HAF from the horse’s mouth: Cleary v. Arkley on Talkshop

Throughout THC’s series of posts on the Humboldt Area Foundation, many of our readers and commenters have been wondering why there’s been no response from HAF defending some of the points we’ve brought up.

For those of you that regularly listen to the Talkshop program on KINS 106.3 (kudos if you do – THC can’t stand that sort of self-inflicted misery), you may have caught the double bill of Patrick Cleary and Rob Arkley talking about HAF. Just in case you aren’t a sadist, we took the liberty of posting the link to that particular program here.

It takes about 5 or 6 minutes to get into the thick of things, but then it gets interesting. To a certain extent, Cleary does discuss (unconvincingly, in THC’s opinion)  some of the questions we have raised in the past. (Also – bonus points to whoever counts how many times Cleary uses the word “nuance” throughout the program.)

For the most part, Cleary artfully sidesteps any substantive answers to the questions posed to him. THC was most disappointed that his discussion of staffing levels touched only upon people employed “directly” by HAF, and did not go into any of the people employed under the entire HAF umbrella. Specifically, the organizations under direction of the Community Strategies wing. Arkley and Cleary spent some time evaluating the necessity of the four bookkeeping positions but Cleary avoids any mention of the ten others that do nothing but stir up divisiveness in our communities.

Aside from that, we were curious about the vacancies on the HAF board of directors. Why did Neil Ewald resign? Perhaps he was fed up with having his name associated with Cleary’s shenanigans? How long have the seats been vacant? And, perhaps most importantly, who are the prospective replacements? A little fresh blood is definitely needed.

In any case, that’s a rare little look into the mind of Mr. Cleary. Also, while THC is pleased that someone directly asked Cleary some of the questions raised here on our blog, why the hell did it have to be Arkley? Sheesh. For better or worse not many people really take him seriously at this point. We believe that these are some pretty important issues that deserve more that a brief KINS interview.

And now for something completely different. In an instance where THC was absolutely thrilled to hear someone asking questions about True North and HAF in a public forum, lets take a look at the Eureka City Council meeting from October 20th. The link to the video of that meeting is here.

We’d like to draw your attention to a statement read by a Mr. Bob Bartley (we think that’s his last name), that begins at the 29:44 mark. (For added entertainment value, be sure to watch Mr. Bartley’s opening act, which precedes him beginning at the 26:30 minute mark. Brava! Also pay attention to the facial expressions of the woman in glasses to the right of each speaker throughout the whole meeting – priceless!)

Lastly, an unnamed community member who has been involved with True North responds to Mr. Bartley’s comments at the broadcast’s 48:12 mark. Another person speaks directly after the first regarding the actions of True North.

THC has already made our viewpoints on True North and HAF abundantly clear. However, we think it’s important to keep providing any and all new information on the subject, and we very much hope you’ll watch and listen to the links we provided. Check it out for yourselves. We couldn’t make this shit up for a thousand cases of Mike’s Hard Cider.

All of us here at The Consequential were touched to tears that our efforts at informing the public are actually bearing fruit. Clearly the KINS interview and the public comments in Eureka are a response to the issues we’ve raised and the impact of the now tens of thousands of regular readers that peruse our digital pages. Yipee!



This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to HAF from the horse’s mouth: Cleary v. Arkley on Talkshop

  1. Mac Towner says:

    I listened to the show and Cleary just sidesteps all the issues whenever Arkley got even a little close to something he didn’t want to discuss. Gotta give Cleary credit he’s crafty. It didn’t really seem to me that Arkley really understood the full depth of what is going on at HAF. You could tell that he had an inkling but that was all. We need someone more knowledgeable on the specifics to force Cleary to give a complete accounting of the destruction of HAF.

    Thanks for keeping this issue on the front burner. THC is the first ray of light this county has seen for a while.


  2. Azalea Mom says:

    I don’t understand why Humboldt Area Foundation can’t be forced to explain what they’re doing. After all it’s all our money that they’re using. They are supposed to be a community foundation and promised to use our donations for grants and scholarships but are misappropriating it for this community strategies nonsense. Does anyone know who oversees them? Can the Sheriff or the Supervisors take their business license away for misrepresentation?

    My neighbors mother left them a lot of money and she’d be turning over in her grave if she knew what they were doing with her savings. My neighbor is just sick about it and the people at HAF won’t even return her call or mine.


  3. I’m catching up with this b/c of the 10/20 meeting. I’m doing a little back reading on your posts. Here is one thing that is particularly egregiously wrong and get’s to the question of what is this whole faux-controversy really about?

    THC: “Keep in mind the whole non-partisan thing – HAF seems to have forgotten about it.”
    THC: “PICO is an out-and-out political organization.”
    PICO: “Is PICO aligned with a political party? PICO is non-partisan and is not aligned explicitly or implicitly with any candidate or party. We do not endorse or support candidates for office.”

    I was at that 10/20 ECC meeting. I saw the speaker who saw True North as the antagonist and then saw a speaker defend True North. That’s when I began to understand what is going on. It may be that to you THC this is not an issue about race or ethnicity, but boy does the compass point “true north” on that count.

    I’m not finding any there there in this whole deal. It seems to me it’s part of the same ole argument. We on this side of the divide are certainly not partisan (and definitely not insensitive to matters of inequality of opportunity for different races/ethnicities) but oh boy! Patrick?, True North? Chris Lehman? Renee Saucedo? that’s political!

    Rob Arkley? Business, not political. Protests? Political. Donating money or supporting/voting for a candidate for office? Political. Being an anonymous blogger/commenter with no connections to these votes/donations/real world activities? Not political.

    It seems to me the basic formula for this faux-controversy is this. Politcal: Bad. Not-Political: Good.

    Hmmm. We’ll see. I’m just beginning to pay attention here and it looks like this, like the AFSCME letter, is a whole bunch of partisan, political malarkey. Welcome to politics ReaganConservative THC.


  4. “Specifically, the organizations under direction of the Community Strategies wing. Arkley and Cleary spent some time evaluating the necessity of the four bookkeeping positions but Cleary avoids any mention of the ten others that do nothing but stir up divisiveness in our communities.” (ie: True North among others)

    A: These positions are funded by specific grants, not by HAF funds. I think you are upset that they share the same roof?

    Look, good for you and Rob for continuing a smear campaign b/c as Rob says you all feel (paraphrasing) the HAF supports left leaning issues more than right leaning issues. In the end, the pressure alone will move the meter, especially as this organization runs on the beneficence of our wealthy elites. Elites and status-quo business owners/managers like the poor, lowly, disenfranchised Neal Ewald.

    I hope people will also begin to see through this THC/conservative activism how the levers of power work to limit real power for the disenfranchised. Whether they are low-wage workers (even, God forbid, government workers), tribal members, ethnic or racial minorities, or those unable to earn a living wage.


  5. From the 48.12 mark as provided by THC:

    “There is no poltical agenda…it (True North through HAF) is an opportunity for those most marginalized in our community to learn how to research and educate themselves on issues that affect them. To give words to what it is that is bothering them and creating the conditions that make them feel uncomfortable, unsafe and marginalized in the first place. So regarding any sort of political affiliation, political party, candidate, etc…there is none.” then …paraphrasing…people should become award of True North and participate in their many meetings.

    Good on you public speaker. Thank you for taking the time for speaking for the marginalized. Isn’t that what foundations (and people) should do?

    On the other hand…WAIT…Rob Arkley and Neal Ewald have just been marginalized too. Men too! (listen to the clip THC provides). Maybe they ARE on to something. I’m sorry genuine, wonderful public speaker I’m starting to lean with THC here.


  6. One more for those of you that don’t have the time. Here is the language Bob Artley used at the 29.44 mark…

    “True North
    aggressive tactics
    intimidate others
    (other’s that have different political views)
    sponsored by HAF (supposed to be non-political)
    (used to be respected by all- read: us on the right)
    big mistake to associate with organized political protesters
    {accounting specifics-from his perspective they don’t look good}
    George Soros.
    Bring money from George to solve homeless problem.”

    But here was the kicker for me as it demonstrates so clearly the double standard of the non-political upstanding right who just want, you know, people to work hard, be responsible for themselves and above all, don’t break the law.

    “but they (local True North) don’t seem to care if the under-represented are breaking the law”

    So, as we vote to legalize mj, those who had been breaking the law (and still are federally) will be rewarded with a good-ole head start on capitalism. Where is the outrage Bob?

    Here is another example from Midnight Anon at Tuluwat…

    “In a striking example of corrupt double standards, Humboldt County’s legal settlement with HumCPR, exposes the disparate application of justice between propertied and non-propertied residents:”
    “As part of the settlement, property owner’s past violations are forgiven; building inspection and penalty fees are waived; enforcement is replaced with “incentives to encourage lawful behavior”; propertied violators are provided with self-regulating authority in the future.”

    Where is the outrage for these law-breakers Bob? Is it because one group of lawbreakers have wealth and power and the others don’t? Or are there other reasons?

    There is no there here and this whole faux-controversy only serves to point out that THC, Rob, and Bob have partisan interests. Hey, just like me. It’s called politics. Welcome all, come on in. The water is fine.


  7. milldoin says:

    I can’t believe Rob suggested the Headwaters fund be taken over by HAF. Some one needs to tighten his leash a little bit. It seems like every time Arkley gets turned loose he says something stupid.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s