HAF not involved in area protest for once; do you think it should stay that way? (THC POLL)

Were you surprised that there was no mention of Humboldt Area Foundation or True North Organizing Network in connection with the recent anti-Trump protests in Humboldt? So was THC!

HAF hasn’t made any secret of their political agenda nor their attempts to push it down the throats of Humboldt residents. Over the last couple of years, it’s only become more obvious. Take the political debate they sponsored, or the multiple political marches and demonstrations they’ve organized just in the last year:

True North Organizing, HAF and Pat Cleary ignore their “non-political” mission once more

Humboldt Area Foundation joins City of Eureka in protesting ND oil pipeline

HAF Board Member also the leader of political group True North Organizing Network?

It doesn’t take a brain scientist to see the trend of their actions. It does, perhaps, take someone who is willfully ignorant of the obvious to say that HAF has not become increasingly entrenched in the political affairs of the County, but go ahead and debate it if you want.

We realize you might be a little tired of making your voice heard (for those of you that voted, anyway). But THC asks that you take a little time out of your post-election heartbreak/celebration to let the rest of Humboldt know what you think: Should Humboldt Area Foundation, and Patrick Cleary’s favorite political wing True North Organizing Network, stay away from inciting political dissent and demonstrations and stick to their charter, which mandates that they should not engage in partisan politics? (We can’t find the exact wording on HAF’s website anymore – guess they’re trying to distance themselves from being accountable to their charter now, too.)

Go ahead and take our poll below; we’ll post the results in a week!

Also, as an added pictorial bonus,  here’s THC’s favorite picture from the LoCO’s coverage of the anti-Trump rally in Arcata this week:

trump-rallyWhether you’re down with the protests or not, you’ve gotta love the elder stateswoman of the protest sipping her coffee with a decidedly unimpressed look on her face. She’s probably thinking what THC is thinking – that old codgers like us were way better at protesting stuff back in our day. (Cue LMOB telling us what a stupid group of old farts we are.)

Anyhow, seems like our purple-haired fellow citizen is less interested in the protest and more interested in getting that sweet fix of java, which we can totally relate to. In this crazy world we’re living in, you have to relish the simple pleasures. And feed your addiction.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to HAF not involved in area protest for once; do you think it should stay that way? (THC POLL)

  1. ralph says:

    These people are protesting their version of reality that was portrayed to them on paid political media programing. Trump is not in power and has never done anything to any of these people in any way nor does he have any control over their every day lives.
    Once he is in office and does something they don’t like it will be different but now they are only throwing a tantrum because WE, the American people, sent their hero straight to H>LL where she belongs. Lost souls wasting their time.


  2. Phoenix says:

    If the Humb Area Foundation is engaging in political activity they will lose their non profit status with the IRS.

    They should be reported immediately.


    • ralph says:

      but why, I thought the lying cheating reverse psychology left was the new norm? After all how many millions of tax $ were just blown by Michelle and Barack serving the American people on the campaign travels? I think I would like non-profit status. People are corporations too you know. Then I could have a personal mentor and hero like crooked Hillary and Bill. Like John Penneta or Debbie Schultz. Maybe I could get Billy Bush to prop me up as a hero!


  3. Samoa says:

    Impeach Pat Cleary! He’s a bigger blowhard than Trump and a bigger liar than Hilary.


  4. John Chiv says:

    THC, did you catch the TS caption about Renee Salcedo at the protest?

    Is she related to Renee Saucedo?


  5. It’s the Attorney General’s office that really oversees the proper administration of a charity.

    But in response to THC, here’s the Founding Documents which set out the declared purpose of this charity:
    A California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation
    The name of this corporation is Humboldt Area Foundation.
    Article I – Purposes and Limitations
    1.01 Purpose
    The purpose of the foundation is to develop philanthropy and engage in outstanding
    grantmaking in northwestern California. No substantial part of the activities of this corporation
    shall consist of lobbying or propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, except as
    provided in section 501(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and this corporation shall not
    participate in or intervene in (including publishing or distributing statements) any political campaign
    on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.

    As a self-certified (valid only within my own mind) pedant, here's something else on the page which might interest other people (or not):
    "4.02 Number and Qualification of Directors
    4.02.1 Authorized Number and Qualifications
    The authorized number of directors shall be no fewer than eight and no more than twelve.
    Directors shall be selected for their knowledge of philanthropy and the charitable, religious, public
    educational, scientific, cultural and other needs of the inhabitants of the community, and for their
    ability to contribute to the purpose of the foundation.
    4.02.2 Restriction on Interested Persons as Directors
    No more than 49 percent of the persons serving on the board may be interested persons. An
    interested person is
    (a) any person compensated by the corporation for services rendered to it within the previous 12 months, whether as a full-time or part-time employee, independent contractor, or otherwise, excluding any reasonable compensation paid to a director as director; and
    (b) any brother, sister, ancestor, descendant, spouse, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law, or father-in-law of such persons.
    However, any violation of the provisions of this paragraph shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any transaction entered into by the corporation."
    Now this is going to be really heavy duty pedantry so be forewarned:

    This is the report to AG with the registration renewal for 2015 (filed in 2016):
    Note: If you answer l 'yes ° to any of the questions below, you must attach a separate sheet providing an explanation and details for each *Yes" response. Please review RRF-1 instructions for information required."
    During this reporting period, were there any contracts, loans, leases or other financial transactions between the organization and any officer, director or trustee thereof either directly or with an entity in which any such officer, director or trustee had any financial interest? ? (X marked for yes)
    Statement 13:
    PART B, LINE 1
    Instructions for actually replying to RRF-1:
    If “yes,” provide the following information on the attachment:
    1) Full name of the director, trustee, or officer involved and position with the organization.
    2) Nature of the transaction, e.g., loan to director, contract with officer’s business, etc.
    3) Attach a copy of the board of directors’ meeting minutes authorizing the transaction.
    4) Include, if applicable, the date of transaction; purpose of transaction; amount of the loan or
    contract; interest rates; repayment terms; balance due; type of collateral provided; copy of contract,
    loan or other agreement; amount paid to director, trustee, or officer for the period; evidence of other
    bids received related to the transaction.
    OK, back to PART B, now to QUESTION #6
    6. During this reporting period, did the organization receive any governmental funding? If so, provide an attachment listing the • name ó1 the agency, mailing address, contact person, and telephone number. ? SEE STATEMENT 14
    So here's Statement 14:
    PART B, LINE 6
    CONTACT: WENDY ROWAN (707)445-7389
    UNIT, EUREKA, CA 95501
    EUREKA, CA 95501
    This information IS what the instructions for RRF-1 requires, so no text needed.
    The AG's office records don't show the IRS filing for 2015 so there's no way to find
    out what HAF didn't provide (and should have) about what Gary Blatnick was paid
    and all the other info inquiring minds would like to see.

    And to satisfy my deepest pedantic urges I did try to find out more about Mr. Blatnick
    but while the links in google read that he's with HAF, actually reading the website
    shows nothing.

    yes, I'm the sort of person who insists every garment must have the proper labels and
    food products must tell me (for better or for worse) what I'm going to put in my body.
    But those are personal things.
    Seeing a government form incompletely filled out makes me wish I had followed my
    life plan and gotten a degree in forensic accounting.
    I'm sorry I've failed to provide complete and accurate information but maybe someone
    can ask HAF why there is this failure to make nice with the AG's office?
    and yes, now I will shut up.


  6. Off topic question to THC..

    Question THC: Your first reaction to P was that because of Pam Service’s letter and your understanding that it was hypocritical of a member of a Party that collects large $$ relative to their coffers then immediately turns around and sends most of it to races where the $$ becomes drops in buckets again that you didn’t really have a take on P but you were going to be against it. That take continued through election season. But when the Mosher story was leaked not one word about the $270K at last count the Yes on V people had to spend.

    Sincere question: What gives? Were you aware of your own hypocrisy and understand it is part of politics so you don’t need to address it because it wouldn’t be politically efficacious? Is this hypocrisy something you were honestly not aware of, or am I missing the angle or reason that you could be against P for being associated with big money and at the same time not mention the big money associated with V.

    For the record: I don’t believe hypocrisy in-and-of itself is a political deal-breaker. We are all hypocrites to one extent or another. I think it is important to minimize hypocrisy, I don’t think we can ever bring it to absolute 0 in our lives.


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