NOTE, Sept. 16: This post has been updated to clarify the FPPC process.
###
Former Humboldt County Auditor-Controller Karen Paz Dominguez, whose turbulent tenure in elected office was characterized by interpersonal turmoil and overdue fiscal reporting, is now facing $61,500 in proposed penalties from the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) for failure to file campaign finance disclosure forms on time.
The proposed fines stem from violations of the Political Reform Act during both her successful run for office in 2018 and her unsuccessful re-election campaign in 2022, according to an agenda for next week’s FPPC meeting.
Specifically, the violations by Paz Dominguez and/or her campaign committee include:
failure to timely file seven semi-annual campaign statements and two 24-Hour Reports during the 2018 campaign
failure to timely file one pre-election campaign statement and three semiannual campaign statements in 2022
failure to timely file the required Assuming Office form
failure to timely file Annual forms in 2019 and 2021, and
failure to timely file a Leaving Office Statement of Economic Interest Form
The Political Reform Act requires local candidate and their committees to file a Form 497 within 24 hours of receiving contributions of $1,000 or more within the 90 days before an election.
Reached by phone, FPPC Communications Director Jay Wierenga told the Outpost that he could not discuss specifics about this or any other case before the commission, but he pointed out that the proposed fines against Paz Dominguez fall under the “pre-notice” portion of the agenda, which means the commission won’t take any action at its meeting next Thursday.
“Most of our cases are settled” before the fines are assessed, Wierenga said.
Typically, he explained, a a case is initiated when complaint comes in. This triggers an investigation, and if the investigation finds violations of the Political Reform Act then the FPPC will attempt to settle the matter, often by proposing a penalty and negotiating an agreement.
When that process fails to resolve the matter — say, if the person does not respond at all or quits responding and walks away — then the case may progress toward default. When things reach that stage, the FPPC will typically propose the maximum penalty for each violation of government code. Part of the rationale for this, Wierenga explained, is to get people’s attention and motivate them to come to the table and negotiate.
“Generally they work out a settlement that’s less than the maximum,” he said.
When alleged violators don’t work out a deal, the FPPC holds a hearing and decides on an a penalty amount to assess.
“If people want to fight [that decision], they can,” Wierenga said. “It then goes before administrative law judge, who makes a recommendation to commissioners. If the person still doesn’t like the outcome, they can take [the matter] to superior court.”
At any point in this process, people can choose to negotiate with the commission and reach a settlement. Wierenga said that doing so at the outset is quicker. It amount to a public admission of the violation(s) and the issuing of a check for the agreed-upon penalty amount. That money then goes into the state’s general fund.
In the rare cases when the alleged violator never comes forward and the assessed penalties go into default, the FPPC can place a lien on the person’s earnings and garnish money from tax refunds or lottery winnings.
If Paz Dominguez doesn’t reach a settlement with the FPPC before next month’s meeting agenda is published, her proposed fines will listed as a default proceeding.
Reached via text, Paz Dominguez declined to comment on the record.
A “Yes on Measure F” billboard in Old Town Eureka. | Photo by Ryan Burns.
###
Thanks to an open firehose of financing from the Rob Arkley-founded real estate servicing firm Security National, Measure F has become the most expensive ballot initiative ever put to voters in the City of Eureka.
According to the latest financial disclosure forms submitted to the city clerk, Security National has now spent $1,155,944.72 to promote the so-called “Housing for All” initiative. Residents’ mailboxes have been fed a steady diet of glossy 8 1/2-by-11 campaign mailers, and ads have been distributed across social media, billboards and yard signs.
The “No on F” campaign, meanwhile, had raised a relatively modest sum of $9,004.38, with the majority of that coming via donations of $100 or less.
Dubbed the “Housing for All” initiative by its backers, Measure F seeks to halt half a dozen planned or in-progress affordable housing developments on four city-owned parking lots downtown. Two development projects proposed by the Wiyot Tribe Dishgamu Humboldt Community Land Trust — slated to be built on the city-owned lots at 5th & D and 6th & L — are exempted from the measure.
If passed by voters on November 5, it would amend the city’s General Plan to create development restrictions on 21 public parking lots owned by the City of Eureka. These restrictions would require any future residential development on the lots to preserve all existing parking spots and add more for new residents.
Measure F would also change the zoning at the former Jacobs Middle School campus, 14.1 vacant acres at 674 Allard Avenue, on south end of city limits. The idea, frequently espoused in campaign literature, was to put high-density housing on that parcel, rather than downtown. If passed, Measure F would authorize a wide variety of new uses on the Jacobs property, including high-density residential for at least 40 percent of the ground area, plus various public, quasi-public and commercial uses.
Supporters say the measure would preserve the vitality of Eureka’s downtown by saving municipal parking spots while encouraging housing development in a more appropriate part of the city.
Critics and nonpartisan outsiders, such as the California Housing Defense Fund, say Measure F could have dire unintended consequences for the city, forcing developers to forfeit millions of dollars in grant funds and potentially rendering Eureka’s Housing Element non-compliant with state law, which would open the door to the “builder’s remedy,” whereby the city would be forced to approve any and all proposed housing projects that include at least 20 percent affordable units.
Measure F does not include any proposals to actually build any housing, though its backers predict that developers will “eagerly line up” to build at the Jacobs site once the measure passes.
However, the Jacobs property owner, Eureka City Schools, put a wrinkle in those plans last month when its Board of Trustees voted not to extend an already eight-month-old purchase agreement with AMG Communities - Jacobs, LLC, a shadowy corporation formed explicitly for this transaction. It offered nearly $6 million for the blighted property last December and requested a series of escrow extensions. The latest request — the one the Eureka City Schools board denied — would have postponed the close of the deal until after Election Day.
Now that this deal has fallen through, Eureka City Schools has resumed negotiations with the previous high bidder, the California Highway Patrol, which has offered $4 million in hopes of building a new regional headquarters on the site.
The identity of investors in AMG Communities - Jacobs, LLC, have never been revealed, though the company shares an attorney, spokesperson and other hired hands with Security National.
As a state agency, the CHP would not be bound by municipal zoning restrictions, even those included in Measure F, should it pass. While the CHP has no intention of building housing on the Jacobs campus, Measure F’s backers insist that the collapse of the AMG deal will have no impact on the initiative or on future housing development plans.
Security National’s spending on this campaign dwarfs that of any previous ballot measure in city history. In 1999, Walmart and its local allies spent $271,528.38 on Measure J, which asked voters to approve a zoning change for the “balloon track” property, a 43-acre former rail yard located south of Old Town that was then owned by Union Pacific Railroad.
That measure failed, but just over a decade later, in 2010, Arkley, who had purchased the “balloon track” property in the intervening years, brought forward another ballot measure, Measure N. The measure again asked voters to rezone the property, this time to make way for Marina Center, a proposed mixed-use development that was slated to include a Home Depot plus office, residential and retail space.
That measure passed, though Arkley has never gotten clearance from the California Coastal Commission to build anything on the “balloon track” property, which remains vacant and undeveloped. Eureka Assistant City Manager/City Clerk Pam Powell told the Outpost via email that total spending on Measure N was “significantly less” than even Measure J.
To read more on Measure F, including the official arguments for and against as well as the Eureka city attorney’s impartial analysis, click here.
Rendering of completed ACV paid parking lot renovation project. Image courtesy of Armstrong Consultants.
Humboldt County Administrative Office release:
Early this summer, the Humboldt County Department of Aviation began conducting a long-overdue major rehabilitation project of the paid parking lots at the California Redwood Coast-Humboldt County Airport (ACV) in McKinleyville.
Parking will continue to be impacted during construction, which is expected to last through mid-November.
Once this project is completed, parking at ACV will provide modern, quick and user-friendly services for passengers. Improvements will include new parking lot surfaces, an increased number of ADA-accessible spaces, electric vehicle (EV) charging availability, quicker parking lot entry and exit and 40% more parking spaces than were previously available.
Construction of the first two phases of this project is nearly complete and work on Phase III is anticipated to start in mid-October. Completion of Phase III is expected by mid-November.
At this time, the majority of the main paid parking area at ACV remains closed to the public. However, limited paid parking is available in overflow parking lots. It is expected that most of the main paid parking lot will be open for public use beginning Monday, Oct. 14. Overflow parking lots will also be available as needed while Phase III is completed.
Tips for Passengers
While work for this project continues, the Department of Aviation encourages passengers to arrange for a ride to be dropped off and picked up for their flights to and from ACV. This will help reduce traffic at the airport and demand on the limited temporary paid parking lots during construction. Ride services available include:
Lane closures in the vicinity of the ACV Terminal and associated construction traffic may cause congestion at times. Passengers should allow for extra time to get to and from the ACV Terminal. It is recommended to arrive one and half hours prior to departure for domestic flights and two hours before departure for international flight itineraries.
The Department of Aviation appreciates everyone driving safely and slowly at ACV while these improvements are made.
For more information on the California Redwood Coast-Humboldt County Airport, please visit FlyACV.com.
Boating! Pickleball! Skating? It’s all coming to one place today, when Arcata’s Carlson Park opens.
Located off of Valley West, the 19-acre Carlson Park was deeded to Arcata by CalTrans in 2017. Progress was briefly halted by the COVID pandemic, as well as the difficulties in securing $2.4 million in grants to build it. Formerly a gravel quarry, it now boasts new pickleball courts, riverside trails, and a playground. Later additions will include skating features and electric vehicle charging stations.
Most tantalizing is the access to the Mad River — the only public access within city limits. Non-motorized boating infrastructure was built, as well as a trail system that links to the river.
“Really, we saw the opportunities for this to be the only parcel in our city limits to touch the Mad River, to provide public access to the Mad River,” Emily Sinkhorn, the Environmental Services Director for Arcata, told the Outpost yesterday. “We also saw it as an opportunity for further expanding recreation amenities within the Valley West neighborhood…We saw the unique potential for Carlson Park, of being right in the neighborhood, with a unique riparian habitat next to the Mad River.”
The ribbon-cutting ceremony will be held today at 5:30 p.m.
Bigger kids can walk down this path to launch their actual kayak!
Inmates being released from California state prisons by law are supposed to receive a $200 allowance for basic necessities. A new lawsuit alleges prisons have withheld some of the money from former prisoners for years. Photo by Semantha Norris, CalMatters
John Vaesau was counting on the $200 he was entitled to by law upon leaving Folsom State Prison in June 2023, after 33 years. He was surprised when he received none of it.
“They just threw me out like a piece of garbage,” Vaesau said. “Like after all that time, it was nothing to them.”
Now, Vaesau and another formerly incarcerated person are suing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, alleging the state agency has illegally docked fees from the so-called “gate money” that former prisoners receive to help them cover basic necessities in their initial days of freedom.
The class action lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court estimates the corrections department has shortchanged over a million people since 1994. According to its regulations, the agency deducts money from release allowances if someone does not have dress-out clothes or arrangements for transportation.
Some, such as Vaesau, didn’t receive any money and they weren’t told why.
“I want to fight against this kind of system,” Vaesau, 49, said. “I’m hoping everybody can get what they got coming and for future people to not go through the same ordeal that I’ve gone through.”
Every year, more than 30,000 people are released from California state prisons. In recent years, the corrections department has spent about $5 million a year in gate money allowances, according to records obtained by CalMatters.
The department declined to answer questions about the funding for this story.
The lawsuit centers on a policy former Gov. Ronald Reagan signed into law 51 years ago. It states that, with some exceptions, “each prisoner upon his release shall be paid the sum of $200.”
Despite inflation, that amount has never been adjusted. In 2022, former Sen. Sydney Kamlager-Dove carried a bill to raise the gate money amount to $1,300, adjusted annually by inflation. Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed the measure, citing its potential cost. Legislative analyses from the time estimated it would cost at least $35 million to increase the allowances.
“The gate money statute has remained essentially unchanged for half a century,” Chesa Boudin and Yaman Salahi, attorneys for the plaintiffs, wrote in court filings. “Yet rather than provide each eligible person with the $200 to which they are entitled, CDCR routinely withholds some or all of the funds based on eligibility criteria of its own making, criteria that violate the plain language of the law.”
The lawsuit, led by UC Berkeley’s Criminal Law & Justice Center and Edelson PC, seeks retroactive payments for people who were denied their gate money and an end to the department’s withholding of allowances.
The lawsuit describes the release funds as a “critical lifeline” and “small but vital aid.” According to a 2008 report by the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, the first 72 hours after someone is released from prison are paramount to the success of their long-term reentry.
“Reagan understood that the first days after release are critical to public safety so that people aren’t sleeping on the street and potentially exposing themselves to victimization, that people aren’t put in a desperate situation that might lead some to commit a crime in order to eat or to get clothes or to have a safe place to sleep,” Boudin, the former San Francisco district attorney, said in an interview with CalMatters. “When people don’t have those things, public safety suffers.”
It’s not the first time that the agency’s gate money regulations have come under fire. In 2008, the 4th District Court of Appeal held that the agency had unlawfully withheld gate money to a formerly incarcerated person under its regulations.
According to the court ruling, the regulations were “not authorized by or consistent with the terms” of the law.
But according to the new lawsuit, the 2008 ruling had little effect on others.
California lawmakers this year acknowledged that the corrections department has been making deductions from gate money allowances and approved a spending bill that would provide an additional $1.8 million for clothing and transportation.
The measure is sitting in Newsom’s desk as a part of a larger government funding bill.
Sen. Josh Becker, the Democrat from Menlo Park, who submitted their request, said he was upset when he heard about the deductions.
“This is about righting a wrong – making it clear that deductions are not to be taken out,” Becker said in an interview with CalMatters. “We feel good that with this additional money, people will get what they’re supposed to get.”
A group of advocates for formerly incarcerated people brought the funding request to Becker’s attention earlier this year. They wrote in a March 8 letter to lawmakers, “This practice has created economic harm and disadvantages among newly released individuals, leaving returning citizens significantly more vulnerable and highly susceptible to homelessness and recidivism due to unmet needs.”
The advocacy groups Root & Rebound, Initiate Justice, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, All of Us or None and the Michelson Center for Public Policy surveyed over 70 incarcerated people returning home. They found that the corrections department deducted gate money from approximately one in three of them.
“The people who got gate money deducted were still struggling years later,” said Claudia Gonzalez, policy associate at Root & Rebound, a legal services organization in Oakland. “We have a history in California of being extremely punitive towards impoverished communities, especially indigent folks. Yet, we expect them to be successful, when in reality we’re setting them up for failure.”
###
Cayla Mihalovich is a California Local News fellow.
CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.
Philip
Michael Nicklas April 30, 1946 - Aug. 30, 2024
Philip
Nicklas was born in San Francisco, California on April 30, 1946. When
he was one year old his parents (Joan and Henry Nicklas) moved to
Eureka, where he lived the rest of his life.
He
graduated from Eureka High School in 1964. He attended Humboldt State
University and graduated in 1968. He then went to Hastings Law
School. He was obliged to take a few years off to join Uncle Sam
during the Vietnam War and when he returned, he graduated with his
law degree in 1974. He worked as a personal injury lawyer in Eureka
for more than 25 years.
Phil
met his wife, Sharyn Nicklas, in 1976 when he picked her up
hitchhiking in his Porsche and then again when they serendipitously
ran into each other at the bicentennial 4th of July celebration in
Old Town, Eureka. They married in 1978, on his birthday and had four
beautiful daughters, Gwendolyn Rose Kuntz (married to Matt), Rachael
Elaine Bird (married to Jeff), Alexandra Joan Nicklas and Crystal
Brooke Tracy (married to Trevor). Phil often quipped that “I
always wanted four girls!” They have been collecting
grandchildren ever since and are now up to six. Phil was able to meet
his newest grandson (born April 2024) Laurence, who shares his middle
name “Michael,” just a couple weeks before he passed.
Phil
enjoyed backpacking with his family and friends in his favorite
places, the Trinity Alps and the Lost Coast. He even took on the
challenging John Muir Trail and hiked to the top of Mount Whitney.
When he wasn’t backpacking, you could find him playing golf with his
buddies, watching British mystery shows with his wife and spending
every Friday in his brother John’s backyard where they welcomed their
buddies to a smoke and some musical accompaniment in the redwoods - a
tradition they called “Reggae Jam-down”. They continued the
tradition even as Phil’s health declined over the last few years and
up until his final weeks, he had many family and friend visitors that
joined each week. Philip passed away on August 30, 2024, at his home
with his wife after family and loved ones visited him to say goodbye.
At
the time of his death Phil and Shari had been married for 46 years.
Phil
was preceded in death by his parents Henry and Joan, in-laws George
and Elaine and his brothers Dale and Paul. He is survived by his
wife, Shari and their daughters and their families: Gwen, Matt,
Damian, Kylee (Kuntz), Rachael, Jeff, Augustus, True, Sky (Bird), Ali
(Nicklas), Crystal, Trevor and Laurence (Tracy). He is also survived
by his brother John and children, Thea, Hillary, Signe and Alida and
their families, sister-in-law, Cindy and her children, Phillip, John
and David and their families, sister, Margot and her children Erica
and David and their families and his brother, Dale’s children, Gordon
and Bernice and their families.
I
would like to thank the VA of Eureka, Hospice of Humboldt and the
Agape caregivers for all their help with Phil in these last few
years. I couldn’t have done it without you.
There
will be a memorial held in his honor at his brother John’s home on
September 27. If you are a family friend and would like to attend,
please reach out to Shari or another member of the family for
details.
###
The obituary above was submitted on behalf of Phil Nicklas’s loved ones. The Lost Coast Outpost runs obituaries of Humboldt County residents at no charge. See guidelines here.
The FBI identified Kristen Oliver Cunningham and Stacey Lynne Urhammer on closed-circuit video at several locations within the U.S. Capitol building and grounds on January 6, 2021. | All images via federal court filing.
###
Two Humboldt County residents were charged in federal court last week for participating in the Jan. 6, 2021, invasion of the U.S. Capitol.
The FBI identified Kristen “Kris” Oliver Cunningham, 53, and his partner, Stacey Lynne Urhammer (aka Stacey Loeser), 54, on surveillance footage at multiple locations within the U.S. Capitol building and grounds, according to a federal indictment filed a week ago. The charges were first reported by Bay Area Fox affiliate KTVU.
In September 2021, eight and a half months after the Capitol attack, the FBI received information that Cunningham and Urhammer had participated in the riots. Almost a year after that, the FBI interviewed an unidentified “tipster” who knows the pair.
This tipster provided the FBI with copies of Instagram direct messages in which Urhammer says it was her idea to attend the Jan. 6 events and Cunningham joined to protect her, according to a statement from FBI Special Agent Chelsea Gutierrez.
The tipster identified Cunningham and Urhammer from the photo at the top of this post and the one below:
The FBI then reviewed security camera footage along with photos and videos from people in the crowd and found images of Cunningham and Urhammer at various location in and around the Capitol building. The two entered the Capitol at approximately 2:18 p.m. through the Senate Wing Door, according to the FBI.
The image below, taken at about 2:28 p.m., shows Cunningham and Urhammer pushed against the wall next to the Memorial Door arch after a police line pushed the crowd back into the area, according to the court filing.
About half an hour later, after police had pushed rioters out of the Memorial Door area, Cunningham and Urhammer were caught on camera walking down the hallway near the House Wing Door. See below.
Just seconds later, an image appears to show officers pointing for them to leave the Capitol:
All told, the pair was inside the Capitol building for about 40 minutes, according to investigators.
Arrest warrants were issued last Wednesday. Cunningham and Urhammer appeared at the federal courthouse in McKinleyville last week and are currently free on bond, according to KTVU. They’ve been charged with:
Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds (
Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds
Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building
Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building
The maximum penalties for each of those first two charges include imprisonment for up to a year, probation for up to five years and a fine of up to $100,000. The second two charges each have maximum penalties of six months in prison, five years of probation and $5,000 fines.
A call to a number listed online for Cunningham went unanswered. We also called a number listed for Urhammer and were either disconnected or hung up on in the middle of leaving a voicemail. When we called back we were instructed by a male voice not to call there again.
