DOLLISON’S DOCKET: California’s Leniency on Crime and What it Means for Humboldt

◼ California’s Leniency on Crime and What it Means for Humboldt - Allan Dollison/Lost Coast Outpost

...There is one consistent exception and thread to re-alignment, drug treatment and the Prop 47 initiative, and that is defendants who have violent offenses or are registered sex offenders are not eligible for these “reduced punishment” systems. However, most people in our community are not affected by violent crime. What they are affected by, tremendously, are these property offenses. We are now entering a new chapter in how we treat these offenders. Will leniency mean they change their lives, or make them more likely to commit these offenses and not change their behavior? We are starting with a very high baseline in Humboldt with these crimes, so if it does spike even worse this community will be a terrible place to live. MORE

◼ Dollison's Docket on LOCO and Ryan Burn's post Cannabis Voice, as some LOCO commenters like to say are spot on - John Chiv/Words Worth

◼ Frequent DA informant Quentin Williams lucks out getting Allan Dollison appointed as his defense attorney - John Chiv/Words Worth

San Jose pot clubs to offer voters free weed on primary day...

◼ California voters can expect to receive free weed from some pot clubs in the Bay Area city of San Jose for casting ballots in state primary elections next Tuesday that include local races and battles for governor and secretary of state. - Reuters

The city’s cannabis collectives, which have also offered up a voter guide to the races, are offering free marijuana and discounts when members show a ballot stub or an “I Voted” sticker on June 3.
__________________
Hey! Isn't that illegal???

Yep. Illegal.

Codifying the ban on voter bribery, the United States Congress has prohibited the conspiracy to encourage illegal voting and stated that anyone who "pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

And that's not just cash for votes that's outlawed there! "Not only is a direct payment for a vote prohibited, but any other 'valuable thing, to or for the use of another.'" Like delicious ice cream, which is very valuable. Or pot which is illegal....

BUT... "California...allows voters to receive incentives for voting, so long as the incentives are not offered to induce a voter not to vote, or to vote, or to refrain from voting for a particular candidate or ballot measure, and so long as no federal candidates are on the ballot." Richard L. Hasen, Vote Buying, 88 Cal. L. Rev. 1323, 1355 (2000) (citing Cal. Elec. Code. § 18522(a)(1996)).

Fred's picks: (UPDATED)

◼ The June Ballot, Part 1 (State)
◼ The June Ballot, Part 2 (Local)

The most complete list of candidates so far.

It's also a good reminder to all candidates - get your Smart Voter info up there! You should have a letter with your password.

”In the end it was not only Hurwitz and the enviros who got what they wanted from the demise of PALCO,...It was our county government as well.”

◼ The Headwaters Fund -- a story of desertion and betrayal - Tim Martin/Here's a Thought/Times-Standard

The bankruptcy of PALCO and the sale of Headwaters cost (Bert Silva of Rio Dell) and many other timber workers their jobs. As part of the settlement and purchase agreement the state and federal governments awarded Humboldt County $18 million as compensation. In March of 2007 then-Rep. Virginia Strom-Martin and then-Gov. Gray Davis posed for a photo on the steps of the Humboldt County Courthouse, holding a giant check for $12 million. On the memo line it read: “For jobs and job retraining for displaced workers.”

That check offered ex-PALCO workers and their families a glimmer of hope, at least for a short time. Then it became a nightmare.

At the recommendation of Supervisors Bonnie Neely and John Woolley, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors adopted a Headwaters Fund Charter to outline its purpose and structure and to justify the emptiness of their impending actions. The money would be used to “support the growth of industry clusters; to increase the number of sustainable jobs that pay at or above the median income; and to enhance the quality of life for residents of Humboldt County through projects that promote healthy communities and protect and enhance the natural environment.”

In other words it was going into a private slush fund. This seemed to be a good all-purpose way for local representatives and moneyed nobility to tell PALCO workers and gyppo loggers, “We're taking your money. Deal with it or don't.”

...Headwaters funds have since been spent on an upgrade at Buckhorn Summit on State Route 299, an expansion of air service from the Arcata-Eureka Airport to Los Angeles, and loans to various local businesses. $750,000 went to a Forestry Products Initiative aimed at convincing California residents to choose redwood over wood-plastic composite lumber when building decks. What about job retraining for displaced PALCO employees? Why, that money was being used to “offset job losses.”

...Humboldt County Economic Development Coordinator Jacqueline Debets also told Silva that Headwaters money had never been reserved for jobs and job retraining. Evidently, there were more important places for it, like the Orick rodeo grounds restroom facility ($50,000), Internet access for the Hoopa Valley Tribe ($35,000), and septic improvement for Willow Creek ($35,000)....

Who voted for this?

Who will cop to sneaking this shit into the budget bill?

◼ Transparency in California Should Not Be Optional - eff

AB 76 was passed by the legislature Friday evening, unbeknownst to many journalists and open-government advocates attempting to follow the vote....

Senate Bill 71 and AB 76, which could be passed and sent to the governor's offiice on Saturday, would allow government bodies on the local level—such as cities, counties, sheriff’s departments and education systems—to choose whether or not to follow certain requirements under the California Public Records Act. These provisions would be downgraded from law to mere “best practices.” Gone would be the deadlines for determining whether records are disclosable and notifying the member of the public who requested the records. Gone would be the requirement that agencies assist members of the public in identifying which records would answer their questions. Gone would be the mandate that agencies turn over documents in an electronic format if the records have already been digitized.

A local government wouldn’t even have to publicly disclose its records-disclosure policy in writing. The bills only say an agency must “announce orally” once a year if it decides not to follow the new “best practices.”

The impact on government watchdogs, journalists and the public—including EFF—would be profound. The legislation would create long waits for access to records, allow agencies to interpret requests narrowly (say, rejecting requests unless the citizen asks for a specific document), and leave the requesters waiting in limbo indefinitely as government agencies will have no incentive to be helpful.

◼ California Legislature Guts State Records Law - courthousenews.com

"It's not about saving money - it's all about curtailing an open, transparent government that can be held accountable," Yee told the San Jose Mercury News. "The only way we're held accountable is when the public has the information to understand what were doing."