Remember Jeff Zander? He was the semi-legendary con man that the Redwood Region Economic Development Corporation hired to be its executive director a couple of years ago — inexplicably.
As detailed at the second link above, dating from a year or so ago, Zander had plenty of unresolved legal troubles before he came to Humboldt County. Among them was a federal law enforcement investigation relating to his tenure as economic development director of Utah’s Paiute Tribe. Even before he got the RREDC job, the Paiutes were alleging that Zander used his position at the tribe to embezzle federal grant monies.
On Dec. 8, a federal grand jury handed down an indictment against Zander relating to these allegations. It’s a pretty decent read, containing as it does details of Zander’s alleged misappropriation of grant funds, which include the formation of several shell companies that “subcontracted” work from the Paiutes. Also: Income tax evasion.
Two sources connected to the case confirm that Zander has been arrested, though there appears to be no Googleable news coverage of this.
Download the latest federal indictment against Zander here.
This article appears in The Daycare Drought.
Hank, I’m wondering what your policy is on reporting arrests of persons in Humboldt County. I recall that you had minimal coverage of the arrest of Ryan Sundberg, who at the time was running for county supervisor (later elected), but here, a large item on the arrest of Jeff Zander. If you have personal animus against the person being arrested, does that factor into it? How about who brings you the story? Just wondering, honestly. It seems you have a varying standard, rather than a uniform one.
Zander was a celebrated con artist, the subject of major magazine profiles, before he was for some reason hired to head the county’s economic development efforts. And it turned out that he came here to run from a federal investigation into alleged embezzlement from his then-current employer.
Sundberg got a DUI.
See the difference?
Sundberg did more than just get a DUI. He was in the active process of running for the county’s most powerful elected body. In the process of his arrest, he was apparently treated in a manner that departed markedly from standard DUI arrestees. His blood-alcohol level was roughly three times the legal limit. His decision to drive his vehicle in spite of this fact could easily have resulted in his injuring or killing pedestrians or other motorists. Given that he was seeking to gain the trust of thousands of potential constituents in his district, and the importance of the role he was seeking in the county, his decision to drive seemed to me to be at least as newsworthy as your item above on Zander.
Are you going to pursue an official policy of not reporting on those arrested for DUI’s? Or just ones running for supervisor? Or just Sundberg? I’m just trying to ascertain your thinking here.
If you have any desire to do it in a non-obtuse fashion, why don’t you start by go back to what I wrote at the time and address that.
SMART-ALECKY ENOUGH FOR YOU, TRASK?
Hank, I re-read your “DUI or Don’t I” column from last June 10th. In it you say that you would have printed the story about Mr. Sundberg if you had had it earlier in the campaign, but you refused to release it when you received it four days before the election, until after the election. You also discuss your perception of the motives of the person who brought you the story and how that greatly influenced your decision on when to release it.
What I am addressing here is, your assessment of the motives of who brings you a story appears to be more important to you than the truth of its charges or its newsworthiness to the public. That strikes me as odd.
I apologize if that seems obtuse.
Well, thanks for going through the trouble of feigning sincerity!
Since you reread the column, I assume you saw the multiple bits of it where I admitted to being unsure if it was the correct move. So if you disagree, that’s A-OK with me.
But you do no one a service — yourself least of all — if you sort of willfully avoid thinking through the conundrum. American politics is riddled through with bullshit, I think you will agree. To what degree am I obliged to play along with it?
Leave aside my very strong suspicion that if the shoe were on the other foot — that if it were one of your candidates who had been popped — that your response would be quite different. The fact is that you would be hard-pressed to come up with a list of ways in which having been arrested for drunk driving can be expected to influence policy decisions, such as those made by the Board of Supervisors.
So there we are, that Friday night before the election. I can just run with this — do my part, at the 11th hour, to turn the conversation away from policy and toward scandal — or I can decline. Seemed like the most honorable thing to do was decline. I like to at least pretend that the American electorate is more concerned with policy than personal peccadillos.
Like I continue to say, you may disagree and that is supercool. You say that the readers, the electorate, get to decide what’s relevant and what isn’t. So, OK: Mark Lovelace was photographed shaking hands with Bill Ayers. A significant portion of the Humboldt County electorate finds that fascinating and oh-so-telling. Why have I withheld that information from them?
More: You, yourself, are a political person, a spokesperson and strategist for one side in at least a few very heated city debates. God’s honest truth: I have been invited, on more than one occasion, to try to nail down your source of income. It has been alleged to me that one might be supposed to find some … uh … questionable revenue streams there.
But I blew off such suggestions immediately a) because I do not care, and b) because I don’t see, even if such were the case, how it has any bearing on what you had to say. Hey, sure, though — you’re a big enough player that I’m sure a large portion of the populace would disagree with that. They would think it bears a great deal.
See?
Ouch.
Giving it all a fair shake from a distanced and persepctive eye… Hank makes the better argument. Sorry, Neal.
The Zander pieces were a fascinating read by all accounts. Why? Zander lies (and I do mean lie) somewhere between a serious crook and a sociopath– no remorse, guilt, shame, or conscience, and embedding himself into Humboldt. This clearly should be reported.
Hank’s rapier pen and judgement is mightier than the sword here, Neal.
An excellent and important debate by two energetic, model citizens. Both sides well written but I must, in this case, give my nod of assent to Mr. Sims.
Apologies for vectoring off but I do think that the private life actions of those folks who seek to influence the public mind, pocketbook, and freedoms, either through elective office or influential activism, are fair to note if they may color the public’s perspective of a person’s overall moral leadership. Obviously, which of those are worthy of valuable print space in a quality Journal, or even what is “moral”, is a healthy debate. I personally think it’s also fair to ask out loud about the way a person makes their living, especially if it provides a lifestyle with lots of spare time to be…active. And especially if that activity tends to support causes that may infringe upon one’s own lifestyle, such as ultimately expanding the tax obligations to those stupid enough to have real tax paying jobs, or reduce personal liberty. You may make a good point; you may even persuade me to join your cause, but who, exactly, are you, and what do you do? People have been asking it of their tribal chieftains and advisors for millenia. It’s a good question.
Hank- youch!
Ken-congrats to you and the Mrs…
Neal-where did you go, rainbow brother?
Hee hee.
Seth – I’m in law school in S.F. I come home on the weekends, when I can.
I’m sure I will continue to be slandered even after passing the bar and returning to practice land use law in Eureka. Isn’t that the nature of the game?
Get over it Neal. Fact of the matter is, the DUI was public information for the entire period AFTER the primary; obviously it did not matter in the minds of the voters – they still elected him.
Scary thought – you in law school, yet still unable to discern what is or is not a violation of the Brown Act.
Nice reply, Hank. That was one of the best ‘shaddups’ that I’ve ever seen in print 🙂
“…obviously it did not matter in the minds of the voters…” This is not obvious at all. I would guess that a majority of voters hadn’t a clue.
Joel,
The fact is that the DUI was out there from June until November election day. Humboldt County is pretty small; most of my friends, acquaintances and peers knew of it. I would guess that a majority of the voters did no, particularly when there were newspaper articles quoting Cleary (class act, btw) saying he was not going to make an issue of the matter.
Mr. Mielke, I did have a clue; it didn’t matter. Having met Mr. Sundberg, I’ve observed he’s a soft spoken and upright gentleman having the support of his constituents. He made a mistake and, I believe, taken the better course and responsibility in this regard. Having met Mr. Cleary, I equally agree that he, too, is a consummate gentleman as well.
Mr. Zanzi is a horse of a different color altogether.
My apologies and correction @6:34:
Mr. ZANDER is a horse of a different color altogether.
Mr. Zanzi, to note, is also a fine gentleman.
Guess all you want to, P, but when you qualify your assertions as “obvious” facts, you invite rebuttal.
And the argument that those who support Sundberg’s opponent wouldn’t be barking so loudly about Hank’s decision not to write about the DUI if it had been their candidate who’d been busted for being shit-faced behind the wheel cuts both ways.
I think my “guess” is more accuate than yours, Joel, but who knows.
The obvious fact remains that the DUI WAS a published in the press from just after the primary until the election.
Another fact is that my circle of friends, peers and acquaintances knew of the DUI.
Your Guess (I am guessing) is banking on the Larry Glass assertion of lack of voter sophistication theory, one that I don’t buy into.
Good conversation, though (no snark intended)
“I think my ‘guess’ is more accuate than yours…”
Gosh, that’s surprising.
Not really, especially when it’s backed up with facts.
Hank Sims reply to Neal Latt at January 14th, 8:52, tells us all we need to know about Hank Sims.
You have a great career in the mafia ahead of you, Hank.
Incidentally, inquiring minds would like to know about the additional sources of income of your publisher, as well as your colleagues and the various local politicians you support.
And I’m wondering if the Journal intends to cease advertising of hydroponics, and refund the money it has taken from said advertisements?
You are, as my father would have said, “a piece of work.”
wahhhhhhh wahhhhhh wahhhhhh
Neal got spanked, and rightfully so. Mitch can’t deal with it either.
Gee when it’s someone whose political ideology you don’t share, Hank is a hard hitting reporter, but when he calls bullshit on someone you agree with like Neal, he’s suddenly got a great career in the mafia. What a drama queen.
This will be my only reply.
Hank Sims responded to someone asking very valid questions with a cutesy threat to expose someone.
He seems to be fine with the pot industry paying his salary, and he’s certainly not going to expose anyone as part of the role he plays as a journalist, but for someone who questions his pretend journalist decisions, he’ll threaten exposure.
I now understand how it was possible for the Trinidad Police to become involved in a letter to the editor case.
That’s it from me. I’d promised myself not to look at the Blogthing, and broke my promise. So long.
Perhaps I’m unclear of what a “cutesy threat” is, but I don’t believe I saw one.
Nor did I. And I’ve cogently read this thread twice so far.
As a self-taught forensic blogologist, I think I can help.
I believe this would be Hank’s cutesy threat, from 1/14, 8:52 am: “I have been invited, on more than one occasion, to try to nail down your source of income. It has been alleged to me that one might be supposed to find some … uh … questionable revenue streams there.”
But wait! Mitch at 4:50 yesterday shows that the “organic gardener” insinuation blanket flaps both ways: “Incidentally, inquiring minds would like to know about the additional sources of income of your publisher, as well as your colleagues . . .” Organic grapes, are they . . . ? We know what that means!
We should have started doing this decades ago! We’d learn we’re all guilty as sin. Suffering Blue Jesus, survival is the Original Sin of Humboldt County.
Let the forgiveness begin.
(ps, I’m a self-taught religious nut too.)
Since I took the pic of Mark shaking hands with Bill Ayers, of which so much has been made, I should point out that Ayers also shook the hands of Tea Party demonstrators in attendance at his Northtown Books talk. It was just a matter of being cordial; it didn’t signify the embrace of his Ayers’ beliefs.
WHAAAAAT?!?
The cover-up is worse than the crime, Kevin.
There you go with the cutesy again. Must be a Linux thing.
“I personally think it’s also fair to ask out loud about the way a person makes their living, especially if it provides a lifestyle with lots of spare time to be…active. And especially if that activity tends to support causes that may infringe upon one’s own lifestyle, such as ultimately expanding the tax obligations to those stupid enough to have real tax paying jobs, or reduce personal liberty. You may make a good point; you may even persuade me to join your cause, but who, exactly, are you, and what do you do? People have been asking it of their tribal chieftains and advisors for millenia. It’s a good question.”
Evidently there is at least one other person in Humboldt County besides myself that doesn’t grow – lol @ Michael – hey buddy what’s up?
Ayers shaking hands with teabaggers and no photograph? Opportunity wasted.
I just might have a pic of that blessed event. I’ll check later. I do have a pic of Ayers patiently listening to Jason Robo as J-Ro asks prosecutorial, accusatory questions of him. Even Ayers wasn’t up to radical snuff enough for him.
I might suggest Hank and Neal meet at St. Bernard’s football field for a game of lawn darts. The winner treats the other to a blackberry shake at Fresh Freeze. Do it for the neighborhood, gentlemen!
Why bother to look into Neal’s income stream when you can so much more easily just spread an unsubstantiated rumor by saying you’ve been invited to do so?
People need to learn not to dare question Hank, or Kevin for that matter.
If Hank has been invited to investigate Latt’s income stream, should he not acknowledge it?
This interesting discourse has one wondering, exactly who is Neal Latt? Here’s my humble observation crossing paths.
Having been a successful organic farmer in Orleans with acres of farm and hundreds of fruit trees, Mr. Latt has supplied Arcata/Eureka restaurants, stores, and farmers markets with nearly 80 tons of produce yearly for some time. Mr. Latt donates large quantities of food to Humboldt’s Food Bank to help feed disadvantaged and poor residents. Having an excellent understanding of the people, locale, and businesses of rural Northeast Humboldt County– the Klamath Knot– to Eureka, Mr. Latt stays involved.
Mr. Latt was instrumental in building the first County-permitted home from the Hoopa Modular Building Enterprise Company in 1998, now known as Xontah Builders, illustrating that a locally owned and supported business model could sustain itself and address the areas lack of affordable housing. Mr. Latt supported the development of the modular home plant in the Hoopa Valley, a jobs incubator for the Hoopa Tribe.
Exercising a strong civic voice as evidenced by copious letters and lecture showing the bristly and prickly side of his personality, Mr. Latt frequently supports both underdogs and issues alike; land use, residential cell phone towers, and recently, Eureka’s Jefferson School project. In Mr. Latt’s larger view, topics are more clearly black and white; people more important than things. Smart, stubborn, tenacious, and not to sit idly by, Mr. Latt will likely finish law school in fine form, perhaps continuing to point out just how wrong and misinformed others have been. Criticized for liberal views, Mr. Latt is arguably more moderate; he’s also a fine and loving parent.
Not necessarily a fan of Mr. Latt’s superior air of indifference and dismissal, I nonetheless respect his worthy and passionate contributions towards making Humboldt a better place.
Yes, lawn darts… or an article with Hank… would be a splendid idea.
Most entertaining Sausage Pissing contest I’ve seen in print around here in a while. My how times don’t change.