An anonymous tipster sent us a note and some documents Friday at 3:45 p.m. — shortly before quitting time, well after last week’s paper went to bed and just a few days before Tuesday’s election. The tip, as you all now know, was that Ryan Sundberg, candidate for supervisor from the Fifth District, was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in December of last year. According to the court records sent, Sundberg’s blood alcohol level at the time of arrest was .16 — double the legal limit.
When you’re as creaky and jaded and world-weary as I am, there was no mystery as to what was happening here. The tipster told us that he was someone “who helps journalists do their jobs,” but it was pretty plain that the opposite was in fact the case: He wanted journalists to help him do his. This was a calculated smear job, aimed for maximum impact. Blog pundits at the Humboldt Herald, which printed the story a couple of hours later, would later reason that a true smear campaign would have dropped this bomb much earlier, in time for it to affect the absentee vote, but this reasoning is flawed: Most people still vote at the polls, especially if they’re wavering, and if you want to smear a candidate then you want to do it while voters are still in the early phases of the Seven Stages of Grief. (The Times-Standard ran a fairly complete story on Sunday.)
So there we were Friday afternoon with a choice to make: Hold our noses and play along by throwing the thing up on our blog, or abstain. It was my call to make, and I made the latter. I’m not sure if I was right, but I’ll give you my reasoning.
First, it should be said that there has been no love lost between the Journal‘s editorial staff and the Sundberg campaign. Sundberg himself always been decent with us, even though his positions on the issues were sometimes maddeningly vague. But Sundberg campaign manager Rich Mostranski pissed us off to no end, first by insisting that we only communicate to Sundberg through him (a stricture that the candidate himself ignored, happily), and secondly by insinuating that the debates we moderated on KHUM radio would be somehow tainted by the fact that those airwaves are owned by one of his opponents, Patrick Cleary. Everything else aside, our baser selves would have been happy to see Mostranski lose yet another election. That’s about the sum total of our personal stake in this thing.
But I made the decision not to play for one reason: I could not see how it was relevant to the question at hand. America, as we are all aware, is full of nasty and stupid and irrelevant politics. Believe it or not, some people still think it important whether or not someone is a Christian, or whether or not they believe in evolution. We must all be vigilant to stop ourselves from sliding into this nonsense. To my mind — again, I could be mistaken — the late-breaking Sundberg expose fell into that category. Drunk driving, especially at the level that Sundberg was recorded at, is an inarguably heinous act. Still, I could not and cannot see how having once committed it, or having been arrested for it, might affect any vote Sundberg might be expected to take, were he elected. If you have a for-example, I would sincerely love to hear it.
There is a reasonable counterargument, which is this: It’s not my place to judge what the voters, or readers of our blog, might make of Sundberg’s arrest. Our job is to put it out there, and to let the voters decide. I still believe this is flawed. For instance, what if a candidate for office is gay, and chooses not to feature that in his/her campaign for whatever reason? Do I run with that information regardless? Inarguably, it would play some role in whether or not certain voters vote for that candidate. You will say that a candidate’s sexuality is not as important as a candidate’s criminal record, and you will be absolutely right. But the question is: Do we — the Journal‘s editorial staff — play some sort of curatorial role in what is important and what isn’t in an election, or don’t we?
If this weren’t so clearly a hit job that sought to make tools of the Journal and the electorate — if it had come out months ago — then my response certainly would have been different. Shame on Sundberg for not being more upfront about it earlier, a self-defeating move if ever there was one. And though our omnipotence is greatly exaggerated in these ages of budget cuts and such, shame on we in the media for not ferreting it out sooner. But if the choice was to join a lightning round shock-and-awe campaign against the Fifth District electorate or not, then my decision was to not. Reasonable people may disagree.
This article appears in Los Hechados.
Sundberg is a major problem and now it’s comming out. His staff is full of liars, Rich Mostranski especially! No way will I have anything to do with them.
Sounds like your trying to justify your decision to the masses that you are empowered and duty bound to inform.
Unfortunately, elected reps are held to a higher standard than us common folk, and this kind of information would shed light on the candidates decision making process.
Was it a hit job, or someone that dug up the information after seeing that no background was being done… maybe the press should look into all the candidates for such items? There very well could be more…
You made the correct decision, Hank.
Different circumstances would require different decision-making, as you noted, had you been notified earlier.
Of course you should print it. Same as anyone else. Crimes and arrests are reported routinely. Candidate or elected official, whoever. What’s there to discuss about that?
The question is what do you make of it? How much play does it get? What were the circumstances? What’s the history? Is he an alcoholic? What does it say about his candidacy, his judgment, his seriousness? Does he take responsibility or lawyer up and try to avoid? If the incident happened earlier but only recently came to light, what took so long?
In these days of on-line news, why not at least put the basics out there soon, and say, More to come…?
If you start getting into questions about the appropriateness of publishing information about crimes by anyone, you’ll end up in mud. The US constitution says everyone has a right to a speedy and public trial. There’s a good reason for that being a “right,” particularly the part about “public” — and all that it implies and entails.
Bottom line: Make it public and go from there.
Personally Hank, I thought you made the correct choice not to get in on this at the early stages-as soon as it appeared. Its crappy information, sure it will effect the candidate and our perceptions. But jumping in at that point was crappier.
The electorate has until November to decide, maybe its hindsight to say it worked out well, but I’m relieved the NCJ didn’t get involved and Heraldo did.
It’s to be expected from Heraldo. If you had, everything about the debate would be hashed and rehashed as knee jerking and revenge, you don’t need that.
It is what it is now. Sundberg has to convince voters he is the better man for the job. Let them figure it out.
I also struggled with it, and opted to cover it because I do think voters and readers have the right to decide what is an important issue. The timing was actually what used to be considered optimal for a dump – actually the Thursday before was considered optimal. I don’t know if that applies in rural Humboldt County where absentees have become such a trend.
I might have ignored it the way you did if the B.A. wasn’t so high. I’ve dealt with these cases in my career, and when you’re at .16 you’re not just making an error of judgment. You’re making a value judgment that neither your life nor anyone else’s outweighs your immediate gratification. You have to really pack the stuff down to get that high. Many of us would collapse with that much in our systems. No comparison with being gay, or getting a speeding ticket, or even shoplifting. From my point of view, it should have been in the news when it happened, and sometimes the truth is a tool for destruction, but that’s the way it is.
If I had doubts about the veracity of the claim, then I would have opted out. If he had been at .08 or .09 I might have opted out. If the incident was 5 years old, I probably would have opted out. But under the circumstances, the voters had the right to know, and make their own judgments as to its importance.
Thanks for the info, Eric. I’m ignorant about blood alcohol numbers. Did he have a mild buzz? Was he slightly goofy? Was he staggering drunk?
Staggering drunk. It was pled down from the enhanced DUI (over .15) which carries mandatory jail time.
Handy calculator here.
The figurative definition of “smear” is “a false accusation intended to damage someone’s reputation”. Exactly what was false about the information Hank, or does releasing any information, factual or not, constitute a “calculated smear job” if it happens to be revealed to the public 3 days before an election?
It’s not as if Sundberg didn’t have ample opportunity to divulge this arrest to voters. His supporters can blame it on “dirty tricks” but obviously he wanted to keep voters in the dark.
Interesting dilemma, Hank. I don’t like mud-slinging politics, and the timing was bad, being too close to the election to sort it out. But I could theorize another reason for the “dump”, which is that Sundberg has been running under a flag of family/community/Rotary, etc. as his expertise (which doesn’t necessarily prepare one for the complexities of county supervision, but so it goes). If the voters are hiring him under that impression, then perhaps a recent excessive DUI is relevant, because it contradicts the image his campaign has built? I don’t know who was your contact or their actual motivations… but it can be frustrating when you feel a candidate is winning on a portrayal of being something they aren’t; and, people do interesting things when they feel their community is at stake.
Separate question — when is an error in judgment or a moral failing or a crime so great that it should prevent someone from being in office, regardless of whether their actual duties are relevant to the failing? And, how can we measure true remorse (as in, “I screwed up badly, but I have learned, made amends, and will not ever screw up that way again”) as opposed to political & moral posturing?
And finally… when do we stop expecting our politicians to expose themselves bare for our scrutiny? The idea that Sundberg “owed” it to the public to tell us about his DUI is silly. While we each, as individuals, have to decide what failings we can tolerate and/or forgive, we’re not gods at the pearly gates, deciding whether the lowly candidates should be allowed entry. They don’t need to abase themselves for our judgment…. (why do we insist on treating so badly the people whom we ask to represent us?) We need to make our own decisions about what is “good enough” behavior from our chosen candidates… but we don’t need to shame them in the process. We all have failings in our lives.
Anyway, thanks for making your best call… not an easy one!
Why was this not in the newspaper like all the other DUI arrests that are made? The simple data dump from the authorities…
Sundberg owed it to voters to come forward and divulge his arrest, especially if his supporters are crying “dirty tricks” when someone who opposes him delivers the bad news to the media.
If this is how Sundberg deals with crises, he should not be on the Board of Supervisors.
boo hoo
The discussion and Hanks words would seem to me to skirt two important issues: judgement and integrity. Sundberg certainly knew that his DUI was relevant since he took pains to tell Duffy and a handful of others about it yet he chose not to reveal the info to the public even though the incident occurred only 3 days before declaring his candidacy. In addition, he did not show up for court. He claims he thought his attorney was going to be there and therefore he didn’t need to be there. It seems that he didn’t make it a priority to speak w/ his attorney and that a very serious DUI didn’t slow his announcement down a bit. He didn’t show because he didn’t want anyone to see him in court on such a serious charge. I suspect that his attorney didn’t show for the same reason. They were buying time for everything to cool down and disappear. And disappear it did. How did that happen?
Sundberg ran on family and connections, his platform (if it can even be called that) was thin and mushy. The picture in my mind is that of the huge flashing sign right across the street from the polling place that said, “Vote for Ryan Sundberg” Cheesy. Is this the new look of Humboldt politics?
The issue of integrity has shown itself to be critical in this election. Cleary and Gallegos paid to be listed in a misleading, slimy bunch of mailers that implied they were the picks of the Dem Party, Repub and Green Partys. The reader had to read the very fine print to see that each of these mailers had no connection with any political party and that the listings were paid for by the candidate. More than cheesy–downright dishonest. Bah.
The real issue here is that the arrest record, or “police blotter” is sent out to every single paper in the area. That means that every last one of you “journalists” had this information when it came out and summarily ignored it.
You all had the opportunity to do the right thing in a timely manner but you didn’t. This is a MAJOR local reporting FAIL and every newspaper covering the elections should write an apology to the North Coast for either willfull dereliction of their duty or laziness-induced ineptitude.
“Gosh, we just can’t figure out why newspapers are dying!” They aren’t dying, it’s a slow suicide.
That is false.
Good call. Whatever issues there may be with Mr. Sundberg, it’s time to put a stop to sleazy late hits. If whoever was spreading it was so concerned about informing the public, why did they wait until just a few days before the election?
Hank Sims writes: “I could not see how it was relevant to the question at hand.”
Hank Sims also writes: “Drunk driving, especially at the level that Sundberg was recorded at, is an inarguably heinous act. ”
So when Hank is given information (info that one could argue he should have had five months ago) that one of the candidates has recently committed an “inarguably heinous act,” Hank simply doesn’t feel that’s “relevant to the question at hand.”
Right.
So he makes the tough call, and leaves the voters to fend for themselves.
So a candidate has the poor judgement and irresponsibility to drive drunk, in fact very, very drunk, putting lives at risk, but his poor judgement and irresponsibility in that area has NO BEARING on whether we might expect poor judgement and irresponsibility in other areas? Wow.
If Sundberg had injured or killed someone during his drunken drive, I suspect that Hank would have seen the issue differently. But when you think about it why? Because Sundberg got lucky?
A drunk driver who kills someone while driving drunk made the exact same error of judgement as a drunk driver who got lucky and didn’t hurt anyone. So why would we treat the “lucky” driver different that the “unlucky” one? Perhaps Hank could explain.
It was relevant news and news that Sundberg had control over. He could have released the news himself. It is also relevant that no one, including his Atty showed up for the hearing. That seems careless for someone who knew he was going to announce for supervisor in a few days.
How do we know that Sundberg didn’t release it himself as suggested above? He makes the run off, gets it out of the way before the vote and bashes his opponent all at the same time. Not sure he is smart enough to do that, but it’s been done before.
Sundberg is ,as also mentioned above, running as a family man albeit one who drives home smashing drunk to his wife and kids. Relevant for a public figure, no? Doesn’t the public have a right to the truth? Seems to me that he was willing to put an awful lot on the line. What if he were 50 y.o. would we look at this the same way? Are we chalking this up to a youthful mistake? If so, maybe he is too youthful to be supervisor.
Reporting on the story now, it would be helpful for your readers to know who DID notify the press of the story and if this incident is part of a pattern or just an isolated incident. Also an what caused no one to show up. Sundberg didn’t appear to get that straight in the TS version either.
It seems to me that when the press decides when to release actual news i.e. relevant facts because they think they know what is best for us, the press becomes part of the story as opposed to reporting the story. Reporting the story would also include reporting how it was released. We the reader get to decide its worth, not you.
Bad call, Hank. What other important facts will you hold back next time?
So, Hank, are you “creaky and jaded and world weary” as you claim, or are you a goody two-shoes who wants to withhold information from your readers because it doesn’t meet your personal feelings of propriety?
Also, the informant said he was helping you do your job, and you disagree. Are you saying that you DID your job and checked the background of all the candidates? If not, WHY not?
As someone who has gotten a DUI, I would say that it isn’t the DUI that’s the issue. Lots of people have had one.
The fact that he didn’t show up for his hearing and had a bench warrant issued… now that’s an issue for me.
Sundberg is just another drunk and he’ll just keep doing it until he kills somebody. Sundberg is a total idiot and does NOT BELONG IN POLITICS.
The DUI and its release is not the issue. Politics is dirty so what. Any person can go to the court house and find out if someone has a criminal or civil history. The Journal is right, unfortunately in one sentence, that Sundberg needed to be up front. The issue is how Sundberg handled it at the time it happened and when it came out. He should have said something before someone else did. The DUI is bad, but it is not the mistake here. It his failure to be honest with the public. The DUI was at or just before he was running for office and any candidate would be thinking to himself, how do I handle this. He knows an immediate DUI will definitely affect his candidacy (i.e. votes, campaign contributions). Does he say something now or wait and see what happens. He chose the latter and it is for no other reason but to keep votes and money. What else could it be? The DUI was not ten years ago where not saying something would probably have been accepted as in the past. It was right at the time he is running. He made an intentional decision to not disclose it to everyone and see if he can get a win. If he had disclosed that he just got a DUI, it was a serious mistake, he is still running, and he wants to do good for Humboldt, I would have had respect for the guy. His response to the release that it is public record or that he told Geist/Duffy and some supporters, or it is dirty politics. A response like that is very poor and immature. His reaction should have been that he made a mistake by not saying something at that time end of story. I was voting for another candidate well before this issue came out because I find that Sundberg like Geist/Duffy to have not much knowledge of the issues and he won’t do much except occupy a seat. Nice guy, but I want change. However, if I was one of his supporters, the DUI would not be what troubles me, it is his active decision to not be the one to tell the public at the time it happened. I think that is worse than the DUI itself, because it shows his failure to accept the gravity the violation and his dishonesty with the public. Immediate honesty is the best policy even for politicians.
Fifth District Citizen makes good points.
But I’d add this. No sensible candidate would have dared trying to keep a current DUI “to themselves” if they didn’t have confidence that the area’s press “guardians” would not cover it.
I’d like to know whether that confidence is simply a faith in the utter and complete incompetence of the area’s editors, or if it is based on more than that.
Did you know about this information before it hit the blogs, Hank?
As the 4th Estate, it is important to provide this information.
A couple of hours before. At the time of the leak, in other words.
So now anyone who believes Hank can believe Hank.
But the question remains, where IS the reporting on this? The blogs and reports we have seen on this are full of unanswered questions. Where are the answers? Ok, it was a weekend when the Times Standard did their story, so they could only get vague defensive statements from Sundberg and Duffy. But the weekend only lasts a couple days.
Hats off Hank!
I really admire your reasoning, and I would have done exactly the same thing.
To someone who has never had the responsibilty of being a newspaper/magazine editor it’s easy for them to make a decision because they don’t have to live with it like you do.
I’m most impressed with your honesty. A rare thing nowadays….anywhere.
Yeah, Hank. I’m impressed too.
The NCJ isn’t a breaking-news publication. Why should they jump on every lead that they don’t have a lot of facts about?
The Sundberg DUI story has legs though, so I’m sure we’ll see a full treatment in the weeks ahead.
Buzz,
Damn right. The NCJ has proven it’s not a news publication. It runs a swell weekly event calendar and a local shopping guide a few times a year.
No need to bother checking it in print or on the net, not if you’re looking for news. Hank doesn’t think it’s relevant.
Mitch is a harsh critic. Harsh and repetitive.
Harsh? Check.
Repetitive? Check.
Wrong?
Wrong is a strong word. Confused perhaps. You seem to have the NCJ, an alt-weekly, confused with a daily newspaper.
OK, “Buzz.”
Fine.
I confess that I’m confused how the editor of an alt-weekly could decline to share information about a 0.16 DUI by a supervisor candidate on the blog of his paper, once he has the information.
I confess I’m confused how the editor of an alt-weekly could make a kingly determination that “heinous behavior” on the part of a supervisorial candidate is not to be shared with his readers, because it is not “relevant.”
But I’m confused a lot.
Hank, I think you’re ready for the big leagues. With luck, you’ll get a position with The New York Times, from which you can work to destroy the next ACORN.
People enter the “profession” for all sorts of reasons. Hank, good luck to you.
Maybe Buzz already has a buzz on if he thinks it’s ok to be a journalist who doesn’t pick up the phone to verify facts and then make them public.
So, it’s ok for journalists (Hank is still a journalist, right?) to withhold easily verifiable factual information about a candidate for political office? This is not an issue about a private citizen, he is a candidate for supervisor. Therefore, it’s even more relevant because he is a candidate and he tried to hide it.
Perhaps Anonymous never reads carefully. I’ll repeat: the NCJ is not a daily paper, and alt-weeklies are not usually a good source for breaking news.
Sundberg’s reckless, irresponsible and opportunistic behavior is an issue for public discussion and exploration, and I expect the NCJ to delve into it, I just don’t expect to read about it the very next Thursday after the story breaks.
The news-consuming public is as impatient as it is misinformed.
Totally clear, Buzz. We in the “news consuming public” of the fifth district should not expect the NCJ to provide news. It’s just an alt-weekly.
We should vote first, then wait until Hank decides to delve, so we can discover whether our candidates have uncovered one another’s drunk driving citations using methods that meet Hank’s oh-so-high ethical standards.
I trust the NCJ will revise its fine web site to lose the “News” heading. I trust the NCJ will rename it’s “In the New” section to “Editorially Approved Messages”.
I’m guessing Mitch is volunteering to put out the NCJ paper as the editor for a week or two.
Gosh, I didn’t know Hank was a volunteer.
Just because someone may volunteer for a position, doesn’t mean that position was, prior to, or will be after, a volunteer position.
Ok, BUT… why did the police blotter run his name like all the others, and what happened to the bench warrant… is the story over?
Pitranski is starting to sound like another Chris Kerrigan. I don’t know Pittranski, but judging from what I read it sounds like he has Kerrigan’s curse of failing miserably on every single campaign he has and ever will work
you guys need to shut up and stop talking smack about people who are good people just because somebody drinks doesn’t mean that they’re bad person half of the county smokes marijuana or drinks anyway it’s a party County its not a good place to live which is why I moved out of it do not judge people you do not know only god can judge you remember that
Uh – Jazemin. This story is three and a half years old…