###

Monday afternoon’s mail delivery to Booklegger in Old Town Eureka contained a small, mysterious package. The contents were bubble-wrapped, and the handwritten return address was illegible. 

“[S]o we had no idea if it was promotional material about a book or who knows what,” owner Jennifer McFadden recalled in a social media post published later that afternoon. 

Katy Longshore, one of the used bookstore’s employees, was working at the time and said McFadden almost decided to head home without opening the parcel.

“But I said, “No, you have to open it!’” Longshore said when we stopped by the shop earlier today. “So she opened it up, and and it was this typed letter from someone who had had been in [to the store] in the 1980s.”

The letter reads as follows:

Booklegger,

I am returning this Edward Gorey first edition to you because I stole it from the store sometime in the early 1980’s. I was a student at HSU with a horrible drug and alcohol problem. I was in desperate need of money, but even more desperately needed a spiritual awakening in my life. I was eventually blessed with just such a psychic change. I proceeded to clean up my past and make something meaningful out of my life. Somehow this little book escaped my notice for 20 years until I came across it cleaning out my garage last week. I was so happy to find that the store was still in business so I could return the book and tell you how sorry I am for my utter lack of principles. I do believe it has increased in value while waiting to be rediscovered in its cardboard box. I hope that you and the store are thriving up there on the beautiful Humboldt Bay. I was the chef at the Waterfront Oyster Bar for a while and miss it.

[Signature and phone number]

Please text me if there is anything further I might do to right this wrong.

The note of apology was accompanied by a $100 bill. McFadden, in her social media post, said the contents of the package were “so unexpected and touching [that] the three of us who were working ended up with tears in our eyes.”

Reached by phone this afternoon, she reiterated how much the package meant.

“I just thought it was exceptional that after such a long time, this person still had the impulse to try to make up for a mistake he made and regretted,” she said. “It would be so much easier to just feel bad about it but not act on those feelings.”

Such a gesture takes courage, she added. 

“I suspect it made him feel much better. It certainly made us feel emotional.”

The returned book was a first-edition copy of “The Unstrung Harp,” a 1953 book by Edward Gorey, whose darkly humorous pen-and-ink drawings depicting characters in Victorian and Edwardian settings have earned him a loyal fanbase, particularly among goths. 

“Gorey has so many fans; his stuff is all over the place these days,” McFadden said. In fact, Booklegger carries a variety of items adorned with the late artist’s illustrations, including tote bags, pins and children’s books. 

After doing some research on the value of this returned copy of “Unstrung Harp,” staff priced it at $125. But McFadden said the note and the gesture were far more valuable. She plans to text the man to tell him how much it meant and to say she hopes he feels unburdened. 

McFadden (who, I should note for the sake of disclosure, is a friend of mine) regularly posts amusing, touching and even profound vignettes of customer interactions at the store, so if you’re not yet following Booklegger on Facebook, you should certainly get on that. 

Last night’s meeting. Fast-forward to about 2:28:00 for the garbage rate item.

After a supercharged round of recrimination and interpersonal sniping, the Eureka City Council last night approved a rate increase for garbage services, on a vote of 3-2.

With Councilmember Kati Moulton absent, the vote over the rate hikes was originally split, with councilmembers Leslie Castellano and Scott Bauer voting in favor, and councilmembers G. Mario Fernandez and Renee Contreras-DeLoach opposed. Mayor Kim Bergel cast the tiebreaking vote in favor.

The 8.5 percent hike – which will add roughly three and a half dollars per month to the average residential trash bill – was prompted by rising costs according to a staff report presented to councilmembers.

Eureka residents should see the increased fees on their bill from Recology, the hauler that holds the local franchise for waste removal services.

Why the increase, and why now?

The city holds a long-term agreement with Recology that runs through 2030. Every year, the company is allowed to ask for rate adjustments that reflect the actual cost of providing its services. Those services have become more expensive in several ways over the last year, according to a presentation from Robin Prasker, the city’s environmental project manager.

The insurance policies that Recology takes out on its vehicles have gone way up. Gas prices, of course, have risen – a factor that weighs on our area particularly, given the high cost of gasoline and the fact that we have to truck our solid waste all the way to Medford. There are the normal cost of living increases.

But then there are also some unusual factors, including the plummeting market for recyclables and the fact that more people have been redeeming their own bottles and cans in order to collect the California Redemption Value. In the past, Prasker said, people would just leave those in their home recycling containers, and so the waste collection system would redeem those deposits. Partly because of that, the cost of recycling has increased.

Fernandez.

At the staff’s presentation, Fernandez took the opportunity to lament the fact that garbage fees have gone up several years in a row. He noted that fee hike would also be imposed on commercial garbage customers, and he wondered what would happen if they simply declined to raise the rates.

City Manager Miles Slattery said that legal action would be among the options open to Recology.

“I’d rather not be too explicit, on the public record,” added City Attorney Bob Black, “but they would have remedies, and I think if they did prevail any delay in the implementation of rates … I think the danger to the city is that we could end up being liable to make up for the fees that consumers were not charged and therefore did not pay.”

Contreras-DeLoach wondered if the council could instead use the nine percent franchise fee it receives from Recology to ameliorate the rate increase.

“If the council chooses to take general fund monies, which is what the franchise fee is, to lower these costs, it can do that,” Slattery said.

Castellano made a motion to approve the rate hikes, noting that no one was excited about the fact but that prevailing economic conditions had made it necessary to continue the service. Bauer seconded the motion.

Contreras-DeLoach.

Before the vote was taken, though, both Fernandez and Contreras-DeLoach made their opposition plain, with Fernandez lamenting the “nickel-and-diming” of the population.

“It might be viewed as a blustery vote tonight from me, but at what point do we say ‘It’s gotten to the point where it’s too damn much,’” Ferndandez asked.

Contreras-DeLoach acknowledged that becoming embroiled in legal action with Recology would just involve passing on the costs to taxpayers, but that it is “deeply frustrating” to be unable to push back.

“It just seems like all anybody ever does is just wring their hands and say, ‘What can we do? We can’t do anything,’” she said. “And we just keep raising the rates across the board on everything.”

Castellano, in her own words, “prickled” at the statement.

Castellano.

“I think that’s a gross exaggeration of what we’re doing up here, and I personally find that offensive,” she said. “I don’t take it lightly that you’re using this issue to talk about the idea that all we’re doing is raising rates for people. That’s not true.

“Yes, costs are going up. Look at the global situation. Look at the national situation. Look at systemic failures. But don’t talk about, like, we’re sitting on council ‘wringing our hands.’”

Contreras-DeLoach apologized for offending Castellano, and assured her that she did not intend her comments personally.

The 2-2 vote was taken, and when Bergel was called upon to break the tie she also had a few thoughts to add.

First, she verified with staff that there are built-in billing rates that can keep costs down for seniors. Then she, too, had some statements to direct at her colleagues.

Bergel.

“We do what we have to do to support our city and our citizens, and we’ve been doing it a long time,” she said. “And the fact that in our society gas prices have gone up, milk prices have gone up, movie tickets have gone up, coffee has gone up. Everything’s gone up. Everything is going up.

“We don’t have control over how much gas costs, or how far we have to drive. That’s a great opportunity to look at in the future. Let’s look at finding new ways to move our trash so we don’t have to pay all those gas prices. There are other ways to look at this.

“But to say that council wrings our hands – that is really offensive and annoying.”

Press release from the Eureka Police Department:

Over the past several days, personnel from the Eureka Police Department Patrol Division developed information regarding the whereabouts of Jonathan Marcks, who was wanted in connection with an attempted homicide in Arcata.

Working in collaboration with the Humboldt County Drug Task Force and the Eureka Police Department Criminal Investigations Unit (CIU), investigators confirmed Marcks was staying at a motel in the 2100 block of Broadway.

On August 4, 2026, at approximately 6:47 p.m., Eureka Police Department Patrol officers and a CIU detective conducted a coordinated enforcement operation resulting in the successful apprehension of Marcks without incident.

Marcks was booked into the Humboldt County Correctional Facility on the Ramey Warrant for attempted murder and an additional felony warrant.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

###

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, opposes the billionaire tax on voters’ ballots this November. So does Xavier Becerra, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate widely favored to succeed him.

That didn’t stop the state Democratic Party from narrowly endorsing it.

Proposition 40 would generate an estimated $100 billion by levying a one-time 5% tax on the state’s more than 200 billionaires. The bulk of the proceeds would go toward backfilling federal cuts to the state’s expansive low-income health program, Medi-Cal.

The idea has sparked controversy ever since a healthcare workers’ union proposed it late last year, prompting tech billionaires like Google co-founder Sergey Brin to move his business holdings out-of-state and pump millions of dollars into political committees to kill it.

After a contentious endorsement vote among the California Democratic Party’s top statewide activists and officials over the weekend, it’s shaping up to be the latest intra-Democratic fight exposing deep party divisions over November’s ballot.

“This is not a kumbaya measure,” said Nancy Tung, chair of the San Francisco Democratic Party, who voted against the endorsement on Sunday. “There are very serious disagreements among Democrats and Democratic institutions that are opposed to each other over the measure.”

The party’s endorsement validated the measure’s proponents, who can use the signal of support to campaign. They argue the revenue is critical to backfill federal cuts to Medicaid and food assistance that Republicans approved in President Donald Trump’s budget bill last year. Those cuts helped fund an extension of the 2017 Trump tax cuts that predominantly benefit the wealthiest Americans.

After Sunday’s vote, Dave Regan, president of SEIU United Healthcare Workers West, released a statement saying the “endorsement puts to rest the idea that California Democrats are not united by the billionaire tax — they are.”

But undecided liberal voters may be confused to see the party pitted against some of its highest-profile leaders. In addition to Newsom and Becerra, doctors’ and primary care providers’ associations oppose the billionaire tax, along with a variety of Democratic-aligned political powerhouses like Planned Parenthood. Several labor unions are opposed. The powerful, 750,000-member SEIU California last week chose not to take a position.

Dave Regan speaks to the SEIU-UHW Leadership Assembly in 2013. Photo by Steve Yeater courtesy of SEIU-UHW

Opponents worry the tax would drive the wealthy out of the state, depriving California of both income tax revenue and spending. California’s progressive income tax system means its revenues are particularly dependent on the fortunes of the wealthy. Some interest groups are opposed, too, because the measure primarily dedicates its revenues toward a single state program: healthcare. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates it could reduce long-term state revenue.

“It’s not stable, it’s only temporary,” California Teachers Association president David Goldberg said in an interview last month. “It intentionally goes around public education funding, it cuts it out of receiving resources.”

The No campaign downplayed the party’s endorsement, pointing to the party’s 2024 opposition to Prop. 36, a crime measure which nonetheless passed overwhelmingly, and its support for Prop. 32, a minimum wage hike which failed.

Newsom, Becerra, CTA, California Professional Firefighters, Planned Parenthood and others are against Prop. 40 “because it’s bad for our budget, bad for our economy, and bad for our future,” the campaign said in a statement.

A nationwide populist uprising

Still, their biggest challenge is a voter base that wants to tax the rich.

“It’s a popular idea within the party,” said Chris Hannan, president of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, who spoke against Prop. 40 before a party committee over the weekend. “There’s a lot of passion along with the populist message.”

A nationwide movement to more aggressively tax wealth is gaining steam among progressive Democrats as inequality worsens. The top 1% of Americans held 22% of the nation’s household wealth in 1989; now they hold nearly a third. The bottom half’s share has declined from 3.5% to 2.5%. Prop. 40 is being watched closely by tax-the-rich activists around the country and has support from Rep. Ro Khanna and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders.

The nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found in May that 54% of Californians and more than 76% of Democrats surveyed supported the billionaire tax, which at that time had not officially qualified for the ballot.

For his part, Newsom, who is expected to launch a presidential campaign after he leaves office this year, is balancing that momentum with his opposition to Prop. 40 by proposing a series of federal tax reforms he calls a “national billionaire’s tax.”

They include reversing the 2017 tax cuts, a minimum tax rate on anyone making more than $100 million and closing loopholes that allow the wealthy to borrow from unrealized capital gains without paying income tax. He’s pairing his stances with talk of capturing and redistributing wealth generated by artificial intelligence, an issue with wide appeal among job-insecure Americans.

The No on 40 campaign, too, points to an alternative — Proposition 3, which would make permanent the existing top income tax rates on the state’s highest earners. Crucially for groups like CTA, Prop. 3 revenue would flow into the state’s general fund, about 40% of which is set aside for education, but would allow the rest to go toward other needs.

A desire among some leaders to meet populist demands drove the contentious, dramatic push for the party endorsement.

At first, the vote to endorse failed after supporters barely missed the 60% threshold needed for an endorsement from the over 200 state Democratic Party officials gathered. Opponents pushed for a formal “no consensus” position — a move that Democratic National Committee member David Atkins argued was “categorically weak” and would alienate voters “who already believe that we are in the pockets of corporations and billionaires.”

“It feels kind of weird to just sit out as a party and say, ‘We don’t really have an opinion on a billionaire tax in this moment,’” said Jane Natoli, a member of the party resolutions committee.

After several tense seconds of murmuring, two people changed their votes, setting up the final tally that made the endorsement official.

“It was cinematic,” Atkins said. “It was sort of a movie moment.”

Supporters said though nearly all Democrats there agreed wealthy Californians should pay more in taxes to fund social services, a majority didn’t buy opponents’ arguments that they should approach the issue more slowly and deliberately.

“Prop 40 is not perfect. I don’t think anyone will tell you it is,” Natoli said. “Maybe it doesn’t work, but at the same time, it just doesn’t really feel like a moment where we can be sitting on our hands and saying, ‘Eh, let’s go back and work at it another two years.’”

###

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

###

The Trump administration appears poised to gut the central policies that shape Head Start, a popular and long-established early childhood education program that serves the country’s neediest children, including thousands in California.

The federal Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs posted a notice that it intends to “significantly reduce regulatory requirements” for Head Start, effectively stripping the program of the unique features that have defined it since its creation in the mid 1960s.

The announcement came in late May and will likely go through a review process before becoming official in 2027.

The agency doesn’t specify what exactly it plans to cut, but reports indicate that it could be most of the program’s standards and guidelines. That may include low student-to-teacher ratios, minimum teacher qualifications, and stipulations that Head Start accept all income-eligible children regardless of whether they’re disabled or if their parents are citizens.

The agency also suggested it wants to shift Head Start funding to the states, although it didn’t specify how or when this would happen.

“The complete gutting of these goals ignores what we know really works in early childhood education,” said Deborah Stipek, a former dean of the Stanford School of Education who’s researched the topic. “If you’re going to spend money on something, wouldn’t you want it to have positive effects?”

The agency said in its announcement it expects the cuts to be “well-received by Head Start programs, since they will welcome reduced (administrative) burden and increased flexibility.”

It also said it would allow local Head Start programs to keep policies that “best address the needs of their communities.” But individual Head Start programs are unlikely to comply with standards that aren’t required, particularly if they’re facing pressure to serve more students, said Melanee Cottrill, executive director of Head Start California, a nonprofit that advocates for California’s 1,813 Head Start centers.

In the same announcement, the agency said it also planned to boost the nutrition and physical exercise components of Head Start, but didn’t offer further details.

‘It will be very different’

So far, Head Start has evaded major budget cuts, and the federal government doesn’t appear poised to slash funding now. A handful of California Head Start programs shuttered during the government shutdown last fall, but reopened when legislators returned to work.

But a reduction in standards would, eventually, have a significant impact, Cottrill said. It’s likely Head Start will have less qualified teachers, larger class sizes and fewer opportunities for parent involvement, she said.

“Those standards are what make Head Start a high quality program,” Cottrill said. “Head Start will still exist, but it will be very different from what it is today.”

Head Start, launched in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, is a federal childcare program that serves the country’s lowest-income families – those earning less than $33,000 a year for a family of four. The federal government issues grants directly to school districts, nonprofits or other organizations that run Head Start programs, sometimes in combination with other funding sources.

Head Start offers health screenings, meals, curriculum focused on literacy and math, and resources for parents such as parenting classes. Children who attend Head Start are more likely to go to college and hold professional jobs later in life, a 2022 study found.

In California, about 70,000 children are enrolled in Head Start. The number would be higher but programs have had to turn away families because they struggled to hire staff. Early childhood educators sometimes earn less than fast food workers and turnover is high, Cottrill noted.

Cost of losing disability screening

One Head Start standard that could be especially costly to eliminate is disability screening. Identifying and addressing disabilities such as dyslexia early can reduce the need for special education later on, potentially saving thousands of dollars, Stipek said.

Beth Meloy, an early childhood education consultant who worked on the federal government’s Head Start standards, said that simplifying and streamlining the standards is probably a good idea. Navigating too many standards may be overly burdensome for some local Head Start programs, she said.

But gutting them entirely would be a disaster, she said.

“Head Start is built around a mission of giving low-income children a path to sustained education and life outcomes,” Meloy said. “These changes lack the thoughtfulness that these children deserve.”

On July 22, 2026, Marilyn Irene Nelson of Hoopa passed away to the other side. Born on October 6, 1939 in Eureka, Marilyn was a Hoopa tribal member from the villages of Ta’k’imił-ding and Me’dil-ding. She was also of Yurok descent, from the village of Er-ler-gr and also from the Bluff Creek area.

Apart from a brief stint in Oakland during the Second World War, when her parents worked in the shipyards, as well as seasons spent with her grandparents in Blue Lake, Marilyn grew up in Hoopa, a place she would always return to. In the intervening years she lived in a variety of places, such as; Pomona, California; Eagle Point, Oregon; Poplar, Wisconsin; Duluth, Minnesota; and Yuma and Mesa, Arizona. She traveled extensively throughout the United States, Mexico, and Canada raising her children. In 1976 while working as a nursing assistant in Duluth, she made the acquaintance of Anna Larsen, a survivor of the RMS Titanic disaster and was her private caretaker until her death the following year.

In 1980, she graduated from YUHS District School of Practical Nursing and began working in that capacity full time. She worked at Phoenix Indian Medical Center in Phoenix and at Sunset Convalescent Home in Eureka, among other places. In 1992, she finally relocated to her beloved Hoopa Valley and began working at K’ima:w Medical Center where she would stay for over 20 years until her retirement. In her final eight years she was cared for at home by her daughter, Janice Jones, and her partner, Harold Myers.

Marilyn was the daughter of Byron Nelson Sr. and Mildred Thomsen, as well as the granddaughter of George William Nelson, Ada Strothers, Chris Thomsen, and Irene Beaver. She was preceded in death by them as well as her brothers Byron Nelson Jr. and Ronald Nelson.

She is survived by her brother Gary Nelson; her children Ronie Dodge, Randy Dodge, Rick Dodge (Jodell), Darin Marshall Sr., Janice Jones (Harold), and Kimberly Dodge; her grandchildren Hillery Dodge, Ricky Dodge, Ricquell Dodge, Darin Marshall Jr., Ryan Jones, Jalen Jones, Jane’a Leonardi, and Savannah Hardiman; and her great grandchildren Jessalyn Martinez, Lillian Martinez, Kylee Leonardi, Kinley Leonardi, Paul Leonardi, Gianni Leonardi, and Brandon Cox.

A graveside service will be held on August 14 at the Hoopa Tribal Cemetery; immediately afterward a Celebration of Life will be held at the Hoopa Trading Post.

Books, music, dogs and family. These are all things Marilyn loved. For those who knew her, she will always be remembered for her sharp sense of humor, aptitude for fun spontaneity, and unparalleled adoration for her family. Her spirit has gone to join those of her mothers and fathers before her; the world is all the better for her having been in it.

Please contact Louisa-Weezie Jones at 530-784-7553 if you would like to contribute food or flowers for the celebration.

###

The obituary above was submitted on behalf of Marilyn Nelson’s loved ones. The Lost Coast Outpost runs obituaries of Humboldt County residents at no charge. See guidelines here. Email news@lostcoastoutpost.com.

Less than three weeks after launching her reelection campaign, Arcata City Councilmember and former Mayor Meredith Matthews today abandoned that bid via a surprise announcement on her official Facebook page.

In the post, which you can read in full below, Matthews describes the move as “one of the most difficult decisions I have ever made” and offers her endorsement of Arcata City Council candidates Abigail Strickland and Genevieve Serna. 

“Serving Arcata has been one of the greatest honors of my life, and I will always be grateful for the trust this community placed in me,” she says in the announcement.

Matthews was appointed to the Arcata City Council in July of 2021 to fill the vacancy left by former councilmember Sofia Pereira, who had accepted a position as Humboldt County’s director of public health. Matthews was elected by voters in November 2022. Formerly the executive director of the Arcata Chamber of Commerce, she became the executive director of the Humboldt Lodging Alliance last year.

In recent weeks, Matthews has been the target of anonymous social media campaigns criticizing her support for Israel and her criticisms of local pro-Palestinian activists. Dozens of emails obtained from her official city council account have been reproduced online with highlighted passages in which she addresses the hot-button topic.

For example, in an October 2023 email to faculty and staff of Cal Poly Humboldt’s Department of Social Work, she accused the university of promoting anti-semitism and “supporting the genocide of the Jewish people” through its alleged backing of a pro-Palestinian rally on campus.

Matthews, who describes herself in one email as “the only Jewish elected official in Humboldt County,” also expressed a commitment to “fostering a community that embodies inclusivity, respect and peace” in an email from November 2024, while she was serving as mayor.

The published emails reveal that Matthews wrestled both internally and with various stakeholders over the council’s drafting and eventual passage of a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. 

In an email from November 14, 2023, whose recipient was redacted by the City of Arcata, Matthews addressed the proposed resolution, saying, “I realize that I represent all of the constituents of Arcata, not just the loudest. I know my decision will have an impact, and that decision has the potential to harm members of my community.”

The anonymous social media accounts that have been reproducing these emails online today declared victory with a repost of Matthews’ announcement.

The Outpost emailed Matthews a series of questions this morning. We wanted to know whether this online campaign influenced her decision not to seek reelection and why she chose to endorse two challengers for the council and not incumbent Kimberly White.

In her initial response, Matthews said her statement from this morning summed up everything she wants to say right now. We wrote back to point out that she her statement offered no explanation for her decision to bow out of a campaign that’s less than three weeks old.

She replied a few minutes later:

Perhaps I should have not announced my reelection campaign three weeks ago. At the time, I thought it was the right thing to do, I am excited about the projects the city is working on, such as our strategic economic development plan, reconnecting Arcata, and more, and I felt like I wanted to see it through. 

However, I have always said that if a new generation of leaders stepped forward I would step aside, and I did not know that Abby [Strickland] and Genevieve [Serna] were going to run when I announced. I should have waited. I don’t know who will run in 2028, but I know Alex [Stillman] won’t. and if Sarah [Schaefer] and Stacy [Atkins-Salazar] don’t either, this is the time for new leadership to prepare for more turnover.

Schaefer and Atkins-Salazar aren’t up for reelection until 2028.

In response to our question about whether the anonymous social media campaigns were responsible for her change of heart, Matthews wrote, “No, my decision was not related to that, but it will be nice to be a private citizen again.”

Read her full announcement below:

Good morning,  friends.

After much reflection, I have decided not to seek reelection to the Arcata City Council.

When I first ran for City Council, I did so because I believed I could make a positive difference in the community that has given so much to me and my family. Serving Arcata has been one of the greatest honors of my life, and I will always be grateful for the trust this community placed in me.

Throughout my time in office, I have often said that public service is about more than holding a seat—it’s about helping prepare the next generation of leaders. I’ve always believed that when thoughtful, capable people are ready to step forward, we should encourage them, support them, and trust them with the opportunity to serve.

Today, I believe that time has come.

I couldn’t be more excited that Abigail Strickland and Genevieve Serna have chosen to run for the Arcata City Council. They are intelligent, compassionate, and deeply committed to our community. Each brings fresh ideas, unique experiences, and a genuine desire to serve. There is no one I would rather pass the torch to than Abigail and Genevieve, and I am proud to give them my wholehearted endorsement.

Over the past five years, including my year as Mayor, I have had the privilege of working alongside dedicated colleagues, City staff, local businesses, nonprofits, and residents to help shape Arcata’s future. Together, we have expanded housing opportunities, strengthened our local economy, invested in infrastructure, and worked to protect the character and natural beauty that make Arcata such a special place.

Public service has taught me that leadership isn’t about having all the answers. It’s about listening, building relationships, and bringing people together to solve difficult problems. It has taught me humility, resilience, and the importance of always remembering that we serve our community best when we lead with respect and compassion.

Public service is both incredibly rewarding and deeply personal. Like many who choose to serve, I have experienced moments of tremendous joy as well as significant challenges. Those experiences have only strengthened my belief that our community is at its best when we are willing to listen to one another, even when we disagree. I hope that spirit will continue to guide Arcata for many years to come.

This has been one of the most difficult decisions I have ever made. At the same time, I know it is the right one. I leave this role with a full heart, knowing that I gave this community everything I had to give and with confidence that the future of Arcata is bright.

Although my service on the City Council is coming to an end, my commitment to Arcata is not. This community will always be my home, and I look forward to continuing to support it through my work, volunteerism, and whatever opportunities the future may bring.

To everyone who placed their trust in me, thank you. To the incredible City staff, thank you for your professionalism and dedication. To my fellow Councilmembers, thank you for your friendship, your integrity, and the countless hours we spent working through difficult decisions together. It has truly been a privilege to serve alongside you.

Thank you, Arcata, for giving me the opportunity to serve.

With gratitude,

[Meredith Matthews]