"I've never heard of a situation like this before, where a defendant uses an election to go after the person bringing the lawsuit," said Bob Stern, former general counsel of the commission and now president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies. "But there is clearly no prohibition. In a state that elects D.A.'s and judges, it would be very difficult, and probably unconstitutional, to regulate this."

The lawsuit filed by Gallegos last spring contends that Pacific Lumber deceived state agencies about its timber-cutting plans, resulting in massive landslide and flooding damage to local streams and farms. The company is accused of sidestepping environmental restrictions established under the historic 1999 Headwaters agreement, which set aside 7,500 acres of ancient redwoods in a public trust.

Pacific Lumber spokesman Branham calls the suit's allegations "bogus."

Company lawyers argue that the case has no merit and have sought its dismissal.

The lawsuit is so sensitive that two Humboldt Superior Court judges recused themselves from hearing the case. Another judge, Richard Wilson, agreed to hear dismissal motions, which are still pending. But the overall case was recently transferred to a retired judge in Lake County.

The effort to oust Gallegos was launched shortly after the district attorney filed his lawsuit. However, the main claims initially voiced by recall proponents, who included Fortuna Mayor Mel Berti and conservative former timber executive Robin Arkley Sr., were that Gallegos was soft on crime.

Gallegos, a 42-year-old USC graduate who moved to Eureka from Southern California nine years ago, characterized the recall as a battle between "small-mindedness, exclusion and good-old-boyism" and equality under the law.

"We cannot have two levels of justice in Humboldt County," Gallegos said. "That is how simple it is."

The recall campaign is the latest chapter in the redwood country timber wars, which pit the North Coast's largest private employer against local environmentalists, retirees and professionals who have settled there in recent years ? many of whom support Gallegos.

Despite the general shrinking of the California timber industry, Pacific Lumber, with its workforce of 900, remains a potent force in the region. According to Branham, the company does business with 400 local companies, generating $54 million in spending on goods and services.

Early in the recall push, Pacific Lumber remained out of the fray.

But for Gallegos supporters, the recall was always about the lawsuit, which marked the first time a senior elected official had dared to confront the timber giant, a subsidiary of Houston-based Maxxam Corp. and a dominating force in Humboldt politics for more than 100 years.

Pacific Lumber's last-minute actions to save the recall campaign were revealed this week in a letter to employees from company President Robert Manne. The letter was first reported Wednesday by the Eureka Times-Standard.

In a Thursday editorial, the Times-Standard scolded Pacific Lumber.

"Dealing with the allegation ? whether founded or not ? eliminating the accuser," the Times-Standard editorial argued, "is a doubtful way of proving one's case. It's a downright poor way to win a public relations contest."

Also on Thursday, the Eureka newspaper published an article showing that, under Gallegos, criminal prosecutions have actually increased from previous levels.

Gallegos' supporters were delighted by the developments.

"Now that it is public record that the recall effort is being funded by Pacific Lumber," said Richard Salzman, who heads the pro-Gallegos Alliance for Ethical Business, "we can move forward with an election dealing with the one and only real issue: whether the district attorney has the right to file a lawsuit against Maxxam's Pacific Lumber Co."

As of Thursday, no candidate had surfaced to oppose Gallegos in the recall vote.

Last-minute push yields avalanche of DA recall signatures [Arcata Eye]

2003-10-26T13:27:00.000-08:00

Last-minute push yields avalanche of DA recall signatures [Arcata Eye]

by Kevin L. Hoover, Eye Editor

A last-minute drive by the Committee to Recall Paul Gallegos (CRPB) helped garner a total of about 16,700 signatures on the petition calling for removal of Humboldt County’s embattled district attorney.

Recall organizer Rick Brazeau delivered stacks of completed petitions to county Elections Manager Lindsey McWilliams on the last possible day to file, Wednesday, Oct. 22.

McWilliams and his staff spent the rest of the week, including Saturday, on the methodical process of determining the validity of the signatures. For the recall to proceed, at least 11,138 of the signatures must be validated as coming from registered Humboldt County voters.

First, McWilliams said, the petitions are numbered and a total obtained. That process involves stamping each signature with a number - a labor-intensive procedure which must be done in shifts to spare election workers repetitive stress injuries. "If you do that 3,000 or 4,000 at a time, your arm falls off," McWilliams said.

Next, a random list of numbers is generated to create a representative sampling of signatures. That sample will number five percent of the total, or about 835 signatures. Each signature is then compared to the county’s database of registered voters. Complicating the validation is the inherently sloppy nature of petitions circulated in the field Many signatories have moved since last registering to vote or use an abbreviation of their registered name. Other times the signatures are difficult to read. "People are in a hurry," McWilliams observed. Nonetheless, elections staff make a thorough effort to ascertain the validity of each signature.

McWilliams expected to have the sample count verification completed early this week. Each signature in the sampled 835 is considered the equivalent of 20 signatures in the total 16,700 submitted. If valid signatures in the sample, multiplied by 20, amount to 110 percent of the required 11,138, the recall petitions will be found sufficient to proceed with an election. If the valid signatures in the sample multiply out to 90 percent of 11,138, the petition is presumed to have failed.

But if the sample yields between 90 and 110 percent of the required number, McWilliams and his staff will have to validate every signature. That, he said, would require the legally allowed 30 days to determine the sufficiency of the recall petitions.

McWilliams said he would likely have to bring in additional workers if all the signatures are to be verified, since his office is already swamped with work closing out the Oct. 7 gubernatorial recall election and preparing for the Nov. 4 school and special district elections.

McWilliams hopes to avoid a signature-by-signature count. "I hope they win clearly or lose clearly," he said.

The county elections office has 30 days, or until Nov. 21, to verify the signatures and the sufficiency of the petitions. The results would next be certified to the Board of Supervisors on Dec. 2. The supervisors then have two weeks, until Dec. 16, to issue an order for a recall election. Should they not do so, it falls to the elections official to schedule the election on Dec. 21. That would mean a special D.A. recall election would be held sometime between March 16 and April 13, well after the possible March 2 primary election.

Timeline information is available on the Humboldt County website,www.co.humboldt.ca.us .

Regardless, McWilliams said he expected that any recall election could be processed in time to be added to March 2 election. That would save the county an estimated $150,000 in special election costs.

Tactics questioned

The intense, 11th hour push by recall backers included aggressive signature gathering by an out-of-town company called US Petitions, a fact first revealed last week by investigative reporter Hank Sims in the North Coast Journal .

US Petitions uses compensated petitioners who are paid $8 per signature. That incentive resulted in extremely aggressive, even deceptive signature-gathering tactics, according to several citizens.

The county elections official made no effort to mask his disgust with the petitioners’ no-holds-barred tactics and the mountain of paper his office is now tasked to sort out. "I am unhappy with US Petitions and the people Brazeau contracted with," McWilliams said.

Characterizing US Petitions as "sleazebags," he noted that most of the hired petitioners had registered to vote in Humboldt County just before they were deployed in the field. That to satisfy the legal requirement that signature collectors be registered in the county they petition in. McWilliams said the petitioners’ address of record was listed as a motel on Broadway in Eureka, where the US Petitions manager did the hiring for the effort.

Eureka resident Nate Lombda said he answered a knock on his door Tuesday afternoon to find a man with a petition there. "He broke into this spiel, ‘You know about the 12-year-old who was raped and they plea bargained it out?’ I asked if this was about the Paul Gallegos recall and he said, ‘Yes.’ My ears started to burn and I said, ‘You’ve got to be kidding,’ and I closed the door."

Lombda said he plans to file a complaint with the Secretary of State. "I thought it was very deceptive and misleading," he said.

Richard Salzman of the Alliance for Ethical Business, a pro-Gallegos group, said that on Tuesday morning he encountered a petitioner in front of the McKinleyville Safeway store who first asked him to sign a petition "repealing the car tax." He declined, and said she then offered him a clipboard with the top part of the petition form obscured by a folded-back piece of paper so that only the portion with signature lines showed. Salzman said the woman said, "This is a personal one of mine against rapists." In fact, he said, it was a Gallegos recall petition.

An Eye employee encountered the same tactic Tuesday morning at the McKinleyville Kmart, with the explanatory portion of the Gallegos recall petition obscured by a piece of paper while the petitioner exposed only the bottom signature area and described it as an anti-rape petition. Tuesday afternoon, however, an Eye reporter who approached petitioners at both locations was clearly told that the petitions were "to recall our D.A., who’s soft on crime."

McWilliams said he’s received about 20 written complaints alleging unfair tactics, which he’s passed along to investigators with the California Secretary of State.

He takes the complaints seriously. "They misrepresented the petition," McWilliams said. "They did a bait-and-switch. Some of them told people it was a pro-Gallegos petition."

A September complaint by Shelter Cove resident Jim Ferguson, also passed along to the Secretary of State, alleged that petitions were not properly circulated. He said petitions were left unattended and signatures not witnessed as required by law.

In analyzing the sufficiency of the material submitted by CRPG, McWilliams and his staff are on the lookout for petition-padding. "We’re looking for obvious signs of corruption," he said. "Signatures in the same ink, the same handwriting."

Salzman said recall organizers and those who fund them are responsible for any abuses. "I fault less the workers," he said. "The District Attorney’s lawsuit against Maxxam’s Pacific Lumber accuses them of fraud. That is to say they got caught lying and cheating, so it is no surprise that their supporters, the self-described ‘good old boys’ would lie and cheat in their campaign against the District Attorney."

McWilliams said those who experienced questionable petitioning tactics and wish to complain may call the Secretary of State’s complaint line at 1 (800) 345-VOTE. Salzman said the AEB would like to hear from anyone who encountered deceptive tactics by the McKinleyville petitioners. Salzman may be reached at (707) 845-3700 oraeb@inreach.com.

Costs questioned

Salzman wondered where the money for the high-buck campaign comes from. "Between their recent direct mail to all registered Republicans - some 20,000 voters - and the eight dollar per signature paid to the petition circulators, the recall proponents have spent approximately $25,000 over the last two weeks."

A financial disclosure report by CRPG is due this Friday, Oct. 31. It will cover expenditures through Sept. 30. The Friends of Paul Gallegos will also file a disclosure report that day.

CRPG donations through June were revealed in a previous disclosure. Most of the donors at that time were affiliated with timber and trucking interests.

PL lawsuit

A ruling on the demurrer, or dismissal of the D.A.’s fraud lawsuit against Pacific Lumber had been expected by Oct. 27. But two weeks ago, Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Christopher Wilson deferred the case without elaboration to Lake County Judge Richard L. Freeborn.

A Minor misunderstanding

Owners of a local theater chain announced Sunday that their business had mistakenly been associated with Brazeau. In a letter, Minor Theatre Corporation owners David Phillips, Michael Thomas and LouAnna Phillips said in a letter that, "Apparently due to the high-profile nature of the campaign to recall District Attorney Gallegos, there has been confusion about Rick Brazeau’s MTC Associates and the Minor Theatre Corporation. We thought it was very old news, but the two companies are not related and have not been related for 17 years. Furthermore, Mr. Brazeau has no ownership or position of influence in the Minor Theatre Corporation."

The proprietors condemned the Gallegos recall effort. "We think the recall is a waste of county resources at a time when the county needs every dime it can get," their letter said.

Out-of-towners recruited for Gallegos recall bid [North Coast Journal]

2003-03-23T13:16:00.000-08:00

Out-of-towners recruited for Gallegos recall bid [North Coast Journal]

Petitioners getting a whopping $8 per signature
by Hank Sims, North Coast Journal

The campaign practices of the Committee to Recall Paul Gallegos were again called into question this week after it was learned that out-of-town petitioners were getting paid a whopping $8 per signature in a last-minute effort to qualify the recall for the ballot.

After learning from the Journal on Monday that out-of-towners were being recruited to gather signatures, county elections chief Lindsey McWilliams notified the California Secretary of State’s office, which enforces most election laws. The law requires that signature gatherers be registered to vote in the county in which they solicit signatures.

"If there’s anecdotal support that people from out of the area are [involved], that’s something that should be forwarded to the Secretary of State," he said. "They can sort it out."

This is the second complaint related to the Gallegos recall effort that McWilliams has forwarded to state election officials. Earlier this year, Shelter Cove resident Jim Ferguson wrote to the county Elections Office, alleging that pro-recall petitions were being "posted" at local businesses for anyone to sign, a violation of elections law. McWilliams notified the Secretary of State’s office, which has not yet weighed in on the claim.

Richard Salzman, coordinator of the pro-Gallegos Alliance for Ethical Business, said that the exceptionally high $8 per signature rate being paid to gatherers — most causes pay closer to $1 — shows that recall proponents are "desperate."

MTC Associates, the Arcata-based consulting firm that is managing the recall campaign, hired professional signature-gathering company US Petitions to conduct the recent drive. MTC Associates owner Rick Brazeau said that the goal was to gather around 1,500 additional signatures between Saturday and Wednesday, the campaign’s deadline. US Petitions also worked on the recall campaign earlier this summer.

"We were so close that we just really, really wanted to put the full-court press on it," Brazeau said.

A message left on US Petitions’ answering machine last weekend asked for recruits to come to the county to help in the drive. The message, which seemed to be addressed to employees gathering signatures on different projects in the state of Washington, was left by company manager Brian Schrier.

"We have a new issue going on in California," the message said. "It is a temporary issue — we only have until Tuesday to do this — but it pays $8 a signature. It’s a recall for the district attorney of Humboldt County, Paul Gallegos. If you’re interested in doing this job, please contact me personally. Please only contact me if you are very serious about this job and you have a way to get here, and you understand that it’s only until Tuesday."

The message did not mention that signature gatherers were required to be registered to vote in Humboldt County. Visiting citizens may immediately register themselves as local voters by giving their motel as an address, apparently even if they only intend to stay a few days.

According to McWilliams, that could mean that even if US Petitions has re-registered all its workers in the county, they still may have violated the intent, if not the literal interpretation, of the law.

Schrier said on Monday that his signature gatherers, which he put at 17 individuals, were all registered Humboldt County voters, though he said he didn’t know if all of them were registered here a week ago. Schrier, who has a San Diego cell phone number, said that he registered to vote in Humboldt County during the summer, but re-registered himself last week just to be certain.

"We just want to go by the book on this thing," Schrier said.

Those leading the drive to recall Gallegos need to gather 11,138 valid signatures to put a recall on the ballot. All petitions to recall Gallegos were due to be turned into the county elections office by 5 p.m. Wednesday. At press time late Tuesday, it was not known how many signatures recall proponents had gathered.

If the signature drive proves successful, it is expected that the question of whether to recall the district attorney will come before Humboldt voters in coming months — although it will not under any circumstances be on the ballot for next month’s local elections.

Antoinette Erwin, who was gathering signatures in front of Safeway in McKinleyville Monday morning, said she was the only full-time local resident currently working on the US Petitions drive. She said that most of the other gatherers have come from Washington and Alaska.

One of Erwin’s colleagues, stationed outside the McKinleyville K-Mart, said that he was a Humboldt County voter, though he first named McKinleyville and then Eureka as his city of residence. He declined to give his name.

Erwin — who said she wasn’t in it for the money — was also gathering signatures for a petition to repeal the recent increase in vehicle licensing fees, which she was not being paid for. The gatherer at K-Mart put up several posters around his table, soliciting help in repealing the "car tax." No mention was made of the Gallegos recall petition on his posters.

According to the Voter Education Project, a nonprofit group critical of the signature gathering industry, the vehicle license fee petition was probably being used as a "stopper" — a petition that’s "easy to pitch and popular."

"`Mercs’ [mercenary signature gatherers] use them to draw people to their clipboards in the hope of getting their signatures on the other petitions they are carrying," the project’s Web site states, adding that "mercs" sometimes simply throw the "stopper" in the trash when they finish the job.

Salzman, who worked on Gallegos’ political campaign, wondered who was putting up the money for the petitions — which would presumably cost $12,000, plus administrative costs, if all 1,500 signatures were gathered.

That question may not be answered until January. The recall committee is required to submit its third quarter financial statements later this month, but they will cover only income and expenditures from July through September. In its last statement, the committee showed a June cash balance of $18,000, but it has since had other expenses, including a direct-mail drive.

Brazeau said that he was not aware of any large donations recently received by the committee.