 | THE DA recall's rotten roots are mired in money [Arcata Eye] |
By Mark Lovelace, Arcata Eye
February 23, 2004
Proponents of the recall have put out a tremendous disinformation campaign, trying to deceive voters into believing that the recall has nothing to do with the DA's lawsuit against Pacific Lumber Company.
The truth is that the recall was brought in response to the PL lawsuit; it would not have made the ballot without PL, and it has been predominantly funded by PL. PL is the defendant in a lawsuit, and they are bankrolling a recall of the prosecutor. This is just wrong.
Paul Gallegos took office in late January of last year. He filed the PL lawsuit on Feb. 24, 2003, and within a week Robin Arkley Sr. was already offering $5,000 to anyone who would start a recall.
On March 11, when Gallegos went before the Board of Supervisors, there were already numerous PL employees holding up cardboard signs saying "Recall the DA."
So the recall talk started when Gallegos had been in office little more than a month, and within a week of filing charges against PL. Arkley said, "We're spending a lot of money, because we've got lots of money."
Boy, was he right. Of the $25,521 raised by June 30, $22,250 came directly from major timber industry sources, including Timber Incorporated, Lewis Logging, Peterson Tractor, Rasmussen Wood Products, Bettendorf Trucking, Joe Costa Trucking and Arkley himself.
That's 87 percent of the backing. Arkley explained the reason for the recall thus: "I had enough... My town... Some good ol' boys... That's the way it used to be and, by God, we're gonna do it again." (NPR's Morning Edition, Aug. 21, 2003.)
>From July through September, another $10,250 came in from timber interests, including numerous PL executives. Though the company itself had yet to put money into the recall, spokesman Jim Branham said PL was "watching it with interest."
With all of this timber money coming into the campaign, totaling more than 70 percent, they still couldn't generate enough interest to qualify the recall for the ballot.
By September, recall spokesman Tommy Cookman admitted that the drive had plateaued and that, to succeed, backers would have to gather 50 percent more signatures over the next month than they had gathered in any of the last six months.
That's when PL came into the picture, paying more than $40,000 to buy 5,000 signatures at $8 apiece. Without this move, and without PL's money, the signature drive would have failed and there would be no recall.
PL continued to dump more money and resources into the recall effort. Since September, PL's donations have totaled $69,347, or 93 percent of all money raised during that period.
Combined with Steve Wills Trucking and Logging, the two account for 99 percent of all money raised in the last four months.
The recall was a response to the DA's lawsuit against PL, pure and simple, and virtually all of the recall's main proponents have admitted this.
Rick Brazeau, in commenting about Steven Schectman's insistence that he would continue the PL lawsuit, asked why he would want to "carry on the traditions that got (Gallegos) recalled in the first place?" (Times-Standard, Dec. 13, 2003.)
The Committee to Recall Paul Gallegos, in a press release titled "Reasons for the Recall," lists "In March, he accused a major business of a $400,000,000 fraud and filed a civil case."
Robert Manne, Pacific Lumber CEO, referring to the DA's fraud lawsuit against PL: "...are we to sit back and allow that to happen?" (Letter to PL employees, Oct. 24, 2003.)
The money trail is so damning that Fair Political Practice Commission rules require the recall committee's name to include Pacific Lumber Company. The committee has tried to circumvent this rule by starting a "new" committee, which is also a violation. They know the recall is all about PL. They just don't want the public to know.
But the recall is about PL, and PL only. It is not about environment, or tree-sitters, or medical marijuana, or anything else. It was brought by PL, it is bankrolled by PL and it benefits PL.
It is truly a question of who runs Humboldt County, and whether a powerful defendant should be able to recall the prosecutor.
This recall is wrong and should be rejected by Humboldt County's voters. If it succeeds, it will send a strong message to all of Humboldt County's judges, supervisors, city councilmembers and to our next district attorney.
That message is: Watch your back.
Mark Lovelace is a husband, father and business owner in Arcata.
|
|
|
|
| |
| Options |  |
|
