Now it’s on: The struggle for control of the Democratic Party in Humboldt County has officially gone ballistic.
Two weeks ago we reported on an ideological rift in the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee — a schism between liberal Democrats such as Eureka City Councilwoman Linda Atkins and her more conservative nemeses.
We assumed the showdown would take place at the ballot box on June 5, when eight candidates — four from each camp — vie for just four available seats in the committee’s fourth district. Turns out Atkins couldn’t wait that long.
At last night’s central committee meeting, Atkins introduced a resolution to remove her opponents, most of whom have just recently become associate members. Namely she sought to oust fellow Eureka councilmembers Marian Brady and Melinda Ciarabellini, Humboldt County Supervisor Virginia Bass, Harbor District Commissioner Richard Marks and his wife, Robin. [Update, 2:15 p.m.: Marks just called to say that his wife has not endorsed Bohn. He’s not sure why her name is listed on Bohn’s website, but he’s working to get it removed.]
On what grounds? All five [four, says Marks] have publicly endorsed Rex Bohn for First District Supervisor. The committee, meanwhile, has officially endorsed Cheryl Seidner, the lone Democrat in the race. (Bohn is now registered independent, though he was a Republican as recently as June of last year.) In a ballsy move, Brady even turned up at the meeting wearing a “Rex Bohn for Supervisor” hoodie.
Turns out this is a violation of committee bylaws (pdf here), which allow for the removal of any committee member “publicly advocating that voters should not vote for the Democratic endorsee for any office … .”
Atkins stood at the front of the room, reading her resolution while the committee, including Brady and Bass (along with her husband, Matthew Owen), followed along on print-outs provided by Atkins. It was a bold and aggressive move, and it appeared to throw her intended targets off guard — along with most everyone else.
Awkward moment: Brady, in her Rex Bohn hoodie, stands up to give Atkins back her seat. Atkins had just moved to have Brady and others kicked off the committee.
The resolution sent the meeting into procedural chaos. Committee Chair Milt Boyd explained that in order to consider a special resolution introduced at the same meeting, the committee first had to bypass standard voting procedures, and to do that they needed approval from two-thirds of the committee. In other words, 12 of the 18 voting members present had to agree to consider the resolution before they could even talk about ousting Brady, Bass, Ciarabellini and the Markses.
It didn’t get that far. After several minutes of cross-talk, head-scratching and points of order, only 10 members voted to consider the resolution — two shy of the number needed. Confusion was largely to blame. After the meeting, several members admitted that they weren’t sure exactly what they were voting on. Another said she would have voted yes but had “nodded off.”
This doesn’t mean that Atkins’ resolution has failed; it’s merely been delayed. It will be put on the agenda for the next scheduled committee meeting, which won’t take place until June 13, eight days after the election. (If the committee had agreed last night to consider the resolution, the vote on removal would have taken place at a special meeting on May 30.)
This could potentially set up an even stranger scenario: There’s a good chance that at least one of the four more conservative candidates will win a voting position on the committee on Election Day. If that happens, Atkins said, the next committee vote will determine whether or not the insurgent victor(s) can be seated. This is political hardball at its fiercest.
After the meeting, Bass said she agreed to endorse Bohn a year and a half ago, “long before” she decided to run for a seat on the committee. She won’t take back that endorsement now. Bass alleged that the committee has not been consistent with its application of the bylaws, and she said Atkins’ resolution “seems contrived.” She also questioned whether the committee’s bylaws are consistent with others in the state.
Brady left the meeting before we could ask for her response.
Atkins said she’d written up the resolution the previous night after she learned that a TV commercial for the Bohn campaign was touting the endorsements of Democratic committee members. This issue, she said, goes to the heart of the committee’s mission.
More local politics: District Soup
This article appears in A Place in the Woods.
Atkins is procedurally correct, and that this policy has not been properly or consistently applied in the past is moot and not applicable to the current situation. The party MUST keep to it’s guiding principles or it will be overrun with DINO’s. Bravo to her for reading and understanding the By-laws. Politics 101 folks.
Just for the record, my wife Robin did not endorse Rex. The campaign has been contacted to remove her. I was listed without confirmation, but I freely agreed after the fact. Cheryl was not a candidate when the endorsement was given. Rex has been a friend for nearly 40 years. Friendship trumps politics. Rex has done more for this community than anybody in Humboldt County. Period.
As far as this article goes, Linda is within her rights to bring forward this resolution. And as far as Linda goes, she has been true to the party. But if she is going to call out others to the carpet for endorsing other party candidates, then she should point out the other members on the Committee, including the Chair, the Vice Chair, most all of the Executive Board and many sitting members who have done the same.
I am a lifelong Moderate Democrat. Moderates are not welcomed to the HCDCC. This is a great example.
Wait. They want to kick out Richard Marks? Samoasoftball Richard Marks? While I don’t see eye to eye with Marks (or many people) on all subjects, this seems really really strange.
Like over the top strange.
Friendship trumps politics. Indeed. Swap in ‘government’ for ‘politics’ and you have the problem with our local politics/government succinctly described.
06EM nailed it
Ryan phrases “to remove her opponents”…rather than “remove politicians who are lying to us about being commited Democrats because the proof is in the pudding that’s how the majority of people vote around here.”
For the record, I don’t support any of these politicians, but lying to us about party affiliation to get elected should be the forefront of the attention those politicians get.
Richard Marks seems to base all of his endorsements on personal friendships rather than on the candidate’s views. He’s free to do that as an individual, but as a HCDCC rep. he’s not. Explaining why he supports Rex doesn’t cut the mustard. He’s a loyal friend, but anyone who believes Rex has done more for Humboldt County than anyone is delusional.
If Richard Marks isn’t a conservative/republican, he is in the very least anti-democrat. I hate to endorse his blog in any way shape or form, but it’s several years worth of proof in writing. It’s undeniable. He unilaterally badmouths the Democratic majority’s stance regarding just about everything, locally and nationally. It’s amazing they’ve gotten away with it this long.
Not going 100% along with a platform should not be punished. Join the independents and vote for the right person, not party- on the local level it’s the logical choice.
Jonathan, there’s a world of difference between not being 100% in agreement with the platform and only being 10% for the platform. They are essentially moles who, in Virginia’s case especially obvious, changed party affiliation to dupe voters.
If your campaign for city council centers around your support for a big box retail strip mall, then you’re hardly a Democrat.
Looks like Salzman’s been busy posting today.
Calling Marks a republican…
Wow, going to have to agree with WOW, Salzman’s zoo-crew is hard at work.
Obviously all these jerks are republicans in sheep’s clothing. I’m very glad this was called to everyone’s attention. I’m not sure what Rex Bohner has done for our community except run the local gasoline industry and play with little boys, but I’m sick of seeing his balls all over my town.
Notice how many of those comments condemning me have been public. Won’t go public why? Smear tactics. And wieners. I am considered a Liberal by family and friends, and conservative by people who won’t identify themselves. There is your challenge.
If you don’t adhere to previously agreed procedure, then you don’t have a party…
you have a convention of fiction enthusiasts…..
They got to go…. or change up endorsements…
I ignore comments by pen names… If you cannot identify yourself, keep your opinion, it has no standing. Don’t be ashamed to debate openly… it starts getting un-civil if you hide your identity(s).
“Friendship trumps politics” – in other words, cronyism.
Didnt need a clique in highschool, sure as hell dont need one around here.
Both sides of the local parties are hippocrites.
Corruption at the local level, “no way!” If it’s true that these members endorsed Bohn then they should be removed, they aren’t Democrats.
The political spectrum has moved so far right that politicians that claim they are “liberal” are no more “liberal” than Bill (NAFTA, Don’t ask, Don’t Tell, Somolia) Clinton. These DINO’s remind even more of Zell Miller, the Democratic Senator who spoke at the Republican National Convention in 2004 praising George W. Bush.
You’re either a progressive Democrat or not. The people who call themselves “moderates Democrats” are FAKES. They might not be wacko rightwing conservative who don’t believe in equal rights or an economy that works for everyone, but they are still on the right side of the political spectrum when they support people who don’t believe in any part of the Democratic Party Platform.
One name; Bonnie Neely. One word; Hypocrisy.
Linda Atkins, CONTELPRO
To those who disparage others Constitutional right to anonymity, (added to all the other Constitutional rights being undermined today), I would ask that you judge posts on the character of their content, not the color of their identity. Everyone ignores occasional incivility.
Contrary to Richard Marks’ hyperbole, the motion before the Democratic Central Committee that evening was to merely CONSIDER the resolution.
Imagine that.
“Democrats” who avoid debate at all costs.
It is these folks who drove-away longtime members, opening the gates to the republican monkey-wrench radicals.
First time I’ve heard “Monkey-wrench” and “Republican” together. Edward Abby spins in his grave.
I am a resident of this county and have been for generations. I have strong opinions but also feel a need to protect myself/family/business from becoming the target of the powers that be, especially the more corrupt those powers are. It seems that Richard Marks is calling those of us who are making valid points, but choosing to remain unnamed wieners. Clearly very mature. This is exactly the reason any sensible person would choose anonymity in this type of forum.
So now the HCDCC gets taken over by outside sources. This isn’t Linda’s first disco and take-over, add in Salzman and what do you have?
Featherbedding at it’s finest.
Since so many whom I do not know seem to have taken such an interest in who I do and do not support I have decided to have my say. I have not donated to the campaign for Rex Bohn nor did I give permission for my name to be used. I have already asked in the past that my name be removed immediately from the website and any mailers. I believed it had, obviously not. But, Linda Atkins, in all her glory of the hour did not even bother to call me to see why my name was listed. If she had, I would have gladly explained the situation. She and I have never spoken outside of a few moments at various public events. She doen’t know me nor does she have any insight into understand any of my “democratic values” even thouogh she feels bold enough to stand up and shout out that I am “not a REAL democrat” and should be outsted from the committee.
Well Linda, you don’t know everything and before you go shooting off your mouth about me would you at least give me the courtesy of getting to know me. I know you have my email and my number has been in the book locally for over 30 years. I work at an elementary school and we talk to kids every day to “THINK” before you speak. The “T” stands for: Is it truthful. What you had the balls to stand up in public and say about me is unture and I would like an apology at the next HDCC meeting.
Dear Robin Marks,
I do not, or will I ever know you. I will never meet you in person. All I know of you is based on what you say to our limited media and, of course, your party affiliation. I think it’s very obvious there are members in the group who are “spoiling the party”, some are being paid more than $80,000 a year by all of us to do it on the clock. Are you really playing politics or doing business? All I care to know is how it affects me, not how well you can bake cookies to have with tea over chit chat.
To Anonyomous Contributor called “Dear Robin Marks”: Your response back to my comments were confusing at best. I don’t “play politics”, I don’t even know what you mean by that. I DEFINATELY do not make $80,000 and I am not sure what comments I have made to the limited media that you are referring to. Please refer me to the articles so I can refresh my memory. I also don’t “chit chat” and ask anyone who does know me, I most definately don’t bake. I accept your comments, but I am perplexed by them.
I’m wondering more about the process.
Was this resolution on the agenda for all members and the public to review? It may not be required, but I think it might be good policy to exercise the same transparency that the Central Committee demands of public entities.
As to endorsements, I wonder about the integrity of a member of an organization with a minority opinion loses legitimacy or the exercise of 1st amendment rights based on membership in an organization that so passionately defends them.
Should that be true, I question why there is need for a committee. Just pick a respresentative that packs the party line and give them free rein to make restrictive partisan decisions on behalf of the entire democratic constituency. Perhaps the DCC should extend that same expectation on all registered dems, if you don’t vote the party line, you are expelled from party membership.
Sounds more like a cheap power play than good governance.
With all of the issues facing this community,it seems that interpartisan conflict is the last thing we need.
There is NO excuse for the obvious voter manipulation carried out by a few of these members, most obviously lifelong Republican Virginia Bass, who continues to support the Republican Agenda. This county has a history of voting Democrat, let the local Republican party meet the wants of the voting majority. There’s no longer any room for tolerating campaign trickery like it’s fair game. The public needs to be able to take these politicians at their word.
Instead they continue to lie to us, it’s not something we can afford to gloss over. They are being paid very handsomely by the public, and the decisions they make for their political sponsers shape our world. They do not demonstrate the most basic of campaign honesty.
Sorry ttbs, but you are not the arbiter as to who is and is not a Democrat/Republican.
The “insurgents” have already been in power for several years – its the Pam Services and Linda Atkins of the world who are Greens cloaked in Democrat clothing.
Serious indeed, because other’s “got away with it” doesn’t mean this is tolerable now or ever. The members being called into question are new, at least one LIFELONG Republican who still pushes their agenda. It is very obvious and very current, preceding yet another election. If they are all to go, so be it, but you demonstrate playing favorites as well. Tenured members of any party who have been true to their constituents’ votes are being left in the dark. These imposters have very large financial sponsers. They are not practicing what htey preach, they have not been forthright with us, the public. It is a matter of the most basic political importance that can’t be pish poshed as politics as usual anymore.
Serious Indeed nailed it. This is a hypocritical move by Greens trying to leverage the Democratic Party for their own political viability. How many Democratic officeholders statewide or nationally would pass their ideological litmus test for who is a true Democrat?
The Green faction of the Democratic Party needs to wake up and realize that their failure to gain traction in Eureka and countywide is due to their disrespect of mainstream Democratic voters who ultimately decide the direction of the party. This power grab by the Green faction, if it succeeds, will only marginalize the HCDCC more than it already is.
Who among the HCDCC supports the (Green) DINO Norman Solomon?
The Dan Hamburg experience is the lesson Democrats need to heed. The 1st Congressional District was solidly Democratic, but Hamburg alienated the mainstream with his narrow focus and lost to Frank Riggs.
Thirdeye, perhaps you care to address this matter instead, and focus that exact degree of attention on the people being asked to resign.
“The members being called into question are new, at least one LIFELONG Republican who still pushes their agenda”
How is that again? Kinda hard to be a “LIFELONG” anything, especially if they switched to another party over a year ago
Stop being dishonest admit it – they just aren’t YOUR kind of Democrat, you know, the GREEN kind.
What is your affiliation, “Serious Indeed”?
Umm, Richard has worked for years and years for Labor causes. When did Labor causes become a Republican cause? Maybe those who want him off are embarrised by how much work he puts in to helping the community and democratic causes?
@10:04
Democrat since 1981. Is that long enough? I am as frustrated at Greens taking over the local party as you seem to be about anyone not with a Green tinge, 10:04, but unlike you, I realize that our party is a big tent (except for up here, apparantly).
Linda Atkins is so selfish. Everything she has ever done was done to benefit her.
The article and comments above are exactly why I distanced myself from any political party decades ago — there’s simply too much pointless rhetoric about toeing the party line and FAR too little about how to actually solve the problems we face.
Frankly, I’m beginning to think what we really need is a benign dictator because we are so rigorously polarized in the political debate that nothing is going to get solved.
I imagine this is what Rome looked like under the last days of Nero.
True enough, Tim. But you’ve got to admit, within the basic ideas of choosing a Party affiliation, is a foundation of representation that is supposed to be respected FOR those sollutions to work. The differences aren’t “iner-party” but rather “inter-party”. In this specific case, members of the HCDCC have clearly misrepresented themselves to allow themselves a “sway vote”. There are too many obvious conflicts of interest for them to benefit the greater Party they claim to represent. The “party” includes the general public.
It’s foul play, it doesn’t have to be a monumental walk of shame but it needs to be addressed, they need to address the public, and it needs to happen before the next series of elections. It’s a clear case of label swapping. It can’t be tolerated in any level of our government, it’s bad enough there are people in our government who amount to liasons for large, very non-local corporations.
Where’s the cries of “foul-play” coming from the Humboldt County Republican Central Committee? They have similar by-laws to oust members who work against Committee-endorsed candidates.
It would be interesting to see David Cobb’s local Green party members applying for seats on the HCDCC. Claiming that it already happened is a poorly constructed distraction and lie.
To Richard Marks;
one of my deepest regrets is having donated time, money and energy to your supervisorial campaign.
You’re a sore loser, a pitiful apologist, a turgid intellect and a crappy central committee member.
I hope to see you kicked out on your lying, conniving ass ASAP.
and THIS little gem is one of the finest posts EVER on a local blog.
Worth a rerun:
COMMENT / BY LIFELONG RESIDENT / MAY 10, 9:31 P.M.
Obviously all these jerks are republicans in sheep’s clothing. I’m very glad this was called to everyone’s attention. I’m not sure what Rex Bohner has done for our community except run the local gasoline industry and play with little boys, but I’m sick of seeing his balls all over my town.
COMMENT / BY LIFELONG RESIDENT / MAY 10, 9:31 P.M.
Obviously all these jerks are republicans in sheep’s clothing. I’m very glad this was called to everyone’s attention. I’m not sure what Rex Bohner has done for our community except run the local gasoline industry and play with little boys, but I’m sick of seeing his balls all over my town.
12:01am: Up late night drinking? If you are so pationate, why not just identify yourself? Unless you are just an anonymous troll. No credence.
!) I don’t drink. I’ll leave it to you mental midgets at the softball hoedowns to guzzle booze and lubricate your crony network.
2) why don;t you just hotkey the identity concern?If you can’t handle criticism and being called out on your shit you shouldn;t be a public servant.
3) YOU have absolutely no credibility. Your complete lack of integrity and poor sportsmanship have provided you with a perfect opportunity to present yourself as one of the biggest turds in the public punchbowl.
This whole discussion just underscores the reason that decline-to-state voters are the fastest growing voter group and why we now have an open primary where everyone can vote regardless of party affiliation.
The fact that the Central Committee has backed environmental concerns is in no way an extreme viewpoint. It seems to me, that in issues such as the Balloon Tract, that the party merely pointed out that any rubber-stamped approval of the permit for this project would go afoul of California law, and the Coastal zone codes. And since when can a “true Democrat” accept corporate money from the Chamber of Commerce, or endorse Romney, or any other right wing politician? There needs to be some kind of loyalty, here. I don’t really understand why being “Green” is so offensive to parts of the Democratic Party membership, when what is a stake is upholding California law. Is the Democratic Party now going to advocate that all restrictions to building in the Coastal Zone be repealed? What they are advocating, it seems to me, is that the local jurisdictions look the other way, and participate in trying to bully or deceive anyone who has any authority over these things, and may oppose development. I would think that these issues, created by developers, are getting in the way of what the Democratic Party should be doing, and that would be fighting SCOTUS on the Citizen’s United ruling, in my opinion.