5.31.2007

County keeps safety on DA rifle request
John Driscoll and Chris Durant
05/31/2007 The Times-Standard

Humboldt County's chief administrative officer won't approve the purchase of assault rifles requested by the district attorney's office at least until a dusty use of force policy and training protocols are updated.

Loretta Nickolaus said she was satisfied that those policies are being updated after meeting Wednesday with District Attorney Paul Gallegos, his Chief Investigator Mike Hislop, Assistant District Attorney Wes Keat, Assistant County Counsel Wendy Chaitin and Risk Manager Kim Kerr.

Nickolaus said, for now, she won't allow the district attorney's office to buy the eight AR-15 rifles Gallegos is seeking, citing concerns that the county could be held liable if there was an incident involving the guns before the protocols were modernized.

”It's on hold,” Nickolaus said. “Let's see what they come up with.”

Hislop said the meeting was positive and he provided a training syllabus and a draft of the district attorney's office updated use of force policy.

”I answered all their questions,” Hislop said.

After the meeting Wednesday, Hislop delivered a copy of the district attorney's use of force policy to the Times-Standard. The paper had asked Gallegos for the policy through a California Public Records Act request on May 18, after Gallegos said the document was not public and refused to turn over a copy.

Gallegos said in an e-mail that he forwarded the request to Hislop, who was on vacation last week.

Hislop said he receive the paper's request on his Blackberry on the way back from Baja California. Hislop said he had already finished working on the policy before the Times-Standard requested it, and has since given it to county counsel for analysis.

”This is still under review,” Hislop said.

The policy Hislop provided is more limited in scope than those of the county Sheriff's Department and the Eureka Police Department, which are nearly identical to each other. It appears to be more specifically geared toward using firearms for defensive purposes, and does not address more police-related activities of less-than-deadly force or pain compliance techniques that might be used during arrests.

The district attorney's training protocol previously called for district attorney investigators to qualify with their firearms once a year, Hislop said, while he plans to increase that training to four times per year -- a provision now contained in the use of force policy.

District attorney investigators have not discharged a firearm in the course of duty for at least four years, Nickolaus said, if not longer.

She said she's convinced that the DA investigators -- several of which recently came from police or sheriff's departments -- want the assault rifles for defensive purposes.

”They feel like they're not safe unless they have those rifles,” she said.

But while the policy is being revised, Nickolaus said she wouldn't approve their purchase, and voiced concern that the county, or even her as the purchasing agent, could be held liable if they were approved before the use of force policy was updated.

5.27.2007

TS - Enough secrecy in the DA's office

Enough secrecy in the DA's office
The Times-Standard Editorial Article Launched: 05/25/2007 04:29:32 AM PDT

The chief prosecutor of Humboldt County has us scratching our heads with his waffling over making his office's “use of force” policy available to the public.

The issue arose when District Attorney Paul Gallegos and his new investigator, former Eureka police Sgt. Mike Hislop, proposed to beef up their firepower with the purchase of eight AR-15 semiautomatic rifles. This triggered questions from Loretta Nicklaus, Humboldt County's administrative officer, who wondered whether the DA had the need, training and policies in place for such an arsenal -- a use of force policy, in particular.

While working on a story about the new weapons, two Times-Standard reporters sought a copy of the DA's policy. Gallegos initially said he would get them a copy, then changed his mind and wouldn't even let them view the document. The Times-Standard then made a formal request a week ago under the state Public Records Act. Gallegos has 10 days to release the use of force policy, or to explain his legal reasons for withholding it.

Since then, Gallegos has offered these comments about the issue, via e-mail:

* “I never said that the information was not available under the Freedom of Information Act. Quite the contrary, I informed you that our use of force policy is not a public record.” To throw around some legal Latin, that's a non sequitur. A FOIA request is the federal equivalent of the California Public Records Act, and is a tool used to pry PUBLIC records out of reluctant PUBLIC officials.

* “I have some reluctance to make use of force policies public information . . . especially when there is no claim that anyone (in the DA's office) has unlawfully used force.”

That has no bearing on whether a policy is public or not. But perhaps Gallegos and his team are being overly sensitive to community polarization about four shooting deaths involving Eureka police officers, going back to Cheri Lyn Moore more than a year ago. DA investigations and findings on three of those deaths are pending, including Moore's.

* “I also informed you that, if you heard from others that (our use of force policy is a public record), to let me know and I would consider others' determinations.”

The Eureka Police Department and the county sheriff's department say their use of force policies are open to the public, as does the DA in San Diego County. So do two open-records experts we checked with -- attorneys who said the law is clear: The public not only has a right to view use of force policies, but to receive copies.

Also, the California Peace Officers' Association says such policies are important in creating public confidence in law enforcement. To do that, of course, the public must know what the policy is.

We have to wonder: Why all this bobbing and weaving, especially by somebody who should know the law? If the DA's office has a use of force policy, let's see it. If it does not, then it should 'fess up and create one (the California Peace Officers' Association has a sample you can adapt). Then put it online, so everyone can see it. That should free up time to produce the long-overdue report on Moore's death.


Related stories:
DA under fire over assault rifles
Humboldt County Board of Supervisors AGENDA March 6, 2007 Consent Calendar Item c-5
New questions arise after Gallegos' answers about rifles
Concerns raised over DA investigator weapons

Other Blogs discuss:
DA's office requests hand grenades...
Eric - Gallegos wants guns
Fred - DA's Office Follows Vroman's Lead

Read BOTH Salzman's nearly identical My Words

Crocodile tears for hire on housing crisis
My Word by Richard Salzman
Article Launched: 05/27/2007 04:26:22 AM PDT

How often is the Times-Standard going to subject its readers to the repeated rants of Sacramento's professional spin doctor, Kay Backer? Her suggestion (”Housing crisis needs to be addressed,” May 16) that the city and county is somehow at a fault for defending itself whenever her billionaire boss decides to file a lawsuit is as absurd as the suggestion that the developers and land speculators she works for would actually want real estate prices to do go down (never mind that local housing prices are linked to prices statewide, so that no increase in local inventory will lower prices).

Since she insists on repeating her worn-out arguments, please let me remind your readers that Kay Backer is hired by local developers to badger county government and bamboozle the public. She feigns concern for our families by shedding crocodile tears about so-called affordable housing here in Humboldt County.

It's ridiculous that she is even treated as a legitimate voice in our local affairs just because Rob Arkley and HELP summon her to town for a meeting or to send off an e-mail full of accusations and threats to the media. She represents nothing other than a handful of developers.

It's absurd that those who pay her (they call themselves HELP but really should be called HELP Yourself) are implying that the reason they want to build more houses is because they want to see home values drop. When has any developer ever wanted to see any housing prices drop? Do you want to see the value of your home decline?

In the Sacramento area, where Ms. Backer lives, homes are being built at an astounding rate. Strangely enough, housing prices there are still shooting up and now routinely cost over half a million dollars. Is that what Ms. Backer's backers have in mind as affordable housing?

Now Arkley is using his money -- and another front group called Humboldt Sunshine -- to sue the county because our planning officials won't buy into HELP's fabricated projections of housing needs. Isn't that called blackmail?


I have no objection to developers making money off constructing houses. But it's an outrage to be told that the reason they want permission to build more -- and forever change the essentially rural character of Humboldt County-- has anything to do with stopping people from moving out of town, lowering home prices or anything other than their search for higher profits.

Where will Kay Backer's concern for our community be the day after her paychecks stop coming in? Will she still be shouting HELP or just go on to her next lucrative public relations campaign?


Richard Salzman lives in Sunny Brae, where he represents commercial artists, works as a freelance political consultant and gives of his time as a general rabbl -rouser. He can be reached at www.richardsalzman.com.


Opinions expressed in My Word pieces do not necessarily reflect the editorial viewpoint of the Times-Standard.


HELP is of no help to Humboldt
My Word by Richard Salzman
Article Launched: 04/13/2006 04:27:25 AM PDT

In response to Kay Backer's My Word of March 22, “Getting Humboldt leaders to lead”: Kay Backer is a paid professional spin doctor from Sacramento. Hired by local developers, she is paid to badger county government and bamboozle the public. She feigns concern for our families by shedding crocodile tears about so-called affordable housing here in Humboldt County.

It's ridiculous that Kay Backer is even treated as a legitimate voice in our local affairs just because Rob Arkley and HELP summon her to town for a meeting, or to send off an e-mail full of accusations and threats to the media. She represents nothing other than a handful of developers. Are there even five people who will admit to being a member of HELP?

It's absurd that those who pay her (they call themselves HELP but really should be called HELP-Yourself) are implying that the reason they want to build more houses is because they want to see home values drop. When has any developer ever wanted to see any housing prices drop? Do you want to see the value of your home decline?

In the Sacramento area, where Ms. Backer lives, homes are being built at an astounding rate. Strangely enough, housing prices there are still shooting up and now routinely cost about half a million dollars. Is that what Ms. Backer's backers have in mind as “affordable” housing?

Now Rob Arkley is threatening to use his money to sue the county unless planning officials buy into HELP's fabricated projections of housing needs. Isn't that called blackmail?


I have no objection to developers making money off constructing houses. But it's an outrage to be told that the reason they want permission to build more -- and forever change the essentially rural character of Humboldt County -- has anything to do with stopping people from moving out of town, lowering home prices or anything other than their search for higher profits.

Where will Kay Backer's concern for our community be the day after her paychecks stop coming in? Will she still be shouting HELP or just go on to her next lucrative public relations campaign?

Richard Salzman, who represents commercial illustrators, has also been involved in local politics and quality-of-life issues. He lives in Trinidad.

The opinions expressed in My Word pieces do not necessarily reflect the editorial viewpoint of the Times-Standard.

Discussion at:
watchpaul - Hysterical! (with links)
Fred's Humboldt Blog - Shut her up?
Eric's SoHum Parlance - Time for a Salzman come back?

And, there was a response to Salzman's My Word:
Shining a light on the need for housing, jobs
Author: My Word By Jim Furtado
Publication: Times-Standard (Eureka, CA) Date: April 29, 2006
I take offense to Richard Salzman's My Word of April 13, “HELP is of no help to Humboldt.”

I am a member of HELP and a developer who started back when one could start a home-building business with not much capital and building lots were readily available.

My first experiences with construction were extremely fulfilling because it was possible to provide a nice new home to local people with a typical Humboldt County job. Mr. Salzman... It is available on The Times-Standard archives

5.24.2007

May 5, 2006 Public Records Act Request granted

Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 11:03:38 -0700
To: "Gallegos, Paul"
"Modell, Linda"
From: [Rose Welsh]
Subject: Fwd: RE: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
Cc: "County Administrator Office"
"Falor, Tammy"
"Hendry, Richard" ,
"Keat, Wesley"
Glenn Franco Simmons

May 5, 2006

To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501

Mr. Gallegos:

According to the Government Code cited below, you cannot refuse to give me the information on all of the grants received by your office. That information has nothing to do with pending litigation, as grant information if prepared for the grantors, not for pending litigation. The pending litigation provision under section 6254(b) has no applicability to the domestic violence and statutory rape information. 

You are already in violation of the public records act requirements, as this information should have been delivered to me by April 28th 2006.

Failure to deliver the complete information requested by Monday, May 8th, 2006 at 10:00 am will result in litigation.

Under the "pending litigation" exemption from the disclosure of public records, a document is protected from disclosure only if it was specifically prepared for use in litigation. City of Hemet v Superior Court (1995, 4th Dist) 37 Cal App 4th 1411, 44 Cal Rptr 2d 532.

"Pending litigation," which focuses on the purpose of the document, serves to protect documents created by a public entity for its own use in anticipation of litigation. Fairley v Superior Court (1998, 2nd Dist) 66 Cal App 4th 1414, 78 Cal Rptr 2d 648.

A document is protected from disclosure under the pending litigation exemption only if the document was specifically prepared for use in litigation County of Los Angeles v Superior Court (2000, 2nd Dist) 82 Cal App 4th 819, 98 Cal Rptr 2d 564.

Rosemarie Welsh
cc:
"County Administrator Office"
"Falor, Tammy"
"Hendry, Richard"
"Keat, Wesley"
Glenn Franco Simmons

***
Subject: RE: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:51:39 -0700
From: "Modell, Linda"
To: "Rose Welsh"
Cc: "County Administrator Office"
"Falor, Tammy"
"Hendry, Richard"
"Gallegos, Paul"
"Keat, Wesley"

Ms. Welsh - The documents you have requested are available for you to pick up at the District Attorney's Office. There is a total of 1,454 pages @.25/pg totalling $363.50. Please make your check payable to the Humboldt County District Attorney - General Fund.

The records do not contain documents from the Spousal Abuse Prosection Program or the Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution Program. These documents are the subject of pending litigation and per advice of County Counsel and Government Code section 6254(b) we are not able to disclose at this time. We will be happy to provide them once the lawsuit has resolved. Please let us know if you wish them to be provided at that time.

Two programs that the District Attorney is not the grantee of, and therefore we do not have complete information on, can be requested from the agencies that administer them. They are the Marijuana Suppression Program administered by the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office and the NC3TF administered by the Marin County District Attorney's Office.


-----Original Message-----
From: peoplearefunny [mailto:peoplearefunny@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:35 AM
To: District Attorney
Cc: County Administrator Office; Falor, Tammy
Subject: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS

April 3, 2006


To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501



PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST - TIME SENSITIVE

Please provide me with the following records in your possession:

REGARDING GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE D.A.'s OFFICE:

Please provide the following records in your possession:

Copies of all records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, including but not limited to:


1.) The records regarding all grants in the areas of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and the breakdown of how those funds were ALLOCATED AND SPENT including but not limited to:

a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each grant for each of the named years

b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent

c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants

d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee

e.) the TOTAL BREAKDOWN of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity that received the funds



2.) The records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office in the areas of CHILD ABUSE for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and the BREAKDOWN of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:

a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each individual grant for each of the named years,

b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent

c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants

d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee




A. This is a request made under the California Public Records Act. [Government Code 6250-6277].

B. By law you have 10 calendar days in which to respond to this request. [Government Code 6253(c)].

C. The Public Records Act mandates that public records be open to inspection and that every person has a right to inspect any public record unless the record is specifically exempt from disclosure. Unless exempt, upon a request for a copy of records that "reasonably describes an identifiable record or records" you are required to make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering costs of duplication. [Government Code 6253].

D. In the event that there is any uncertainty as to the identity of any record sought, you are affirmatively required to assist the requesting party in better defining the request so that the records can be located and made available. [Government Code 6253.1].

E. You are required to justify in writing the withholding of any record. [Government Code 6253]. The burden of establishing an exemption is on the public agency. [Vallejos v. California Highway Patrol, 89 CA3d 781, 787 (1979)].

F. The Public Records Act does not limit access to a public record based upon the purpose for which the record is being requested, if the record is otherwise subject to disclosure. [Government Code 6257.5].

G. Agencies are not permitted to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. The notification of denial of any request for records shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial. [Government Code 6253(d)].
H. If a reasonably segregable portion of a record is exempt by law from production, that portion shall be deleted and the balance of the record shall be provided for inspection. [Government Code 6253(a)].

I. The legislative policy behind the Public Records Act favors disclosure. [Berkeley Police Assn. v. City of Berkeley, 76 CA3d 931, 941 (1977)].

J. Any authorized fees will be paid to you on delivery, pursuant to an itemized invoice.

Rosemarie Welsh
CC:
Loretta Nickolaus, CAO
Tamara Falor, County Counsel

May 4, 2006 Public Records Act Response/Refusal

From: "Modell, Linda"
To: Rose Welsh
Cc: "County Administrator Office"
"Falor, Tammy"
"Hendry, Richard"
"Gallegos, Paul"
"Keat, Wesley"

Ms. Welsh - The documents you have requested are available for you to pick up at the District Attorney's Office. There is a total of 1,454 pages @.25/pg totalling $363.50. Please make your check payable to the Humboldt County District Attorney - General Fund.

The records do not contain documents from the Spousal Abuse Prosection Program or the Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution Program. These documents are the subject of pending litigation and per advice of County Counsel and Government Code section 6254(b) we are not able to disclose at this time. We will be happy to provide them once the lawsuit has resolved. Please let us know if you wish them to be provided at that time.

Two programs that the District Attorney is not the grantee of, and therefore we do not have complete information on, can be requested from the agencies that administer them. They are the Marijuana Suppression Program administered by the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office and the NC3TF administered by the Marin County District Attorney's Office.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Rose Welsh
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:35 AM
To: District Attorney
Cc: County Administrator Office; Falor, Tammy
Subject: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS

April 3, 2006

To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501

PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST - TIME SENSITIVE

Please provide me with the following records in your possession:

REGARDING GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE D.A.'s OFFICE:

Please provide the following records in your possession:

Copies of all records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, including but not limited to:

1.) The records regarding all grants in the areas of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and the breakdown of how those funds were ALLOCATED AND SPENT including but not limited to:

a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each grant for each of the named years

b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent

c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants

d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee

e.) the TOTAL BREAKDOWN of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity that received the funds

2.) The records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office in the areas of CHILD ABUSE for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and the BREAKDOWN of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:

a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each individual grant for each of the named years,

b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent

c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants

d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee


A. This is a request made under the California Public Records Act. [Government Code 6250-6277].

B. By law you have 10 calendar days in which to respond to this request. [Government Code 6253(c)].

C. The Public Records Act mandates that public records be open to inspection and that every person has a right to inspect any public record unless the record is specifically exempt from disclosure. Unless exempt, upon a request for a copy of records that "reasonably describes an identifiable record or records" you are required to make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering costs of duplication. [Government Code 6253].

D. In the event that there is any uncertainty as to the identity of any record sought, you are affirmatively required to assist the requesting party in better defining the request so that the records can be located and made available. [Government Code 6253.1].

E. You are required to justify in writing the withholding of any record. [Government Code 6253]. The burden of establishing an exemption is on the public agency. [Vallejos v. California Highway Patrol, 89 CA3d 781, 787 (1979)].

F. The Public Records Act does not limit access to a public record based upon the purpose for which the record is being requested, if the record is otherwise subject to disclosure. [Government Code 6257.5].

G. Agencies are not permitted to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. The notification of denial of any request for records shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial. [Government Code 6253(d)].
H. If a reasonably segregable portion of a record is exempt by law from production, that portion shall be deleted and the balance of the record shall be provided for inspection. [Government Code 6253(a)].

I. The legislative policy behind the Public Records Act favors disclosure. [Berkeley Police Assn. v. City of Berkeley, 76 CA3d 931, 941 (1977)].

J. Any authorized fees will be paid to you on delivery, pursuant to an itemized invoice.

Rosemarie Welsh
CC:
Loretta Nickolaus, CAO
Tamara Falor, County Counsel

April 14, 2006 Public Records Act response

From: "Modell, Linda"

Cc: "Hendry, Richard"
"County Administrator Office"
"Gallegos, Paul"
"Falor, Tammy"

Due to the volume of records in your request and shortage of staff necessary to comply, we are invoking our right to an additional 14 days in which to respond to your request.

-----Original Message-----
From: District Attorney
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:32 AM
To: Modell, Linda
Subject: FW: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS


-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:35 AM
To: District Attorney
Cc: County Administrator Office; Falor, Tammy
Subject: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS

April 3, 2006

To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501

PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST - TIME SENSITIVE

Please provide me with the following records in your possession:

REGARDING GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE D.A.'s OFFICE:

Please provide the following records in your possession:

Copies of all records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, including but not limited to:

1.) The records regarding all grants in the areas of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and the breakdown of how those funds were ALLOCATED AND SPENT including but not limited to:

a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each grant for each of the named years

b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent

c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants

d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee

e.) the TOTAL BREAKDOWN of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity that received the funds

2.) The records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office in the areas of CHILD ABUSE for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and the BREAKDOWN of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:

a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each individual grant for each of the named years,

b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent

c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants

d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee


A. This is a request made under the California Public Records Act. [Government Code 6250-6277].

B. By law you have 10 calendar days in which to respond to this request. [Government Code 6253(c)].

C. The Public Records Act mandates that public records be open to inspection and that every person has a right to inspect any public record unless the record is specifically exempt from disclosure. Unless exempt, upon a request for a copy of records that "reasonably describes an identifiable record or records" you are required to make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering costs of duplication. [Government Code 6253].

D. In the event that there is any uncertainty as to the identity of any record sought, you are affirmatively required to assist the requesting party in better defining the request so that the records can be located and made available. [Government Code 6253.1].

E. You are required to justify in writing the withholding of any record. [Government Code 6253]. The burden of establishing an exemption is on the public agency. [Vallejos v. California Highway Patrol, 89 CA3d 781, 787 (1979)].

F. The Public Records Act does not limit access to a public record based upon the purpose for which the record is being requested, if the record is otherwise subject to disclosure. [Government Code 6257.5].

G. Agencies are not permitted to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. The notification of denial of any request for records shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial. [Government Code 6253(d)].
H. If a reasonably segregable portion of a record is exempt by law from production, that portion shall be deleted and the balance of the record shall be provided for inspection. [Government Code 6253(a)].

I. The legislative policy behind the Public Records Act favors disclosure. [Berkeley Police Assn. v. City of Berkeley, 76 CA3d 931, 941 (1977)].

J. Any authorized fees will be paid to you on delivery, pursuant to an itemized invoice.

Rosemarie Welsh
CC:
Loretta Nickolaus, CAO
Tamara Falor, County Counsel

April 3, 2006 Public Records Act Request re: Grants

April 3, 2006

To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501

PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST - TIME SENSITIVE

Please provide me with the following records in your possession:

REGARDING GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE D.A.'s OFFICE:

Please provide the following records in your possession:

Copies of all records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, including but not limited to:


1.) The records regarding all grants in the areas of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and the breakdown of how those funds were ALLOCATED AND SPENT including but not limited to:

a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each grant for each of the named years

b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent

c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants

d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee

e.) the TOTAL BREAKDOWN of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity that received the funds

2.) The records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office in the areas of CHILD ABUSE for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and the BREAKDOWN of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:

a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each individual grant for each of the named years,

b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent

c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants

d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee


A. This is a request made under the California Public Records Act. [Government Code 6250-6277].

B. By law you have 10 calendar days in which to respond to this request. [Government Code 6253(c)].

C. The Public Records Act mandates that public records be open to inspection and that every person has a right to inspect any public record unless the record is specifically exempt from disclosure. Unless exempt, upon a request for a copy of records that "reasonably describes an identifiable record or records" you are required to make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering costs of duplication. [Government Code 6253].

D. In the event that there is any uncertainty as to the identity of any record sought, you are affirmatively required to assist the requesting party in better defining the request so that the records can be located and made available. [Government Code 6253.1].

E. You are required to justify in writing the withholding of any record. [Government Code 6253]. The burden of establishing an exemption is on the public agency. [Vallejos v. California Highway Patrol, 89 CA3d 781, 787 (1979)].

F. The Public Records Act does not limit access to a public record based upon the purpose for which the record is being requested, if the record is otherwise subject to disclosure. [Government Code 6257.5].

G. Agencies are not permitted to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. The notification of denial of any request for records shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial. [Government Code 6253(d)].
H. If a reasonably segregable portion of a record is exempt by law from production, that portion shall be deleted and the balance of the record shall be provided for inspection. [Government Code 6253(a)].

I. The legislative policy behind the Public Records Act favors disclosure. [Berkeley Police Assn. v. City of Berkeley, 76 CA3d 931, 941 (1977)].

J. Any authorized fees will be paid to you on delivery, pursuant to an itemized invoice.

Rosemarie Welsh
CC:
Loretta Nickolaus, CAO
Tamara Falor, County Counsel

On PRA Req re: Domestic Violence Grant (5/o6)

DA's slow response on information request criticized by Dikeman volunteer
by Glenn Franco Simmons, 5/9/2006

A Worth Dikeman campaign volunteer said a dispute she had over the release of District Attorney’s Office records has been resolved, but not before she felt the DA’s Office and county counsel used delay tactics in the release of that public information.

District Attorney Paul Gallegos told The Eureka Reporter that all information requested by Welsh was submitted by his office to the County Counsel’s Office, which houses the county’s legal team. Gallegos said that office was the decision-maker as to whether the requested information could be released to the public.

“We (the DA’s Office) had no concern about releasing (the information),” Gallegos said. “When we got the request, we talked to county counsel, like we would do for anybody. County counsel gave us some advice.”

When asked if this was the usual process for responding to such a request, Gallegos said, “Absolutely.”

Welsh doesn’t buy Gallegos’ answer. In fact, she said it was The Eureka Reporter’s e-mails to county officials requesting information about her request that prompted the release of all the information.
Gallegos said that Welsh is incorrect.

Welsh has requested information relating to government grants the DA’s Office has received. Welsh said she is attempting to determine what is grant-funded in the department and what isn’t, so she can determine whether Gallegos is properly disbursing the grants’ resources.

Gallegos said he is confident that he has done a good job with disbursing the grants and allocating resources mandated by the grants.

“With grants, if there are issues associated with them, I need to make sure that I’ve done my job,” he said.

At the same time, he realizes that it’s election time and that any decision he has made will be analyzed in what is becoming a heated political campaign, such as the one he currently is involved in.

According to information presented by Welsh to The Eureka Reporter, she requested records of grants in the categories of domestic violence “and the breakdown of how those funds were allocated and spent including, but not limited to:

+ “The total amount received for each grant for each of the named years.

+ “The conditions upon which each grant was approved to be spent.

+ “The names of each of the District Attorney’s Office employees who were paid using money from these grants; in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full, by these grants.

+ “The amount actually spent on each employee.

+ “The total breakdown of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity who received the funds.”

Welsh also requested all child abuse grant records received by the DA’s Office for the period of 2002-2005. Again, she also requested “the breakdown of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:

+ “The total amount received for each individual grant for each of the named years.

+ “The conditions upon which each grant was approved to be spent.

+ “The names of each of the District Attorney’s Office employees who were paid using money from these grants; in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full, by these grants.

+ “The amount actually spent by each employee.”

Welsh, who made her request a formal one by invoking a California Public Records Act (www.thefirstamendment.org/publicrecordsact.pdf) request of the DA’s Office, said the county initially balked at complying fully with her request. The reason? The DA’s Office said pending litigation was the reason for the non-release of some of the documents requested by Rose, so those records were going to initially be withheld from Welsh.

DA’s Office employee Linda Modell wrote to Welsh, saying the 1,454 pages requested by Welsh would cost $363.50.“The records do not contain documents from the Spousal Abuse Prosecution Program or the Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution Program,” Modell said. “These documents are the subject of pending litigation and per advice of County Counsel and Government Code Section 6254(b), we are not able to disclose at this time.”

Welsh also asked for information about how the grants have been spent on personnel — benefits and salary.

She also requested information about former Assistant District Attorney Tim Stoen.
Per those requests, the county sent her the following from Personnel Director Rick Haeg in an e-mail:

“I have asked our county payroll department to review your request for records. They have advised me that no totals for all benefits are readily available. The information would have to be researched and compiled per benefit item. Because the Public Records Act … does not require that a responding agency create a record to meet the specifications of the request when no such record presently exists, we are unable to comply with your request.”

Welsh fired back an e-mail that stated she was also seeking the amount the county paid to employ the controversial Stoen: “… Unless you (Haeg) are telling me that all benefits associated with his position were included in his salary, the cost of benefits is in addition to his salary. Benefits will normally follow some formula — and I find it incomprehensible that the county does not have this information readily available for all employees.

“In order to speak accurately about the cost of his employment, I need accurate and complete information. That is the reason I filed this Public Records Act request in the first place.”

Welsh was prepared to sue the DA’s Office for not complying with the state’s Public Records Act, which allows for certain government information to be turned over to the public and/or media when such information is requested.

The county’s response to The Eureka Reporter came in the form of an e-mail from Deputy County Counsel Richard Hendry, who stated that Welsh ”requested information on all grants received by the District Attorney’s Office for the years 2002 through 2005. That information was made available to her, except for a grant involving the Spousal Abuse Prosecution Program, which was initially thought to be exempt under the ‘pending litigation’ exception.

“Upon further review by this office,” Hendry said, “it was determined that the material could indeed be released. Ms. Welsh has been notified that all the requested information is being disclosed. …”

Welsh picked up the material on Tuesday.

Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.

5.22.2007

RS - Trial underway in '03 Bridgeville killing

Trial underway in '03 Bridgeville killing
Karen Wilkinson/The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 05/22/2007 04:26:33 AM PDT

EUREKA -- As a family watched a new “Simpsons” episode along with a friend in 2003, Thomas Arthur Applegate entered their Bridgeville home and shot two of them, killing one, District Attorney Paul Gallegos told a jury Monday.

During opening statements, Gallegos said there's evidence that Applegate, 45, used methamphetamine before traveling from Ukiah to Bridgeville, where he allegedly shot and killed Joey Patrick Church, 36, and wounded Church's friend, Ross Condemi.

Applegate has pleaded not guilty to one count of homicide, one count of attempted murder, one count of assault with a firearm and four special allegations -- three for personally discharging a firearm and another for personally inflicting great bodily injury.

Applegate's attorney, public defender Kevin Robinson, didn't make an opening statement.
The victim's daughter, Brandi, became visibly upset as she took the stand and described the day.

The 11-year-old girl, who was 7 at the time, said she returned home from a friend's house on May 4, 2003, and spoke with her father in their living room shortly before he was shot twice in the abdomen.

She testified about how she climbed out the front window of the house after her father was shot.

Gallegos said Applegate entered Church's home and asked if it was for sale. When he was told the whole town was for sale, he left, only to return later in the day, enter the house, ask the same question and open fire.

Applegate was arrested the next day after he beat and tried to kidnap a woman in a San Luis Obispo restaurant parking lot. He entered guilty pleas to the Southern California charges and was returned to Humboldt County in the summer of 2004.

When Applegate's home was searched May 8, 2003, Gallegos said bullets were found that matched those used on both victims. Also, five shells were found beneath a sofa the man slept on the night of the killing, Gallegos said.

Applegate was identified in a lineup by witnesses in Bridgeville. Robinson could not be reached for comment by deadline.

Related/Updated:
Insanity phase of trial begins
Jurors find Applegate guilty
First-degree murder off table
Jury deadlocked in murder trial
ER - Jury begins deliberating in Bridgeville murder trial today 6/6/2007
ER - Bridgeville murder trial enters third week of testimony
ER - Murder trial continues with evidence technician's testimony
ER - Witness testifies about Bridgeville murder
ER - Sheriff's detective takes stand in murder trial
ER - Father of man accused of murder given immunity
ER - Testimony in murder trial reveals meth use, witness of handgun
ER - Acquaintances of man on trial for murder testify
ER - Surviving shooting victim takes stand in second day of murder trial
ER - Children of slain man take the stand in his murder trial
TS - Trial underway in '03 Bridgeville killing
ER - Jury selected for Applegate trial
TS - Jury selection under way in trial of suspect in 2003 homicide
ER - 2003 murder case goes to trial

ER - Children of slain man take the stand in his murder trial

Children of slain man take the stand in his murder trial
by Kara Machado, 5/21/2007

The girlfriend and two children of a murder victim testified Monday, the first day of Thomas Arthur Applegate’s trial.

Applegate, 44, has been charged with the May 4, 2003, murder of Joey Patrick Church, 34, with a special allegation that he did so with a firearm; the May 4, 2003, attempted murder of Ross Condemi, 48, with a special allegation that he discharged a firearm during the commission of the crime; the May 4, 2003, assault of Condemi with a firearm with a special allegation that he used a .44-caliber pistol and another special allegation of great bodily injury.

Humboldt County Public Defender Kevin Robinson said Applegate has entered two pleas: First, Applegate pleaded not guilty to the charges against him, as well as entered denials to all special allegations; and second, he pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

In Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos’ opening statement to jurors, he painted a time frame from the days leading up to the killings to the day Church was killed and Condemi was injured.

On Thursday, May 1, 2003, Gallegos said, Applegate told his employer he would be going to Mexico for four days. The following day, he stayed with his father in Paso Robles.

On Saturday, May 3, 2003, Applegate drove one hour south to the San Luis Obispo airport, where he parked his black Jeep and rented a gold Kia.

He then returned home to get a .44-caliber handgun that he would eventually bring up to Humboldt County, Gallegos said, and told his girlfriend he would be going to Mexico for four days.

Applegate soon ended up in Ukiah, where he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. The next morning, he called some friends and asked them to go with him to Bridgeville to look for property.

Prior to going home to have Applegate meet them there, one of Applegate’s friends saw the .44-caliber handgun on a nightstand.

At the friends’ house, Applegate allegedly participated in the ingestion of methamphetamine, Gallegos said, before the group left for Bridgeville.

At about 4:58 p.m. on Sunday, May 4, 2003, the gold Kia arrived in Bridgeville for the first time, Gallegos said.

Then, at 6:22 p.m., Applegate allegedly arrived at Church’s house, where he asked Church’s girlfriend, Carrie Erickson, if the house was for sale. Erickson told him no.

At 6:29 p.m., Applegate left the Bridgeville area, Gallegos said. His friends wanted to go home, but Applegate asked them to call their son to pick them up at a gas station.

“(Applegate) told them when he got back from Bridgeville (again), he would drive by the gas station to see if they were still there,” Gallegos said, “(and, if so,) he would pick them up.”

At 8:06 p.m. the gold Kia went back to the Church household, where two of Church’s three children — then-7-year-old Brandi and then-10-year-old Alexander — Erickson and Condemi were watching “The Simpsons” on television.

“Either he opened the door, the door was open or he forced it open, (but) he is (somehow) in the (doorway’s) threshold and asked if the house was for sale (or the town),” Gallegos said. “Church said no; Applegate said, ‘Kids, go to the room’; he pulled out the .44-caliber (handgun and began shooting).”

Gallegos said Church was first shot in the left shoulder. The bullet went through his chest and lodged under his armpit.


Condemi, Gallegos said, pulled his legs up to his body and was shot in the leg, “shattering the bone.”

As Church attempted to run, Applegate allegedly shot him in the hip. The bullet from that shot went into his leg. Church then collapsed and died, Gallegos said.

During Brandi’s testimony, she said just prior to the shooting, she had come home from a friend’s house and was telling the household about her day.

“‘The Simpsons’ just came on and about 10 minutes later (the shooter) came in,” Brandi said.

When asked where everyone was sitting prior to the shooting, Brandi said she didn’t know and broke into tears.

She later said she remembered someone knocked on the door and he was let in.

Brandi, Alexander and Erickson all testified they identified Applegate as the shooter in a past photo lineup, but he looked different in court Monday.

Erickson — who sobbed during most of her testimony — said she only knew Applegate as the person who “shot my baby’s father” and Condemi.

She said when Applegate asked if the house was for sale again, during the second visit to Church’s home, Church said the town was for sale, not just the house.

Applegate, Erickson testified, was wearing a black and white checkered button-up flannel, pants and a T-shirt.

The gun he allegedly drew on the household came from his left side, Erickson testified.

During the shooting, Erickson said she and the children ran into her and Church’s bedroom. When they thought the shooter left, they climbed out a window and ran to a neighbor’s house.

Both Brandi and Erickson testified they saw the first time Church was shot.

Alexander said on the way out the bedroom window, he grabbed his father’s .22-caliber rifle “as protection.”

Erickson said she left the children at the neighbor’s house and came back to the house to check on Church.

“Joey was in the house on the floor laying next to the bathroom and he wasn’t breathing.”

Erickson is scheduled to resume her testimony today at 9 a.m. in Humboldt County Superior Court Judge John T. Feeney’s courtroom.

Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.

Related/Updated:
Insanity phase of trial begins
Jurors find Applegate guilty
First-degree murder off table
Jury deadlocked in murder trial
ER - Jury begins deliberating in Bridgeville murder trial today 6/6/2007
ER - Bridgeville murder trial enters third week of testimony
ER - Murder trial continues with evidence technician's testimony
ER - Witness testifies about Bridgeville murder
ER - Sheriff's detective takes stand in murder trial
ER - Father of man accused of murder given immunity
ER - Testimony in murder trial reveals meth use, witness of handgun
ER - Acquaintances of man on trial for murder testify
ER - Surviving shooting victim takes stand in second day of murder trial
ER - Children of slain man take the stand in his murder trial
TS - Trial underway in '03 Bridgeville killing
ER - Jury selected for Applegate trial
TS - Jury selection under way in trial of suspect in 2003 homicide
ER - 2003 murder case goes to trial

ER - Retrial for man accused in Orick woman's death moved back a month

Retrial for man accused in Orick woman's death moved back a month
by Kara Machado, 5/22/2007

Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Timothy Cissna decided Monday to move Joseph Pierre Rollin’s trial from June 8 to July 9.

The request to push the trial over one month was brought before Cissna by Rollin’s attorney, Humboldt County Deputy Public Defender Mike Eannarino.

Eannarino said he needed more time to prepare for trial by acquiring the services of expert witnesses.

As of Monday, Eannarino said he was closing in on possibly two expert witnesses.

Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos did not object to the continuance. However, he commented in court that the defense was “sparse on details” about why it needed its expert witnesses or “what the purpose (would be for) its expert witnesses.”

After Cissna vacated Rollin’s previous court dates and set new ones, he recommended Eannarino get his expert witnesses posthaste so there wouldn’t be a need for another continuance.

Monday’s decision was made a week after Eannarino initially brought up the request for a continuance. Rather than make a decision then, Cissna opted to hold off on a ruling on the continuance until Monday in order to give Eannarino more time to come up with a time frame.

Rollin’s case is being retried after being overturned on appeal — he was previously convicted in connection with the 2002 death of Orick resident Joi Henderson Wright.

According to past reports, Rollin’s conviction was overturned in December due to Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos using Rollin’s non-Mirandized denial of responsibility as evidence against him.

During his court appearance Monday, Rollin sat in the back section of the courtroom’s jury box, his left wrist cuffed to another inmate.

Rollin, who typically wears wire-rimmed glasses with dark lenses during court proceedings, is a tall, lanky man with curly, bushy salt-and-pepper hair.

Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.

ER - Sentencing continued in statutory rape trial

Sentencing continued in statutory rape trial
by Kara Machado, 5/21/2007

Nate Robin Garza’s sentencing was continued Monday in order for his attorney to properly communicate Garza’s probation report to him.

Garza’s attorney, Humboldt County Chief Conflict Counsel Glenn Brown, initially told Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Timothy Cissna on Monday that he was requesting a one-week continuance for a couple of reasons.

One of the reasons, Brown said, is that the defense “received the probation report and I did go over (to the jail) to discuss it with Mr. Garza.”

“He had received a copy, but could not read it,” Brown said.

For more than an hour one day, Brown said he slowly read a portion of the report but could not finish it.

Due to Brown’s other new cases, he said, he has not had time to go back and finish reading the report to Garza so Garza could fully understand it.

Also, Brown said he has received several letters written in support of Garza.

Due to a conflict with Humboldt County Deputy District Attorney Jeffrey Schwartz’s schedule, Cissna ultimately continued Garza’s sentencing until June 4.

Garza was arrested Feb. 19, almost one year after being arrested in connection with the March 2006 Whitethorn kidnapping/rape case.

His recent case stems from “consensual” sexual relations with a then-16-year-old girl — referred to as “Jane Doe” — between Dec. 20, 2006, and Jan. 5, Schwartz said.

Initially, Schwartz said, Garza was charged with — and pleaded not guilty to — nine counts of felony sodomy with a person under 18, eight counts of felony unlawful sexual intercourse and two counts of oral copulation with a person under 18.

At the end of April, Garza, 22, accepted a plea agreement on new crimes that ultimately violated probation he received from the Whitethorn case.

Schwartz said Garza pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sex with a minor — “which is commonly known as statutory rape” — one count of unlawful oral sex with a minor and also admitted his probation violation.

When sentenced, Schwartz said, Garza faces a maximum prison sentence of “four years, four months” or a “minimum penalty of probation.”

At Monday’s proceedings, Kenneth Campbell, an uncle of Doe’s, spoke before the court, as he was not able to return to speak at the continued sentencing date. He asked Doe to leave the courtroom prior to speaking.

An emotional Campbell said Doe was “very open” about what occurred between her and Garza and described Garza as “a danger to society, particularly to females.”

“Mr. Garza would humiliate (Doe) to lower her self-esteem to satisfy his perverted sexual desires,” Campbell said. “Even after (she) said she didn’t like anal sex (he continued).

“He would pull on her hair while sodomizing her, relishing in her pain.”

Campbell — who said Garza has not taken responsibility for his actions, blaming the sexual occurrences on Doe’s wanting — said the most recent exam conducted on Doe last week showed bleeding in her rectum.

Campbell pleaded for the court to “protect society” by sending Garza to prison and to have him additionally register as a sex offender.

Cissna thanked Campbell for his statements and told Brown and Schwartz to give him written points and authorities by Friday with regard to why or why not Garza should register as a sex offender and what, if any, restitution should be given to those other than the victim.

A third issue, with regard to rejecting the plea, was dropped from the points and authorities request because — although probation recommended rejecting the plea, Cissna said in court — Schwartz said he spoke with the victim’s family last week and they are “behind the deal” and “just want to move on with their lives.”


“The mother and victim are satisfied with the plea,” Schwartz said. “The probation department didn’t have the most recent information at the time the report was written as to the recent feeling of the victim and her mother.”


Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.

5.21.2007

Lawyers, Guns and Money

transcript of Thursday night's Humboldt review
Kevin Hoover guest hosting for Hank Sims

KH - On Wednesday, the Eureka Reporter newspaper featured a front page banner headline that read "DA under fire over assault rifles." The story by Heather Muller detailed a budget request by Humboldt County District Attorney office for more than $30,000 for some fairly heavy duty weaponry and related equipment. Included in the arsenal that Paul Gallegos would like to acquire, according to the Eureka reporter, are eight AR-15 assault rifles costing $1,920 each, ten 500 round boxes of .223 caliber hollow point bullets $198.50 per box, eight sets of body armor at $550 each, plus vests, parkas, pants, polo shirts, DA investigator patches and tailoring costs all adding up to $33.060.37.

Well, on the line now we have Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos.

KH - Paul, welcome once again to Humboldt Review.
PG - Hey
KH - Hey Paul
PG - Hey
KH - First I'd like to ask you, was the Eureka Reporter story accurate with regards to the material you'd like to acquire?
PG - Ummm ___________yes?
KH - ok, and this was for, what's the proper term for it - is it the DA investigator unit? What's the term for it?
PG - uh - the, uhh ---unintelligible---
KH - I'm sorry Paul, could you repeat yourself, please?
PG - Yes that is our unit, the DA investigators unit.
KH - What do these folks normally do? I'm not so sure that people know you have in house miniature sort of police force and they are police, with full police powers. I only know this because I know of an Arcata officer who went on to join it and I know one of your folks was at the recent event at D St, Linear Park helping with the enforcement there...
PG - They weren't helping with the enforcement with the Arcata, they were actually independent observers with the Arcata.
KH - But they are police with full police powers? Am I correct, Paul?
PG - Uh, Absolutely - actually they, uh, well, they are law enforcement officers, they have the authority of law enforcement that emanates from MY office. I'm a constitutional officer, umm, so they have more jurisdiction than standard law enforcement officers.
KH - what do they normally do? What's their day to day activities?
PG - Oh - - wide range - - -- they investigate cases, they assist in preparation of cases for trial, uh, they uhhhh ____________ do sweeps, probation sweeps, gang task force sweeps, various meetings, - - broad spectrum.
KH - and then they assist the other local law enforcement agencies in various capacities, too?
PG - Uhh, absolutely.
KH - Ok, and how many folks are in the unit
PG - Uh, eight, right now...
KH - Eight people. Ok and
PG - ...that's what we asked for, eight guns.
KH - and where are they stationed at Paul?
PG - They're stationed at my office.
KH - now why do they need this heavy duty armament and protection?
PG - uh, because they're law enforcement officers and when they're out on the street, they have to be adequately provided for.
KH - well, they wouldn't be wearing this stuff in just everyday...their everyday duties. I mean you didn't go out in the world with assault rifles and dress in the full regalia...
PG - well they would wear it whenever
PG - hey guys -
PG...whenever they, ummm, are out doing things like gang force task sweeps
PG - hey, dude@ -
PG - hold on -
PG - ('m on the phone. I have ummmm - I
PG - ...all those sorts of things that they have to do so absolutely they would...
KH - OK and, are they wearing them on the street
PG - No
KH - Have they uh, had occasions, have there been occasions when this sort of material would have been useful for them to have?
PG - They're law enforcement officers - it's like any officer, it's like.... the answer is "yes." The hope is that it's never used, ummm, but they have to be supplied...
PG - You know what, Kevin? I'll tell you a couple of things that were interesting to me about that story. First of all - uh - the request for money, that came from money that WE received from forfeiture money - - - uh - - Then, the approval of the money was unanimous from the Board of Supervisors... so the Board of Supervisors approved the money - um - these were standard issue - we actually already have automatic rifles - all we're doing is getting new rifles because our existing rifles are old.
KH - What are the existing rifles? What types of rifles are those?
PG - We already have the armament.
KH - How many do you have?
PG - We currently have ONE...we have two semi-automatic rifles, they're semi-automatic rifles.
KH - OK, and you're
PG - That's why we need to have 'em for our people...
KH - Umm, Paul, you said we'd - - - unintelligible - Paul, you said there have been situations where these weapons would have come in handy?
PG - Ummm, I don't think I did say that. I said that our officers have to be adequately armed. The hope is that they would never have to use them but that doesn't mean that you don't - - (arm them) - -
KH - Sure. There's a suggestion in the story that this is a fairly extraordinary level of armament for a DA investigators unit, do you, how, do you have any comment on that?
PG - Umm, yeah, you can suggest anything in a story and it's just not accurate. Umm, many, many DA's offices their investigators units are similarly armed, and you know even San Francisco, those guys have AR-4s which are more modern... and they're fully in the - - unintelligible - -
KH - OK, and your guys, uh, are they all, uh, I'm calling them guys, are they all men?
PG - Right now, yes.
KH - Are they all trained up in use of this sort of weaponry?
PG - Absolutely!
KH - Ok. Now, would they coordinate, for example, with, um, other police units of similar stature that are mentioned in the story - the SWAT Team and Sheriff's Unit that are similarly armed?
PG - Uh, I'm not sure I understand your question.
KH - Would they work together with them? I know that the two existing units, the SWAT Team and Sheriff's Unit... they are aware of each other and have mutual aid and protocol agreements...
PG - Of course we have all of those, but we are an independent agency and we don't have to give notification. But - - interrupts - okey doke - anything you need to know? - unintelligible interruption - -
KH - Folks, you need to know that Paul is actually picking up his kids from school or something or some activity, that's why he seems a little distracted. OK, Paul are you back with us?
PG - Yes, yes.
KH - I'm sorry, but the story seems to indicate that those agreements aren't in force at this point. Would that be something that yo're working on? the uh, protocols for cooperation with the Sheriff's and Eureka Police?
PG - Ummm, would that be something that I'm working on? NO. Those are things that are already in existence and they have been in existence. This is not a - chuckles - new thing. We actually have MOUs with law enforcement already...and, ummm, we're always the understood fallback when we're out there, and in any capacity if there's a need for backup, and we're there, our people always have to provide that backup...
KH - OK. Well, that seems to contradict, maybe you can help me resolve this, something in the Eureka Reporter story - They quote EPD Chief Garr Nielsen as saying that, uh, none of these prorocols and agreements have been established or even discussed with the DAs Office. Is that inaccurate?
PG - Uhh, I think... OK. OK. You know, I don't know what the question was to the Chief. As I read that they seemed to be saying we're trying to do SWAT???!?...
KH - Right...
PG - ...with them?
KH - Right.
PG - Which we're not trying to do SWAT with EPD - that's, that's - perverse - ummm so if he was asked if we have this guidelines to do SWAT?? With them, that's absolutely accurate. We are not trying to team up to do SWAT sort of raids or activities with the Eureka Police department.
KH - OK. Would the uh, would your unit when they have this equipment, would they also be called on to do courthouse security? I vaguely remember there's a plan to step up the security around the courthouse...
PG - Ummm, that's the Sheriffs, I read that, too, and that's not our goal. Certainly, if there's a need for backup, um, our people would be there to help, uh, we're always there to help if necessary, but that's the Sheriff's jurisdiction and we're not really too interested in taking on the Sheriff's responsibilities because the Sheriff does a good job doing that himself.
KH - Alright. OK. The County Administrative Officer, Loretta Nickolaus, she, uh, forwarded some questions here in response to your request for funds, a couple of which were. Does the DA's Office have a Use Of Force Policy and or training programs... But do you have a Use Of Force Policy with regard to this level of weaponry?
PG - Yes, and we've had one in place way before I was there, too. All my guys carry weapons...
KH - Right. What are they normally armed with, just handguns I take it?
PG- Umm - ee - it depends on what they're doing, um, certainly standard when they're walking around the office, the courtrooms, they've got their handguns, um, or sidearms, if you want to refer to them that way, um, but they also have, umm, their, just like with these, their, they shoot long guns...
KH - Sure Paul, we need to wrap...
PG - either a shotgun...
KH - Paul, we need...
PG - or semi-automatic rifle...
KH - OK. We need to wrap it up, just wondering where this is at in the process with regards to your...
PG - It's already been authorized?
KH - It's been authorized, are you awaiting...
PG - It was authorized WAY before this happened.
KH - OK. You're awaiting delivery of the rifles at this point?
PG - Say what?
PG - What?
KH - My question is - what do you not have and when are you going to get it?
PG - Umm,. the Board authorized this way before the story came out...
KH - I know. But...
PG - they already authorized the purchase of the rifles...
KH - My question is, what do you actually have, what are you still waiting for an when are you going to get it?
PG - Uh, You know what? - - long pause - -
KH - What?
PG - Frankly, I haven't pulled the purchase orders to see what we've received or not. I might have to talk to my Chief Investigator...
KH - Ok, Paul...
PG - But we;ve received partial, the stuff, but you know it's always basically what happens with any government thing, it goes out to bid, then there's the purchasing process...
KH - Fair enough. DA Paul Gallegos, Thank You very much for making the time to appear on Humboldt Review.
--ok - - unintelligible - -

5.19.2007

TS - Concerns raised over DA investigator weapons

Concerns raised over DA investigator weapons
Chris Durant The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 05/19/2007 04:29:32 AM PDT

The proposed arming of district attorney investigators with semiautomatic rifles is raising some questions about whether that unit of the district attorney's office should act as a police force.

Humboldt County Administrative Officer Loretta Nickolaus asked District Attorney Paul Gallegos earlier this month to explain the proposed purchase of eight AR-15 rifles.

Nickolaus laid out a series of concerns in an e-mail and questioned whether the weapons were “outside their course and scope of work” and whether it would create a conflict if investigators were at the scene of a standoff or hostage situation as backup.

”Does the DA's office have a use of force policy, and or training programs or policies for any of this stuff?” she wrote in an e-mail to Gallegos. “There are many questions, and I need answers before I can approve these purchases.”

A meeting between Nickolaus and the district attorney's office is scheduled for May 29.
In a series of interviews this week, Gallegos said his investigators are like any other police officers and need to be well-equipped because they sometimes act on their own in remote areas without police backup.

He said his office has a use of force policy, but refused to turn over a copy to the Times-Standard, saying it's not public record.

The Eureka Police Department and the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department said their use of force policies are public record. The EPD immediately faxed over a copy.

The San Diego County district attorney's office also said its use of force policy is public record.
The weapons request came soon after chief investigator Mike Hislop moved over to the office from the Eureka Police Department earlier this year.

”I want my guys equipped just as much as the other officers,” Hislop said.

He gave a recent example of investigators accompanying an attorney to check out an old homicide scene in Weitchpec without any other police presence. DA investigator Tom Cooke, who this week assisted other agencies in a large marijuana bust on public lands where an AK-47 was found, said he was the only officer on the scene without a rifle.

Investigator Wayne Cox said he has accompanied witnesses, attorneys and victims to crime scenes in remote areas without other law enforcement.

”And backup is a long way away,” Cox said. “I don't want to get in a gunbattle with a pistol against someone with an AK-47.”
A small survey of other district attorney's offices in rural areas found rifles weren't unique, but other similarly sized offices were not armed to the degree Gallegos is proposing.

Dan Kartchner, chief investigator for the Shasta County district attorney's office, said there are three assault rifles available for his investigators to use on a check-out basis. The rifles have been used in fugitive pursuits and to patrol remote areas during natural disasters such as fires, Kartchner said

Ed Kanutsen, chief investigator with the Napa County district attorney's office, said his office does not have assault rifles but would buy them if he had the resources.

The request has come to the attention of other North Coast law enforcement officials.

”From my perspective, I'm a little puzzled by it,” said Eureka Police Chief Garr Nielsen. “But it's up to the district attorney to use his resources as he sees fit.”

Nielsen, who just moved to the area from a Sheriff's Department in Oregon, said when he worked with district attorney investigators in Oregon, they were more in a follow-up investigation role.

Gabe Harp, a senior consultant for Police Officer Standards and Training, said DA investigators do engage in special investigations and he noted there is a lack of backup in remote areas.

”Because of the types of investigations they might get, a little handgun can seem impotent at times,” Harp said.
As for the number of weapons requested, Hislop said each rifle's sights would be adjusted to an individual investigator who would have to qualify with their weapon at a range every three months.

”If they don't qualify, they don't get the rifle,” Hislop said.

Five of the eight investigators were police officers in local departments before coming to the district attorney's office.
Hislop added that if another agency requested assistance from his investigators, and they were able, they would respond and assist.

The $12,000 being used to purchase the weapons comes from the District Attorney Asset Forfeiture trust funds which Hislop said can only be used to purchase equipment.

The DA's office has two similar but older rifles. Investigator Mike Losey has been with the office for 10 years and said there were plenty of times he armed himself with one of the rifles during an investigation.

Hislop said he's scheduled to meet with Nickolaus to talk about the concerns.

”I have an answer to all her questions,” he said.

Staff Writer John Driscoll contributed to this story.

Chris Durant can be reached at 441-0506 or cdurant at times-standard.com.

Comments on TS site:

If they have 2 I don't think they need a further 8. It sounds like they do have use for some rifles, though maybe not AR-15s. Gallegos should stop being a weirdo and hand over their use of force policy.
Max | 05.19.07 - 5:27 am | # |

I am beginning to really dislike the arrogance of Gallegos. What next? I think all social workers should be heavily armed. You never know when they will have to clear out a room.
Bill the Chimp | 05.19.07 - 7:36 am | # |

With some in the community questioning the impartially of the D.A's Office investigating major police incidences and calling for the formation of a Citizen's Review Board, the intended acquision of AR-15 rifels by the D.A. Investigator's office under the guise of being ready to assist local agencies in drug raids and swat type situations does nothing to put those questions to rest. The D.A Investigators would do well to remember that they are an investigative unit...not Rambos
John | 05.19.07 - 8:54 am | # |

Is there something mentally wrong with this guy? Bribes, plagiarism, mismanagement, one failed prosecution after another, and now he wants his own assault team. Shouldn't we run the moron out of office BEFORE we pay a small fortune to arm him to the teeth?
anonymous | 05.19.07 - 9:14 am | # |

OH OH!! Don't sound good...........
D Jones | 05.19.07 - 9:30 am | # |

"Rambo"?___The "Terminator"? [What's the diff?]
DtB | 05.19.07 - 9:38 am | # |

Oh my ! Arming law enforcement officers ? The DA investigators are law enforcement officers by the way.
Has the Arcata syndrome infected everybody in Humboldt County ? Maybe we should get rid of all their guns & give them peace symbols instead.
Jim E | 05.19.07 - 9:57 am | # |

Did anyone check out some of the prices?

$1900 per rifle is pretty high for a AR-15, even with a red dot halo site and a couple of extra mags.

And the ammo cost must be a misprint, $198 would buy about 800-1000 rds, not a 20 rd box.
Anon12345 | 05.19.07 - 9:58 am | # |

No one questions whether DA investigators should have guns, Jim. Of course they have them, and this is proper. What they should not have is an in-house assault team commanded by a rogue cop who answers to an incompetent attorney. It's unnecessary, it's unprecedented and it's just plain wrong.
Ronald | 05.19.07 - 10:31 am | # |

Somebody needs to take a close look at the conflict-of-interest issues here. Loretta Nickolaus raised the question, and it needs to be answered. The second the DA's office begins to conduct its own raids and sweeps, it can no longer impartially investigate those incidents. More important, it can no longer operate with legal immunity for these voluntarily assumed duties, which opens the county up to enormous liability. If you think paying off Tammy Falor was expensive, wait until one of the DA's gun nuts shoots someone.
ReedJ | 05.19.07 - 10:38 am | # |

I wonder if anyone has told Paul's traditional SoHum supporters that he wants the weapons and other equipment to augment his asset forfeiture efforts. I would think that might make a few growers rethink their generous cash contributions to his next campaign.
Ronald | 05.19.07 - 10:41 am | # |

Regarding the comment by Bill The Chimp: "What next? I think all social workers should be heavily armed."

Have you ever stood in line or had to be at the local social services/welfare office? That is where all our tweakers and crackheads are! (Sorry to the few minority of people that REALLY are there for deserving reasons...). Anyways, I bet you ask a few social workers, they would agree with your meant to be sarcastic comment! That place gets petty freaky!

But back on the subject...Maybe those used-to-be-cops should have stayed cops and should accept their new job for what it is.....I think they should have a few rifles on hand, but stay out of the standoffs, that's what the police officers are for.
- | 05.19.07 - 10:52 am | # |

Seems to me that Hislop came over to the D A' S Office from gestapo minded epd (I hope the new chief and it sounds like he will change epd"s attitude they have towards the public)with no supervisory experience except car crashes.. Now lets see the smoker Gallegos hires him to be the chief investigator, which is supposed to be in charge of all investigations for the district attorney. Seems just like another "smoked uped" decision to hire hislop by Paul. Now hislop wants assault weapons. come on what are you two smokin. they do not need assault guns, After all how many arrest have they made in the past 25 years.
annon | 05.19.07 - 11:17 am | # |

The local media should be ashamed of itself for this tabloid atmosphere in which it shrouds every story. This is a non-story, and he will get his guns. You guys will have your story if they are ever used. Since when have the local papers turned into God, determining which law enforcement officers get to have what equipment?

The local news media is toxic.
Anonymous | 05.19.07 - 11:57 am | # |

Yes, while they are sworn officers with a badge and a gun, they have elected to leave the "streets" and step into an investigative unit. Most often crimes are investigated after they have occured. And we have police officers and deputies on the streets and in the courthouse to handle incidences as they arise. I'm assuming that they are qualified to do their job or they would not have been hired... big assumption I know. Therefore, there should be no reason for the DA investigators to "come to the rescue" of other officers who are trained, equipted and competent to do the job they signed up for. Ya know, for as long as I have lived here, EPD has had the reputation of being egotistical big fish in a small pond. Not that I believe all of them are, but in my opinion, these investigators helped EPD get that reputation in the first place and have not yet let go of it... their ego that is.
Tami | 05.19.07 - 12:08 pm | # |

Gotta love it folks! When the "right" crowd whacks out, the "left" crowd becomes suspicious of everything. Hehehe! Sound familiar?

Look at it this way... big guns are big guns. Bad guys have big guns too. So, there needs to be balance.

Arming DDA's with artillery is much less expensive then hiring a new police officer. More money left over for those all important social services that never end.

You all have more to gain by obeying the laws. It ain't a football game, don't ya know?
Mike | 05.19.07 - 12:26 pm | # |

Yea, Mike we all know life isn't a football game! However, everyone has a role to play.. ie: Police Officers for the city streets, Sheriff's Deputies for the county areas and the D.A Investigators for INVESTIGATIONS.. get it?
John | 05.19.07 - 12:33 pm | # | Report this comment for offensive material


Hey! I have another idea! Why not sponsor a fund raiser!

Raise money for the purchase of those assault weapons by selling arts and crafts and perhaps some of your dope behind the tent? Raffles are always a winner, too!

Door prizes... get out of jail "free" cards!

That'll work! Community involvement!
Mike | 05.19.07 - 12:37 pm | # |

Just a thought. The investigator is investigating a 2 strikes doper for meth production out in the middle of nowhere. Investigator is looking for sites, and runs across the doper. The Investigator has a 9mm pistol, the doper has an ak. The Investigater is now in trouble. Remember there are bad people, many have multiple felonies. With a Carbine the Investigator has a much better chance of survival.

Is it because the rifle in question is an AR 15 that some are upset? As for mutual aid, if a Ferndale cop is in trouble and calls for assistance, the theory seems to be that the DA's investigator can't respond. That's ****.
tj | 05.19.07 - 1:13 pm | # |

If a Ferndale cop needs help, the Sheriff's Office or Fortuna PD would respond.

The Hislop/Gallegos connection is troubling. Hislop replaced Jim Dawson. Dawson is Hislop's father-in-law. How is it that Dawson was allowed to handpick his unqualified son-in-law to replace him? Wasn't there a background investigation into Hislop's cloudy past?

Dig deeper folks. There's a rotten smell coming from the DA's Office and it started when Hislop got hired. Its going to get worse.

Ask questions about the EPD shootings and find out what role Hislop played in them and what role he'll have investigating them. Now there's a conflict, eh?
Annon | 05.19.07 - 1:47 pm | # |

Can either the Times-Standard or Eureka Reporter discuss these issues without such blatant animosity towards the DA? I have a feeling if you guys sniffed some sort of controversy over the DA's office NOT having enough AR-15's for the officers you would run with that story!
Anonymous | 05.19.07 - 1:49 pm | # |

5.15.2007

HC - 'IT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN'

Aug. 25, 2005
'IT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN' A low-key victor after a huge win
Maxxam chief Hurwitz matter-of-fact after prevailing in court over government
By TOM FOWLER Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
Steve Ueckert/Chronicle

Charles Hurwitz says his company was hampered by the government's legal case against it, which U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes called "arbitrary, dishonest, exploitative."

For a man who just won $72 million from the government, Charles Hurwitz hardly seemed to be in the throes of celebration Wednesday.

Rather, the Houston financier was low-key and matter-of-fact in discussing the decision by U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes to penalize the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. for what the judge called an "arbitrary, dishonest, exploitative" lawsuit against Hurwitz.

"We never want the government to have another one of these lawsuits like this that lets them, just on a punitive basis, go after people without having a good background to do so," Hurwitz said. "It shouldn't happen."

Hurwitz and the companies he controls, Maxxam Corp. and Federated Development Corp., were accused by the FDIC in 1995 of furthering the $1.6 billion collapse of a Texas savings and loan in 1988. The suit, and another by a sister agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, were filed despite warnings by internal and external counsel that the cases would not hold up in court.

Both suits were later dismissed, with Hurwitz paying just $206,000 in one case.

He filed a countersuit against the FDIC claiming the legal battles were really an effort to force the company to give up thousands of acres of old-growth redwood forests in Northern California.

Hughes ruled in his favor last year and issued a lengthy and spirited opinion against the FDIC on Tuesday, ordering a $72 million payment to Hurwitz for legal costs and interest.

FDIC officials described Hughes' decision as "one of the most imaginative and colorful opinions in banking law that has ever been written," and said the agency plans to appeal.

Spokesman David Barr noted that the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned two decisions of Hughes' related to the case, namely his allowing the unsealing of two documents.

"We're confident that history will repeat itself," Barr said.

Hurwitz seemed to doubt if the FDIC would do so, however.

"I know that's what they're saying, but we'll see," Hurwitz said.

Maxxam is a holding company for a variety of businesses, ranging from lumber to high-end residential construction to horse and dog racing parks.

The company is a majority owner of bankrupt Kaiser Aluminum, and has been in other industries, including energy, sugar and one that made women's dress patterns.

Hurwitz is a majority owner of Maxxam.

Shares of Maxxam closed up $2.56 on Wednesday to $29.01.

Hurwitz said the decade-long case took its toll on him personally, saying it was " ... pretty heavy duty to be sued by the government for $1 billion."

Maxxam was also hampered by the legal actions.

"I think it's changed the way I thought about running a company for a while because we had this big $1 billion potential liability from the government," he said. "And that limits certain things one can do. We've been a lot quieter in the last few years than we were before."

Despite efforts to remain low-key, controversy seems to find Hurwitz companies.

Kaiser Aluminum has had labor strife as it struggled under the burdens of asbestos litigation.

And his Ritz-Carlton Rancho Mirage Hotel California was built in 1988 only after a fight with environmentalists and wealthy neighbors.

When Maxxam purchased Pacific Lumber in a leveraged buyout, Maxxam increased its tree harvest rate when it realized the company's holdings were much larger than original estimates.

Environmental groups accused the company of irresponsible practices and waged a bitter and personal war against Hurwitz. The Web site www.jailhurwitz.com was just one example of the intensity.

Hurwitz defended the company's operations, saying that after it sold a huge stand of old-growth forest to the state of California for preservation, it agreed to follow very tough environmental practices.

"We certainly would like for them to appreciate more of what we're doing," Hurwitz said of his opponents in Northern California. "We feel pretty good about the way we run our businesses. We're a long-term investor, and we've invested a lot of money in these companies. I think we've done well over the years."

The Rose Foundation pressures Maxxam, and look at the list of lawsuits... guess who is behind them...

Not fully cleaned up yet but - A very important piece of the puzzle
http://www.secinfo.com/d111wf.5w.htm
Committee of Concerned Maxxam Shareholders · DEFC14A · Maxxam Inc · On 5/9/00

Filed On 5/9/00 · SEC File 1-03924 · Accession Number 1083040-0-26

5/09/00 Committee of Concer..Shareholders DEFC14A
1:29 Maxxam Inc
Definitive Proxy Solicitation Material -- Contested Solicitation · Schedule 14A
Filing Table of Contents
Document/Exhibit Description Pages Size
1: DEFC14A Definitive Proxy Solicitation Material -- 29± 95K
Contested Solicitation
Document Table of Contents
Page (sequential) | (alphabetic) Top
Alternative Formats (RTF, XML, et al.)

Reasons for Electing Independent Directors
Revocation Rights
Solicitation
Supporting Statement
Voting Rights
1 1st Page
4 Voting Rights
6 Reasons for Electing Independent Directors
9 Supporting Statement
14 Revocation Rights
" Solicitation
DEFC14A 1st "Page" of 18 TOC Top Previous Next Bottom Just 1st

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No. )
Filed by the Registrant [ ]
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant [ x ]
Check the appropriate box:
[ ] Preliminary Proxy Statement
[ ] Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2)
[ X ] Definitive Proxy Statement
[ ] Definitive Additional Materials
[ ] Soliciting Material Pursuant to (S) 240.14a-11(c) or (S)240.14a-12

MAXXAM INC.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

THE COMMITTEE OF CONCERNED MAXXAM SHAREHOLDERS
----------------------------------------------------------------
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement,
if other than the Registrant)
Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):
[ X ] No fee required
[ ] Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-
6(I)(1) and 0-11.
(1) Title of each class of securities to which transaction
applies: ________________________________________________________
(2) Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies: ________________________________________________________
(3) Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (Set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined): ____________________________________________________
(4) Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:______
(5) Total fee paid:_______________________________________
[ ] Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.
[ ] Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule
and the date of its filing.
(1) Amount previously paid:_______________________________
(2) Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:_________
(3) Filing Party:_________________________________________
(4) Date Filed:___________________________________________
DEFC14A 2nd "Page" of 18 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 2nd
PROXY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONCERNED MAXXAM SHAREHOLDERS IN CONNECTION WITH A SHAREHOLDER SOLICITATION REGARDING THE ELECTION OF TWO INDEPENDENT COMMON DIRECTORS AND THREE SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS RECOMMENDING THAT MAXXAM INC.
(1) PERMIT CUMULATIVE VOTING IN THE ELECTION OF COMMON DIRECTORS,
(2) DECLASSIFY ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS SO THAT GENERAL DIRECTORS ARE ELECTED ANNUALLY AND
(3) PROVIDE THAT A MAJORITY OF ALL BOARD MEMBERS ARE INDEPENDENT OF MAXXAM MANAGEMENT

May 9, 2000

The Committee of Concerned Maxxam Shareholders (the "Committee") furnishes this Proxy Statement in connection with the solicitation of proxies for use at the Annual Meeting (the "Annual Meeting") of shareholders of Maxxam Inc. ("Maxxam" or the "Company") to be held at 8:30 A.M. on Wednesday, May 24, 2000, at The Power Center, 12401 South Post Oak, Houston, Texas, or at any postponement or rescheduling thereof. Copies of the Proxy Statement and form of proxy are being mailed by the Committee to shareholders on or about May 9, 2000.

Members of the Committee are The Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment (the "Rose Foundation") and the United Steelworkers of America ("USWA"). They, along with Abner J. Mikva and Paul Simon, the independent candidates for Common Director, may be deemed participants in this solicitation, and they collectively hold 0.016% of the common stock and 0.008% of the common and preferred stock, aggregated together for voting purposes (see "Solicitation" and "Voting Rights" below).

DEFC14A 3rd "Page" of 18 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 3rd

Dear Fellow Maxxam Shareholder:

The Committee of Concerned Maxxam Shareholders is seeking your support because the Committee believes that Maxxam is a company in trouble.

Maxxam reported net losses of $57.2 million in 1998. In 1999, Maxxam posted an operating loss of $51.5 million and would have shown an overall net loss for a second straight year, but for a one-time $239.8 million gain on the sale of Headwaters Timberlands, as well as a pre-tax $85 million gain on insurance proceeds collected following the 1999 explosion of an alumina production facility operated by Kaiser Aluminum Corp. ("Kaiser"), a Maxxam subsidiary.

Maxxam's stock price dropped 43% over the year ending March 31, 2000, during which period the S&P 500 index rose 16.5%. Over the past year Maxxam also underperformed its industry peers. This 43% decline compares unfavorably with a 56.9% increase in the S&P aluminum index, a 7.4% increase in the S&P paper and forest products index and a 6.7% percent decline in the S&L real estate investment trust ("REIT") index over the same period.

Poor performance has been a problem for more than the past year. The table below summarizes Maxxam's performance over the last one, two, three, four and five years, compared with the performance of the S&P 500; the S&P aluminum index (Kaiser
Aluminum Corp., Maxxam's 63%-owned subsidiary, accounted for 88 percent of revenues in 1999); the S&P paper and forest products index (Maxxam's forest products subsidiaries, Pacific Lumber Co. and Britt Lumber Co., accounted for eight percent of 1999 revenues); and the S&P REIT index (Maxxam's real estate operations accounted for 2% of 1999 revenues), which index began in 1997.
[Download Table]
MAXXAM SHARE PERFORMANCE COMPARED TO THE S&P 500 AND INDUSTRY PEERS
S&P Paper and S&P S&P Forest S&P 500 Aluminum Products REIT
Maxxam Index Index Index Index
1 Year Return -43.4% 16.5% 56.9% 7.4% -6.7%
2 Year Return -53.5% 36.0% 58.6% -1.7% -32.8%
3 Year Return -37.0% 97.9% 55.1% 21.5% -25.0%
4 Year Return -43.0% 129.2% 66.2% 19.5% n.a.
5 Year Return -1.3% 199.3% 122.7% 24.7% n.a.
Source: Bloomberg News Service. Notes: Data as of market close, March 31, 2000. Returns summary takes into account share/index price return, but does not include dividends issued to shareholders.

Thus, a $10,000 investment in Maxxam on March 31, 1995 would have been worth $9870 on March 31, 2000. A comparable investment (exclusive of dividends) in the S&P 500, the S&P aluminum index, and the S&P paper and forest products fund would have been worth $29,929, $22,272 and $12,470, respectively.

In two consecutive rankings, BUSINESS WEEK listed Maxxam
on its roster of "The Worst Boards of Directors" in America. In
its December 8, 1997 issue, Maxxam's board was voted the 10th
worst and called a "tiny board with little business experience
dominated by CEO" Charles Hurwitz. In its January 24, 2000 issue,
Maxxam's board was ranked the 12th worst and described as a
"small, cozy board dominated by CEO. Makes repeat showing on
worst list." FORTUNE magazine, in its April 17, 2000 issue
placed Maxxam on its list of the six worst boards, citing the
Company's "depressing performance" and poor corporate governance
practices. The magazine CORPORATE BOARD MEMBER (Autumn 1999)
named Maxxam's board one of five "Lollapa-losers." (Consent of
authors and publications not sought or obtained.)

The Committee believes that concentration of control in the
hands of Maxxam CEO Charles Hurwitz and a small number of
Maxxam's preferred stockholders may result in policies that
depress the value of common stock and threaten Maxxam's long-term
financial success. The Committee also believes that any
resolution of Maxxam's many problems will require the
participation of truly independent "Common Directors" -- those
directors elected solely by the

2

DEFC14A 4th "Page" of 18 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 4th


holders of Maxxam common stock who are committed to
representing the long-term interests of Maxxam common
stockholders and to increasing the value of Maxxam common stock.

To this end, the Committee proposes the following:

1. Electing Abner J. Mikva and Paul Simon, both independent
nominees, to serve on Maxxam's board as two of the three
directors chosen by the holders of common stock.

Abner J. Mikva is currently a visiting professor at the
College of Law at the University of Illinois. He was previously
Counsel to the President of the United States, Chief Judge of the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit and a Member of Congress from Illinois.

Paul Simon is currently director of the Public Policy
Institute at Southern Illinois University and a professor of
public policy and journalism. He also serves on the board of
directors of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and of Penn-America
Group, Inc. He served two terms as a United States Senator from
Illinois and was also the Lieutenant Governor of Illinois and a
Member of Congress from that State. He previously built a chain
of 13 newspapers in southern and central Illinois.

2. Adopting three shareholder proposals:

(a) a resolution requesting that the board of directors
provide for cumulative voting in the election of Common Directors
(the "Cumulative Voting Proposal");

(b) a resolution requesting that the board of directors
provide for the annual election of the "General Directors," i.e.,
those directors who are elected by the holders of Maxxam common
stock and preferred stock, voting together (the "Declassified
Board Proposal"); and

(c) a resolution requesting that the board of directors take
steps to provide that a majority of all board members shall be
independent of the Company (the "Independent Board Proposal").

The Committee urges all shareholders to attend the meeting
in person. If you are unable to attend in person and wish to
have your shares voted, please sign and date the enclosed BLUE
proxy card, and return it in the postpaid envelope as promptly as
possible. By returning the enclosed BLUE proxy card,
shareholders will be able to vote on the nomination of Abner J.
Mikva and Paul Simon to serve as two of the three Common
Directors, to be elected by the holders of common shares in lieu
of two of the three individuals nominated by the Company.
Shareholders will also be able to use the BLUE card to vote on
the Cumulative Voting Proposal, the Declassified Board Proposal,
and the Independent Board proposal.

PLEASE SIGN, DATE AND RETURN TODAY THE ENCLOSED BLUE
PROXY CARD TO:

COMMITTEE OF CONCERNED MAXXAM SHAREHOLDERS
c/o Ellen Philip Associates
P.O. Box 1997
New York, N.Y. 10117-0024

VOTING RIGHTS

The Company's board of directors has fixed the close of
business on March 31, 2000 as the record date for determining the
shareholders of the Company entitled to notice of and to vote at
the Annual Meeting and any adjournment thereof. Only holders of
record of the 6,913,951 shares of common stock (the "common
stock") and the 668.510 shares of Class A $.05 non-cumulative
participating convertible preferred stock (the "preferred stock")
are entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. Each share of common
stock is entitled to one vote, and each share of preferred stock
is entitled to ten votes on such matters as may properly come
before the Annual Meeting or any adjournments thereof. The
holders of common stock, voting separately as a class, will also
be entitled to elect three Common Directors.

3

DEFC14A 5th "Page" of 18 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 5th


PRIOR SOLICITATIONS BY CERTAIN COMMITTEE MEMBERS

In 1999, the Committee conducted an independent proxy
solicitation on behalf of Mr. Mikva and another candidate and in
favor of resolutions similar to the Cumulative Voting and
Declassified Board Proposals being offered this year. In
addition the Rose Foundation (a Committee member), along with
Jill Ratner, its president, and Thomas W. Little, its executive
director, were sponsors of a cumulative voting resolution similar
to the one submitted this year by the As You Sow Foundation and
John C. Harrington, who were also sponsors of that 1999
resolution. In 1998, Ms. Ratner and Mr. Little, along with the
California Public Employees Retirement System ("CalPERS"),
sponsored the Declassified Board Proposal that Brent Blackwelder
has submitted for consideration by the shareholders this year.
In 1997, Ms. Ratner, Mr. Little, and the As You Sow Foundation
conducted an independent proxy solicitation on behalf of two
other independent candidates for Common Director, as well as a
shareholder resolution asking the Company to sell or trade its
properties within the 60,000 acre Headwaters Forest area in
northern California to a government agency or conservation
organization for appropriate consideration.

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS (ITEM 1)

The Company's Restated Certificate of Incorporation
currently provides for three classes of directors having
staggered terms of office, with directors of each class to be
elected by the holders of the Company's common stock and
preferred stock, voting together as a single class, for terms of
three years and until their respective successors have been duly
elected and qualified. The Company's Restated Certificate of
Incorporation also provides that so long as any shares of the
preferred stock are outstanding, the holders of common stock,
voting as a class separately from the holders of any other class
or series of stock, shall be entitled to elect, for terms of one
year, at each annual meeting, the greater of (I) two directors,
or (ii) that number of directors (rounded up to the nearest whole
number) to be in office subsequent to such annual meeting.

The Company currently has two categories of director:
General Directors, who are elected by the holders of common stock
and preferred stock, voting together, and who are elected to
three year terms, and Common Directors, who are elected solely by
the holders of common stock to one year terms.

Until recently, the board of directors had five members,
consisting of three General Directors, one of whom is elected
each year to a three-year term, and two Common Directors, both of
whom are elected annually to one-year terms. In March 2000 the
Company increased the size of the board of directors from five
members to seven so that henceforth there will be four General
Directors and three Common Directors. All five incumbents remain
in office, and the Company has nominated one additional General
Director and one additional Common Director for election by the
shareholders. The shareholders are thus being asked this year to
elect two General Directors (one incumbent and one new nominee)
to serve until 2003, as well as three Common Directors (two
incumbents and one new nominee) to serve until 2001. As newly
configured, a majority of the board of directors will be elected
each year (three Common Directors plus one or two General
Directors).

The Committee's members have nominated Abner J. Mikva and
Paul Simon to serve on the board of directors of Maxxam Inc. as
two of the three Common Directors to be chosen by the holders of
common stock, because the Committee members believe that Maxxam
needs effective independent voices at this time. Messrs. Mikva
and Simon were also nominated by investment advisor Alan Russell
Kahn, although Mr. Kahn is not a participant in the present
solicitation within the meaning of Item 4 of Reg. 240.101
promulgated pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended. Both nominees have consented to serve if elected.

The Committee believes that Messrs. Mikva and Simon would be
the type of independent, effective directors that Maxxam needs
now more than ever. Committee members have nominated them
because of their experience, judgment and integrity, as well as
their commitment to protecting shareholder interests and
increasing shareholder value, as we explain more fully in the
following section.

Abner J. Mikva has a broad range of experience as a lawyer,
an elected representative, a judge and a mediator. He served
five consecutive terms in the Illinois legislature and then
served as a Member of Congress from 1969 to 1973

4

DEFC14A 6th "Page" of 18 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 6th


and again from 1975 until 1979, when he was appointed to be a
judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit. He served on that court until 1994, including
service as Chief Judge from 1991 to 1994. He then served as
Counsel to the President of the United States from October 1,
1994 until November 1, 1995. Judge Mikva, 74, is currently a
visiting professor at the College of Law of the University of
Illinois and a senior fellow at the Institute of Government and
Public Affairs at that University. He also engages in
arbitration and mediation with JAMS/Endispute, a national dispute
resolution firm. His address is 815 Van Buren Street, Suite 525
(MC-191), Chicago, Illinois 60607. He is beneficial owner of
50 shares of Maxxam common stock, purchased on March 17, 2000 and
held in street name.

Paul Simon served in the United States Senate from 1985 to
1997, where his committee assignments included the Budget and
Judiciary Committees. Prior to his election to the Senate, Mr.
Simon served ten years in the United States House of
Representatives, one term as Lieutenant Governor of the State of
Illinois and fourteen years in the Illinois legislature. Senator
Simon currently serves on the board of Penn-America Insurance and
also serves on the board of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. He
has extensive experience in the publishing industry, where he
began his career as an editor and publisher and built a chain of
thirteen newspapers throughout southern and central Illinois
before selling the chain in 1966. Senator Simon, 71, is the
founder and director of the Public Policy Institute at Southern
Illinois University, and a professor of public policy and
journalism. His address is 1231 Lincoln Drive, Southern Illinois
University, Carbondale, Illinois 62901. He is the beneficial
owner of 100 shares of Maxxam, Inc. stock, purchased on March 20,
2000 and held in street name.

For the reasons stated more fully in the following section,
the Committee believes that Messrs. Mikva and Simon should be
chosen by the holders of common stock as our Common Directors in
lieu of any of the three nominees presented in the Company's
Proxy Statement for these three positions (Robert J. Cruikshank,
Stanley D. Rosenberg and Michael J. Rosenthal). The Company's
2000 Proxy Statement (incorporated herein by reference) sets
forth the names and ages of these nominees for Common Director
and of J. Kent Friedman and Ezra J. Levin, the board's nominees
for General Director, and describes the principal business
experience of each, as well as the year each first held Company
office and/or served as a director, the number of shares each
beneficially owns, and the percentage of outstanding shares owned
by each nominee. Information is also provided concerning the
committees of the board of directors.

REASONS FOR ELECTING INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS

The Committee believes that Judge Mikva and Senator Simon
offer precisely the kind of experience and judgment that holders
of Maxxam common stock need to enhance the value of their Maxxam
investment. Judge Mikva has a broad range of experience as a
lawyer, elected representative, judge and mediator, with
high-level service in all three branches of the federal
government. Senator Simon had a successful career in business
before devoting himself to public service, and he currently
serves on the board of directors of the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange and Penn-American Group, Inc., a company traded on the
New York Stock Exchange with its primary operations in insurance.
The Committee believes that this experience would be very helpful
at a company that has been surrounded by controversy for years on
various fronts.

The past year has seen the following events:

On July 5, 1999, an explosion destroyed much of Kaiser's
Gramercy, Louisiana alumina facility, injuring 29 workers and
leaving six severely injured, including one who is now blind.
The explosion covered workers in boiling lye and showered the
surrounding community with asbestos, lye and red mud. Kaiser had
been operating this plant and four other plants using replacement
workers after it decided to lock out 2900 workers represented by
the USWA in January 1999.

The federal Mine Safety and Health Administration
("MSHA") levied $533,000 in fines against Kaiser for 21 civil
violations, including operating the plant beyond its limits, lack
of worker training and "management's failure to identify
hazardous conditions and unsafe practices and to initiate actions
to correct these conditions and practices." The fine is the
largest ever assessed by MSHA for a non-fatal accident. THE WALL
STREET JOURNAL reported in March 2000 that MSHA has launched a
probe into whether the company should be charged with criminal
violations as a result of the

5

DEFC14A 7th "Page" of 18 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 7th


explosion (permission of publication and author neither sought
nor obtained).

Owing to the extensive damage to the facility, Kaiser
expects production to remain completely curtailed until some
partial production begins in the third quarter of 2000. Full
production is not expected to resume until the first quarter of
2001 at the earliest.

Since Kaiser's labor dispute began, Kaiser's Mead plant in
Spokane, Washington has been fined $169,200 by the State of
Washington's Department of Ecology for violations of state air
emission and water quality laws.

Maxxam's Pacific Lumber subsidiary remains a focus of
controversy and litigation:

-- Three pending lawsuits claim that Company logging operations
have damaged neighboring property and property values; these
suits seek unspecified monetary damages, and ask the court
to enjoin certain future timber operations of the Company.

-- A wrongful death suit, filed in September, 1999, seeks
unspecified damages based on allegations that Pacific
Lumber's conduct and policies led to an incident in which an
employee killed a young man by felling a tree on top of him.

-- The Sierra Club and the Environmental Protection
Information Center ("EPIC")
have sued to block logging on a piece of Company property
that is surrounded
on three sides by the newly created Headwaters Reserve,
alleging the modifications in the plan
did not receive appropriate environmental review.

-- On March 31, 1999, EPIC and Sierra Club sued to stop
implementation of the
Pacific Lumber Sustained Yield Plan ("SYP"), the Company's
comprehensive plan for logging operations over the next
120 years, claiming that the plan
violates both California's Environmental Quality Act and
Endangered Species Act.

-- Also on March 31, 1999, Don Kegley and the United
Steelworkers of America filed a separate lawsuit challenging
the SYP on the grounds that it fails to provide for
sustained timber production and harvesting over time.
Additional information on this action is supplied below in
the "Solicitation" section of this proxy statement.

-- EPIC and Sierra Club have also filed a Notice of Intent to
Sue challenging the
Company's Habitat Conservation Plan, on the grounds that it
does not meet the requirements of the federal Endangered
Species Act.

No determination has been made at this time as to the merits
of any of these cases, and in each instance a final judgment will
be determined in a court of law.

The Committee also believes that electing these independent
candidates is important, given the Company's failure over the
past year to capitalize on the so-called "Headwaters Agreement."
Under this Agreement, into which the Company entered on March 3,
1999, Maxxam received an extraordinary payment of $380 million in
cash and property from the United States and the State of
California, as payment for the sale of 5,600 acres of forest land
owned by Pacific Lumber Company in northern California. But
despite Maxxam's recognition of a $239 million gain in the
Headwaters transaction, shareholders have seen relatively little
benefit from the Headwaters Agreement. The Company reported
significant operating losses and a relatively small amount of net
income, and, approximately one year after consummation of the
Headwaters Agreement, Maxxam stock price is where it was five
years ago.

Similar opportunities may come along in the near future.
The California legislature has authorized an expenditure of $79.7
million for additional Pacific Lumber properties in the
Headwaters area of northern California, and the legislature has
allocated an additional $20 million towards the purchase of even
more property. The Committee questions whether, based on the
experience to date, the board would use those resources to
maximize shareholder value.

Unfortunately, Maxxam's problems go back for more than just
the past year, and some long-standing issues that were unresolved
last year are still unresolved.

6

DEFC14A 8th "Page" of 18 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 8th


Maxxam faces potential liabilities in two separate legal
proceedings based on the failure and subsequent $1.6 billion
bailout of United Savings Association of Texas, a savings and
loan association that Maxxam is alleged to have controlled.

Maxxam and Charles Hurwitz, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman of the Board, are respondents in an action
brought by the Office of Thrift Supervision ("OTS"), an agency of
the United States Department of the Treasury, seeking
$821,000,000 in restitution. Maxxam has agreed to indemnify Mr.
Hurwitz and several other respondents in this action, which could
result in significant exposure for restitution and penalties.
That case is being litigated before an administrative law judge,
who is expected to rule later this year. No determination as to
the merits of this case has been made at this time, and a final
judgment will be determined in an appropriate administrative
proceeding (In the Matter of United Savings Association of
Texas).

In addition, Mr. Hurwitz is currently defending a
lawsuit brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
("FDIC"), which alleges that Mr. Hurwitz breached his fiduciary
duties in connection with United Savings Association of Texas, in
which both Maxxam and Mr. Hurwitz held substantial interests.
Among other things, the FDIC charges that Mr. Hurwitz engaged in
"a pattern of deceptive financial reporting and balance sheet
manipulation" (Complaint, FDIC v. Hurwitz, paragraph 16, filed
August 2, 1995 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas). The suit, which originally sought
damages in excess of $250,000,000, now seeks unspecified damages
relating to any amounts that OTS does not collect in the suit
described above from the Company or from Federated Development
Company, a New York business trust of which Mr. Hurwitz is
Chairman of the Board and CEO. According to Maxxam's filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, Maxxam may have to
indemnify Mr. Hurwitz for any or all restitution ordered or
penalties imposed in this action. No determination as to the
merits of this case has been made at this time, and a final
judgment will be made in a court of law. These suits and related
litigation have already been costly to the Company, which has
paid approximately $40,000,000 in litigation expenses, including
Mr. Hurwitz's expenses. (For an additional discussion of this
litigation, see "Solicitation" below.)

These are not isolated incidents, for allegations of
fiduciary lapses have surrounded Maxxam's CEO and Chairman, Mr.
Hurwitz, in other litigation as well. In April 1997 the Delaware
Court of Chancery ruled in a case brought by minority Maxxam
shareholders that Mr. Hurwitz had engaged in self-dealing in
connection with loans that were not found fair to the Company.
Following this finding of liability, the case was settled for
approximately $20 million, the plaintiffs having sought $27
million. In its April 1997 ruling for the shareholder plaintiffs
on liability issues, the Delaware Court found that the
defendants, including Mr. Hurwitz, had failed to show the
fairness of a 1987 loan that Maxxam made to Mr. Hurwitz's private
business trust. The Court also ruled that the defendants had
failed to demonstrate the fairness of a 1991 transaction in which
Mr. Hurwitz's trust sold to Maxxam the underlying collateral, and
Maxxam then forgave the loan (In re: Maxxam Inc./Federated
Development Shareholders Litigation).

There remains as well the fact that Maxxam's Kaiser Aluminum
Corp. subsidiary is embroiled in a serious labor dispute, the
longest in Kaiser's history. The Committee believes that this
dispute and the associated costs were avoidable.

On September 30, 1998, approximately 2900 workers
represented by the USWA, a participant in this solicitation, went
on strike at five plants operated by Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical
Corporation ("KACC"), which is wholly owned by Kaiser. The
strike began upon the expiration of the existing contract on that
date, with the USWA protesting what it viewed as unfair labor
practices by the Company, and with the parties unable to resolve
differences on various issues, including job security and
pensions. On October 14, 1998, the USWA filed an unfair labor
practices charge with the National Labor Relations Board
("NLRB"), alleging that KACC had violated its duty to bargain,
had bargained in bad faith, and discriminated against workers for
going on strike. On July 16, 1999 the Oakland Regional Office of
the General Counsel of the NLRB dismissed the above charge. On
September 23, 1999, the USWA appealed the Oakland Office's
dismissal to the General Counsel's Office of Appeals. On April
26, 2000 the NLRB General Counsel's Office of Appeals reversed
that dismissal in part and directed the Oakland Regional Office
to prepare a complaint charging KACC with violating the National
Labor Relations Act as a result of the lockout. A determination
by the NLRB that the lockout is unlawful could subject KACC to
potential gross back pay liability of as much as $3 million per
week from January 14, 1999. No adjudication of liability has
been made, and a final decision will be made by the NLRB, which
could be appealed to court.
7

DEFC14A 9th "Page" of 18 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 9th


KACC continued to operate these plants since October 1,
1998 using replacement employees. On January 13, 1999, the USWA
made an unconditional offer to return to work. On January 14,
1999, KACC refused that offer, locked out its workforce at these
five plants, and chose to continue operating with replacement
employees. KACC has explained its refusal to accept the USWA
return-to-work offer on the ground that KACC is acting "in
support of its bargaining position," and KACC officials have
expressed concern that such a return to work would be under the
terms of the expired contract and that in the absence of a new
contract that contained a "no strike" agreement, KACC might be
susceptible to a strike. Kaiser Aluminum, which produced 88.4%
of Maxxam's 1999 revenues and accounted for approximately 71.5%
of its total assets as of December 31, 1999, reported a net loss
of $54.1 million for 1999 and a net loss of $38.9 million for the
4th quarter of 1998.

Negotiations regarding the labor dispute resumed in April
1999 and are still continuing. According to KACC, they have been
"constructive," and both parties "have agreed to continue meeting
on a regular basis to work toward a settlement," although no
collective bargaining agreement has been reached.

* * *

In the Committee's view, this history does not suggest that
Maxxam is a well-managed company whose affairs are overseen by a
capable, independent board of directors. The Committee believes
that the current problems justify the step of electing truly
independent directors, even if those candidates do not have the
current management's support. The Committee does not believe that
the current board of directors can be relied upon to exercise the
sort of effective oversight that is needed to adequately protect
the interests of Maxxam's holders of common stock.

The Committee notes too that in April 2000 the trustees
of the California Public Employees' Retirement System
("CalPERS"), which owns approximately 3.2% of Maxxam common
stock, announced that it voted to support the election of Judge
Mikva and Senator Simon to the Maxxam board. CalPERS is not a
member of the Committee and is not a participant in this
solicitation. In addition the New York State Common Retirement
Fund has endorsed Judge Mikva and Senator Simon; the Fund is not
a Committee member or a participant in this solicitation.

* * *

THE COMMITTEE THEREFORE ASKS THE HOLDERS OF MAXXAM COMMON STOCK
TO VOTE FOR ABNER J. MIKVA AND PAUL SIMON TO SERVE ON THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS.

THE CUMULATIVE VOTING PROPOSAL (ITEM 2)

The Committee further urges that the shareholders of
Maxxam Inc. adopt the following resolution (which is accompanied
by the proponents' "Supporting Statement"), which is sponsored by
the As You Sow Foundation, a participant in this solicitation,
and John C. Harrington:

"RESOLVED: The shareholders request that the board of
directors take steps to provide for cumulative voting in the
election of those directors elected solely by holders of common
stock. Cumulative voting means that each holder of common stock
may cast as many votes as equal the number of shares held,
multiplied by the number of common directors to be elected. A
shareholder may cast all such cumulated votes for a single
candidate or split votes between multiple candidates."

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Cumulative voting allows a significant group of stockholders
to elect a Director or Directors of its choice -- safeguarding
minority shareholder interests and bringing independent
perspectives to Board decisions.

In our view, cumulative voting for Maxxam's Common Directors
is needed because Maxxam's two-tier stock structure allows
preferred stock to outvote common stock ten to one. Maxxam's CEO
and affiliates control nearly all preferred stock and
approximately 37% of common stock, giving the CEO almost complete
control of Board elections and policy.

We believe that Maxxam suffers from excessive CEO control of
Board affairs. This year, Corporate Board

8

DEFC14A 10th "Page" of 18 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 10th


Member magazine identified Maxxam's Board as one of the five
worst in America. We believe subsequent events demonstrate
increasing need for a minority shareholder voice on the Board.

Maxxam has shown operating losses for some time, with a 1998
net loss of $57.2 million, or $8.17 per share. We believe only
the recent consummation of the Headwater Agreement allowed the
company to report net profits in the first nine months of 1999.

This gain, moreover, may be short-lived. In 2000 the U.S.
Treasury Office of Thrift Supervision Director is expected to
issue an order on approximately $820 million in federal claims
against Maxxam, CEO Hurwitz and a Hurwitz business trust. Maxxam
is indemnifying Mr. Hurwitz in this case and has paid $40 million
in this and related litigation, including Mr. Hurwitz' expenses.

In our view, company operating practices continue to be
mired in needless controversy and expensive litigation.
Inability to secure regulatory approval for timber harvest plans
has adversely affected the company's forest products segment and
reduced net sales. Meanwhile, the Headwaters Agreements are
being challenged in court as allowing too much logging.

The Company's Kaiser Aluminum division remains troubled. An
expensive, and we believe avoidable, labor dispute began in
September 1998. Since then, Washington State fined Kaiser
$250,000 for air pollution violations. In July 1999 Kaiser's
Gramercy, Louisiana plant exploded, injuring employees and
showering caustic debris on the surrounding area. Numerous
property claims have been filed. The Gramercy plant remains
closed, with civil and/or criminal fines and penalties possible.
In light of these significant challenges facing the company, we
believe Maxxam's minority shareholders need cumulative voting to
protect their interests and give them a voice. Last year's
cumulative voting resolution received nearly 14% of the vote.

Safeguard your investment. Vote FOR cumulative voting.

* * *

The Committee notes that Maxxam's proxy materials term
"misleading" the statement in the proponents' Supporting
Statement that the Company has shown operating losses "for some
time." The Company states that it "has had operating income in
every year other than one since 1994." In response the Committee
would note that the Company suffered net losses in four out of
the seven years between 1992 and 1998 and would have shown an
overall net loss for 1999 but for the one-time $239.8 million
gain on sale of Headwaters Timberlands, as well as a pre-tax $85
million gain on insurance proceeds following the 1999 explosion
at a Kaiser plant in Louisiana, as discussed above.

THE COMMITTEE OF CONCERNED MAXXAM SHAREHOLDERS
RECOMMENDS A VOTE FOR THE CUMULATIVE VOTING PROPOSAL.

THE DECLASSIFIED BOARD PROPOSAL (ITEM 3)

The Committee further seeks your support for the following
proposal, which has been submitted by Brent Blackwelder and is
accompanied by the "Supporting Statement" submitted by Mr.
Blackwelder to Maxxam for inclusion in the Company's proxy
materials:

"RESOLVED: Maxxam, Inc. shareholders request that the Board
of Directors change the election of all directors who are elected
by the holders of common and preferred stock voting together
(General Directors), by providing that, at future Board
elections, such new directors be elected annually and not for
staggered terms. This declassification of General Directors
shall not affect the separate election of Common Directors as
provided in the Articles of Incorporation and shall be phased in
in a manner that does not affect the unexpired terms of Directors
previously elected."

9

DEFC14A 11th "Page" of 18 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 11th


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

This proposal encourages the board to reorganize itself so
that each General Director would stand before the shareholders
for re-election annually. Currently, shareholders can only vote
on one-third of the board at any given time. We believe that
corporate governance procedures and practices, and the level of
accountability they impose, are closely related to financial
performance. In our view, when directors are accountable for
their actions yearly, they and the company perform better. We
believe that shareholders deserve a greater level of
accountability given Maxxam's disappointing financial
performance, and what we perceive as its poor stewardship of
critical natural and human resources. For example,

-- According to Institutional Shareholder Services,
"There is no dispute that [Maxxam's] performance has been
poor for many years relative to its peers." Seven out of
the ten S&P 1500 Paper & Forest Products Companies and
two-thirds of the S&P 1500 Aluminum companies outperformed
Maxxam in the five year period ending December 21, 1999.
Recently, Maxxam trailed the S&P 1500 Aluminum and Paper &
Forest Products Sector Scorecards for the one and two-year
periods ending December 21, 1999.

-- We believe that Maxxam's environmental, health and safety
practices continue to attract legal action and public
criticism, and contribute to lagging financial
performance. Maxxam's 1999 third quarter 10-Q mentions
four forestry-related
lawsuits, 96,000 pending asbestos claims, and 30 lawsuits
stemming from the explosion of Kaiser's Gramercy, Louisiana
alumina refinery.

-- We believe that Kaiser's troubled labor relations have
serious ramifications for its operating costs. Currently,
the Company buys discount power from Bonneville
Power Authority, which is reviewing its rates. Washington
Governor Locke has endorsed withholding power discounts
from companies with environmental, labor or
community problems. At full rates, power costs could
increase 50%, and could seriously reduce Kaiser's
competitiveness.

In light of such events, we believe that our Company's
leadership is in urgent need of greater accountability. Board
classification insulates its directors from immediate challenge.
We believe that requiring all directors to stand for election
every year is one of the best ways to hold the board and
individual directors accountable.

At the 1999 Maxxam annual meeting, approximately half of the
shares not owned or controlled by CEO Hurwitz and/or his
affiliates voted in support of annual election of the General
Directors. This year, we urge you to join us in VOTING TO
DECLASSIFY the terms of election, as a powerful tool for
management incentive and accountability.

* * *

The Committee notes that a classified board may prevent
the occurrence of certain transactions, including acquisitions,
that may be in the best interest of shareholders. Also, there is
no assurance that elimination of the staggered board would
produce greater management incentive or improve operating
results. Moreover, even if all directors were to be elected
annually, the Company has adopted pursuant to Delaware law an
anti-takeover "rights agreement" of the sort commonly known as a
"poison pill." Rights agreements seek to deter takeover attempts
by making them expensive to execute, thus inducing a would-be
acquirer to negotiate with the board.

THE COMMITTEE OF CONCERNED MAXXAM SHAREHOLDERS
RECOMMENDS A VOTE FOR THE DECLASSIFIED BOARD PROPOSAL.

THE INDEPENDENT BOARD PROPOSAL (ITEM 4)

The Committee further seeks your support for the following
proposal, which has been submitted by the Rose Foundation for
Communities and the Environment, a participant in this
solicitation, and Nell Minow. The resolution is accompanied by
the "Supporting Statement" submitted by the Rose Foundation and
Ms. Minow for inclusion in the Company's proxy materials:

10

DEFC14A 12th "Page" of 18 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 12th


"RESOLVED: the shareholders request the board of directors
take steps to provide that a majority of all board members shall
be 'independent.'

"For purposes of this resolution, an independent director is
one who:
-- has not been employed by Maxxam or an affiliate in an
executive capacity for the past five years;
-- is not a member of a firm that is one of Maxxam's paid
advisors or consultants;
-- is not employed by a significant Maxxam customer or
supplier;
-- does not have personal services contracts with Maxxam or
an affiliate;
-- is not employed by a non-profit entity that receives
significant contributions from Maxxam;
-- is not a relative of an executive of Maxxam or an affiliate;
-- is not part of an interlocking directorate in which the CEO
or other executive officer of Maxxam serves on the board of
another corporation that employs that director; and
-- does not have any personal, financial and/or professional
relationships with the CEO or other executive officer that
could interfere with the exercise of independent judgment
by such director."

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

This proposal seeks to establish a level of independence
that we believe will permit clear and objective decision making
in the best long term interest of all shareholders. Two of
Maxxam's five directors are company insiders; a third has long
been associated with CEO Hurwitz as his attorney
and trustee of Hurwitz' personal business trust. Maxxam thus
falls far short of the level of independence proposed. In our
view, board dominance by insiders and people having other
significant management ties can raise questions about whether a
board is giving priority to management's interest at the
shareholders' expense. According to a committee of the Business
Roundtable, an association of leading corporate CEOs:

"Boards of Directors at large publicly held corporations
should be composed predominately of independent directors
who do not hold management responsibilities within the
corporation... In order to underscore their independence,
non-management directors should not be dependent on the
companies on whose boards they serve."

Maxxam's stock trails the S&P Aluminum and S&P Paper and Forest
Products Indices for one and two-year periods ending December 21,
1999. Maxxam lost $57,200,000 in 1998, reporting operating
losses of $56,900,000 in the first three quarters of 1999. The
company will likely avoid a net loss in 1999 only because of the
Headwaters sale. We believe an independent board could better
evaluate and deal with factors contributing to these losses,
which may include ongoing labor and environmental controversies.
An independent board is also important at this time, as an
administrative law judge is currently reviewing a suit brought by
the federal government seeking $820,000,000 from Maxxam and
Maxxam's CEO for the failure of a savings and loan Maxxam
allegedly controlled. We believe an independent board could best
consider how to deal with this serious matter, including
exploring settlement options that may be in the best interests of
all Maxxam shareholders. Please vote FOR this resolution.

* * *

The Committee recommends a vote FOR the Independent Director
Resolution. If anything, recent developments have underscored
the need for an independent board at this Company.

On January 24, 2000, Business Week Magazine, for the
second time in just over two years, identified Maxxam's board as
among the 25 worst in the nation, describing it as a "small, cozy
board, dominated by CEO." (Consent of publication not sought or
obtained) Maxxam's Board currently is composed of the following
individuals:
-- Mr. Charles E. Hurwitz is Chief Executive Officer and a
controlling shareholder of Maxxam.
-- Mr. Paul N. Schwartz, Maxxam's President, is also Chief
Financial Officer, and Chief Operating Officer of Maxxam.
-- Mr. Ezra G. Levin and his law firm acted as counsel for
various corporate enterprises associated with CEO Hurwitz for
more than 25 years, and Mr. Levin was trustee of CEO Hurwitz'
personal business trust from 1974 to 1995.
-- Mr. Stanley D. Rosenberg has been Mr. Hurwitz's business
associate and attorney for 25 years. Although

11

DEFC14A 13th "Page" of 18 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 13th


Mr. Rosenberg has served on the Maxxam's board since 1981 he
recently stated under oath that he did not clearly understand the
ownership structure of Maxxam's two major subsidiaries, Pacific
Lumber Company and Kaiser Aluminum, although Kaiser's sales
constituted 88% of Maxxam's revenues in 1998 and 1999.

-- Mr. Robert J. Cruikshank, has served seven one year terms on
Maxxam's board, each time nominated by a committee without
independent members.

In March 2000, the Company proposed expanding the size of
the board to seven members and nominated the two following
individuals to serve in addition to the five incumbents named
above:
-- J. Kent Friedman, who has served as Maxxam's General Counsel
since December 1999 after previously serving as the Company's
outside counsel.
-- Michael J. Rosenthal, Chairman and President of M.J.
Rosenthal and Associates, Inc., an investment company.

We believe that adding the two new board members proposed by
the Company would not give the board the independence needed to
address Maxxam's financial problems and to overcome the legal and
regulatory challenges facing the Company.

VOTING PROCEDURES

The Company's proxy statement and proxy card include the
Cumulative Voting Proposal, the Declassified Board Proposal and
the Independent Board Proposal, but not the names of Abner J.
Mikva and Paul Simon, our nominees for Common Director.

Even if you have already returned a proxy to the Company
using the Company's proxy card, you can still cast your vote for
Judge Mikva or Senator Simon or both, and for any or all of the
three shareholder proposals described herein, by signing and
returning the enclosed BLUE proxy card. See the discussion in
"Revocation Rights" below.

The presence, in person or by proxy, of the holders of
shares of the Company's capital stock entitled to cast a majority
of the votes entitled to be cast at the Annual Meeting is
required to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business
at the Annual Meeting. Under applicable Delaware law,
abstentions and broker non-votes (i.e., shares held in street
name as to which the broker, bank or other nominee has no
discretionary power to vote on a particular matter, has received
no instructions from the persons entitled to vote such shares and
has appropriately advised the Company that it lacks voting
authority) are counted for purposes of determining the presence
or absence of a quorum for the transaction of business. A
plurality of the votes present, in person or by proxy, is
necessary for the election of directors. With regard to the
election of directors, votes may be cast in favor or withheld;
votes that are withheld or broker non-votes will be excluded
entirely from the vote and will have no effect on the outcome.
Abstentions may not be specified in the election of directors.

A stockholder may, with respect to each other matter
specified in the notice of the meeting, including the Cumulative
Voting Proposal, the Declassified Board Proposal and the
Independent Board Proposal, (I) vote "FOR," (ii) vote "AGAINST"
or (iii) "ABSTAIN" from voting. An affirmative vote of a
majority of the shares present in person or by proxy and entitled
to vote at the annual meeting is required for approval of the
other matters presented, including the Cumulative Voting
Proposal, the Declassified Board Proposal and the Independent
Board Proposal. Shares represented by proxies that are marked
"ABSTAIN" on such matters and proxies relating to broker non-
votes will be counted as shares present for purposes of
determining the presence of a quorum. Such shares, however, will
not be treated as shares voting and therefore will not affect the
outcome of the vote on matters such as the Cumulative Voting
Proposal, the Declassified Board Proposal and the Independent
Board Proposal. The Cumulative Voting Proposal, the Declassified
Board Proposal and the Independent Board Proposal are advisory in
nature and cannot be implemented without board approval.

Unless otherwise directed on the enclosed BLUE proxy card,
as more fully described below, the Committee will vote FOR Mr.
Mikva and FOR Mr. Simon to serve as two of the Common Directors
chosen by the holders of common stock (Item 1); we will also vote
FOR the Cumulative Voting Proposal (Item 2); FOR the Declassified
Board

12

DEFC14A 14th "Page" of 18 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 14th


Proposal (Item 3) and FOR the Independent Board Proposal
(Item 4) described herein.

The accompanying BLUE Annual Meeting proxy card will be
voted at the Annual Meeting in accordance with your instructions
on the card. You may vote FOR the election of Mr. Mikva, Mr.
Simon, or both as Common Directors,

or you may withhold authority to vote for the election of Mr.
Mikva, Mr. Simon, or both by marking the proper box or boxes on
the BLUE Annual Meeting proxy card. It will not be possible to
vote on the election of J. Kent Friedman or Ezra J. Levin, who
have been nominated by the board of directors to serve as General
Directors to be chosen by holders of common stock and preferred
stock, voting together, by using the BLUE Annual Meeting card.
Nor will it be possible to use the BLUE Annual Meeting proxy card
to vote on the election of Robert J. Cruikshank, Stanley D.
Rosenberg or Michael J. Rosenthal, who have been nominated by the
board of directors to serve as Common Directors to be chosen by
holders of common stock. As required by SEC Regulation
240.14a-4(d)(iv), the Committee hereby states that there is no
assurance that the registrant's nominees will serve if elected
with any of the soliciting parties' nominees. However, we have
no reason to believe that they will not serve.

IF NO MARKING IS MADE, YOU WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE GIVEN A
DIRECTION TO VOTE THE SHARES REPRESENTED BY THE BLUE PROXY CARD
FOR THE ELECTION OF MR. MIKVA AND MR. SIMON AS COMMON DIRECTORS
(ITEM 1), AS WELL AS FOR THE CUMULATIVE VOTING PROPOSAL (ITEM 2),
THE DECLASSIFIED BOARD PROPOSAL (ITEM 3) AND THE INDEPENDENT
BOARD PROPOSAL (ITEM 4), PROVIDED THAT YOU HAVE SIGNED AND DATED
THE PROXY CARD.

REVOCATION RIGHTS

You may revoke a proxy vote any time before the tally by (1)
executing a later proxy card, (2) appearing at the meeting to
vote, or (3) delivering to the proxy holder or to the Company's
secretary written notice of revocation prior to the date of the
meeting. The Company's secretary is Bernard L. Birkel, and
Maxxam's offices are located at 5847 San Felipe, Suite 2600,
Houston, Texas 77057, telephone (713) 975-7600, fax (713)
267-3702.

The Committee will keep the content of all cards it receives
confidential from everyone except those working directly with us
and our staff until the annual meeting, at which time our cards
must be presented to the company's tabulator in order to be
counted.

SOLICITATION

The participants in this solicitation are the Rose
Foundation, 6008 College Avenue, Suite 10, Oakland, California
94618; its President, Jill Ratner, who owns 90 shares of Maxxam
common stock as tenant in common with Rose Foundation Executive
Director Thomas W. Little; Rose Foundation staff, including Carla
Din and Karla James; the United Steelworkers of America, 5
Gateway Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, which owns 1002
shares of Maxxam common stock (two shares purchased on December
14, 1998 and 1000 shares purchased on March 3, 1999); USWA staff,
including David Foster and Scott Adams; the Committee's two
nominees, Judge Mikva, who owns 50 shares (purchased on March 17,
2000), and Senator Simon, who owns 100 shares (purchased on March
20, 2000); As You Sow Foundation, which owns 100 shares purchased
in 1996, and Michael Passoff; and Dorset Management Corp., which
does not own any shares.

Proxies will be sought by mail, facsimile, telephone and
personal interview. The Rose Foundation and USWA will bear the
cost of this solicitation, expected to be $50,000, and to date
they have expended approximately $25,000. The Committee will not
seek reimbursement from the Company for the costs of the
solicitation.

The Rose Foundation has engaged in advocacy and public
education efforts seeking to preserve the Headwaters Forest area
in northern California, which is owned by Pacific Lumber Company,
a Maxxam subsidiary, and which contains several thousands of
acres of old-growth redwood trees. The Headwaters Forest area
encompasses slightly more than 50,000 acres of company property,
or roughly one quarter of the forest land currently owned by
Pacific Lumber. (This estimate is derived from Pacific Lumber's
statement in its 1998 Habitat Conservation Plan, prepared

13

DEFC14A 15th "Page" of 18 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 15th


prior to consummation of the Headwaters Agreement, that it owns
61,000 acres in the Headwaters Forest area and excludes the 7400
Headwaters Forest Reserve now owned by the Federal Government
pursuant to that Agreement.) In March 1999, Maxxam, the United
States and the State of California reached final agreement on the
so-called "Headwaters Agreement," under which Maxxam received an
extraordinary payment of $380 million in cash and property

in return for the sale of 5600 acres of redwoods, including 3000
acres of old-growth redwoods. An additional 1984 acresc
will be acquired in the future, and a Habitat Conservation Plan
approved by the U.S. Department of the Interior establishes
conditions under which Pacific Lumber can log on 210,000 acres of
nearby land.

The Rose Foundation and its Headwaters Acquisition and
Restoration Trust have solicited contributions that would be used
towards purchasing areas of the Headwaters Forest that are not
acquired by the federal government or the State of California, in
the event that Maxxam should decide to make any such properties
available and should a willing buyer be found. To date, the Rose
Foundation and its Headwaters Acquisition and Restoration Trust
have received $5,679.37 in cash plus a $5 million pledge that
could be used for that purpose. The Rose Foundation does not plan
to acquire any such properties on its own behalf, nor is the Rose
Foundation acting on behalf of any potential buyer and would not
directly benefit from any such acquisition.

For several years, the Rose Foundation has advocated
settlement of pending claims in which the U.S. Treasury Office of
Thrift Supervision (OTS) and the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC) are seeking approximately $820 million in
restitution, damages and penalties from the Company in connection
with the failure of United Savings Association of Texas ("USAT"),
a savings and loan in which the Company held a significant
interest and which the Office of Thrift Supervision alleges the
Company controlled. (see "Reasons for Electing Independent
Directors" above). The Rose Foundation has urged the company to
offer, and urged the federal agencies to accept, a settlement
built around approximately 10,000 to 20,000 acres in the
Headwaters Forest area on which logging is now significantly
restricted by agreements between the Company and state and
federal regulatory agencies. In an effort to enhance FDIC's and
OTS's willingness to consider this kind of settlement, which the
Rose Foundation believes to be in the best interest of the
Company, the Rose Foundation is currently seeking Congressional
enactment of legislation which would clearly authorize FDIC to
transfer such property to a sister federal agency if the parties
were able to agree upon a property settlement of this kind.

In 1993, four years after the FDIC gave notice of its
belief that it had a claim growing out of the 1988 USAT collapse,
and after the media had reported a proposal to have the FDIC
accept certain Pacific Lumber forest lands in the Headwaters
Forest area to resolve potential FDIC claims related to USAT, the
Rose Foundation undertook an analysis of such a "debt for nature"
swap to resolve the potential FDIC claims. In 1994 the Rose
Foundation shared its written and oral analysis with the FDIC and
urged the FDIC to seek in litigation the transfer of certain
property in the Headwaters Forest area to resolve USAT-related
claims. The Rose Foundation also encouraged others to write the
FDIC urging similar action. The FDIC filed its pending action
against Mr. Hurwitz in August 1995.

In October 1994 OTS began its own investigation of the
USAT failure and filed the currently pending action against
Maxxam, Mr. Hurwitz and others in December 1995. At various
times in 1995 the Rose Foundation, in written and oral
communications with federal officials, urged exploration of a
global settlement of FDIC claims and any potential OTS claims
involving a Headwaters Forest property transfer. The Rose
Foundation did not contact the OTS directly until after the OTS
case had been filed in December 1995. It is possible that the
Rose Foundation's advocacy of a proposed property transfer to
resolve USAT-related claims may have contributed to either or
both of the FDIC and OTS actions being brought against
Maxxam and/or Mr. Hurwitz.

In September 1996, before any agreement on the
Headwaters Forest area had been reached, and at a time when
Pacific Lumber had announced plans to log old-growth forest lands
in the Headwaters area, the Rose Foundation urged the U.S. Office
of Thrift Supervision to issue a temporary cease-and-desist order
in OTS's pending case against Maxxam, Mr. Hurwitz and others (see
"Reasons for Electing Independent Directors" above). The Rose
Foundation recommended this action as a way to prevent these
assets from being liquidated, a step that would have reduced the
value of those properties to conservation-oriented buyers,
including government agencies. OTS did not seek such an order.
Had such an order been imposed, it could have had a materially
adverse impact on the Company, in that all significant Company
financial transactions and any liquidation of significant assets
would have required approval of a court or monitor. Later that
month, Maxxam, the United States and the State of California
announced an agreement in principle on the Headwa-

14

DEFC14A 16th "Page" of 18 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 16th


ters area, which was finalized as the Headwaters Agreement in
March 1999. The Rose Foundation did not renew its proposal for a
cease-and-desist order after the September 1996 agreement. In
addition, Jill Ratner, the Rose Foundation's President, provided
legal advice to Robert Martel, the "relator" or plaintiff in a
False Claims Act suit naming Maxxam as a defendant which was
dismissed as frivolous, with attorneys' fees assessed against Mr.
Martel, based on the Court's determination that Mr. Martel lacked
standing as a False Claims Act relator, although Ms. Ratner did
not appear as an attorney in that or any other litigation adverse
to the Company.

In June 1995 the Rose Foundation contacted the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service expressing concerns about the
possible impacts of logging operations in the Blanton Creek and
Yager Creek watersheds on Company property in the Headwaters
Forest area and encouraging the Service to ensure that Pacific
Lumber Co. complies with federal and state laws protecting
endangered species. The Rose Foundation testified at public
hearings on the scope and preparation of environmental
documentation required under the National Environmental Policy
Act, the Endangered Species Act and state environmental statutes
in connection with the Headwaters sale, encouraging relevant
agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, to consider
the comparative impacts of a variety of forest management
approaches, and encouraging relevant agencies to require
documentation of the infeasibility of rejected environmentally
preferable alternatives. In addition, at several points starting
in 1995 the Rose Foundation wrote letters to the Service in an
effort to seek support for settlement of USAT-related claims in a
way that preserves old-growth timber in the Headwaters Forest
area.

The USWA is a collective-bargaining representative of
employees at, inter alia, steel and aluminum mills located
throughout the United States, including employees of Kaiser
Aluminum & Chemical Corporation ("KACC"), which is wholly owned
by Kaiser Aluminum Corporation, 63 percent of whose outstanding
common stock is owned by Maxxam. The USWA is currently involved
in a labor dispute with KACC involving five of its plants: the
Trentwood Plant in Spokane, Washington; the Mead Plant in
Spokane, Washington; the Gramercy Plant in Gramercy, Louisiana;
the Newark Plant in Newark, Ohio; and the Tacoma Plant in Tacoma,
Washington, where 2900 USWA members were locked out by management
in January 1999. The details of that dispute are described more
fully above ("Reasons for Electing Independent Directors").

Independently of this matter, the USWA and one of its
members filed a complaint in California state court on March 31,
1999 against the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection, challenging one aspect of the Headwaters Agreement,
which was described earlier in this section. In particular, the
USWA suit seeks to prohibit the CDF from approving any Timber
Harvesting Plan that relies in any manner upon a Sustained Yield
Plan (the "Plan") that was proposed by Pacific Lumber Co. and its
subsidiaries, Scotia Pacific Lumber LLC and Salmon Creek
Corporation, and approved by CDF on March 1, 1999 as part of the
Headwaters Agreement. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the approved Plan authorizes an unsustainable high harvest of
timber in the short term, without consideration of the long-term
impact of such harvest levels on the economic vitality and
employment in the region. The complaint alleges that this result
violates California state law, which is said to require "maximum
sustained production of high-quality timber products while giving
consideration to regional economic vitality and employment at
planned harvest levels during the planning process." No final
determination has been made about the allegations in this suit.

The USWA has identified Pepsi Bottling Group, Anheuser
Busch, Boeing and Daws Better Built in consumer alert initiatives
designed to dissuade the above companies from purchasing Kaiser
metal. Pepsi and Anheuser Busch have ceased purchasing Kaiser
metal.

The USWA supports passage of the Extended Unemployment
Benefits Bill in the state of Washington that would provide a 30
week extension of unemployment coverage to workers who have been
locked out of their jobs in that state. Under the bill passed by
the State Senate, a company locking out workers would pay the
cost of benefits.

The Bonneville Power Administration ("BPA") is considering
whether to implement a "Good Corporate Citizen Clause" when
awarding subscription power sale contracts to direct service
industries ("DSI"). The USWA supports the implementation of the
clause, as have public officials, including Washington Governor
Gary Locke. Kaiser operates aluminum smelters and has benefitted
from discounted power from the BPA as a DSI. To qualify for
below-market power, the clause would require DSIs to observe
basic standards of conduct as embodied in federal, state and
local laws,

15

DEFC14A 17th "Page" of 18 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 17th


regulations, and orders. Kaiser might not qualify for discounted
power if the BPA should adopt this measure.

RECORD DATE/SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS/EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION/ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Information on these subjects appears in the Company's proxy
statement.

SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS FOR 2001 MEETING

Proposals that shareholders intend to present at the
2001 annual meeting of stockholders (other than those submitted
for inclusion in the Company's proxy material pursuant to Rule
14a-8 of the Proxy Rules of the SEC) must be received by the
Company no later than January 1, 2001 to be presented at the
meeting. Proposals from shareholders owning over $2,000 in stock
for over one year that are submitted under Rule 14a-8 for
inclusion in the Company's proxy materials must be received by
the Company by January 1, 2001. Any such stockholder proposals
must be sent to the Company's Secretary at its executive offices
at 5847 San Felipe, Suite 2600, Houston, Texas 77057.

PLEASE VOTE FOR ABNER J. MIKVA AND PAUL SIMON AND FOR THE
CUMULATIVE VOTING PROPOSAL, THE DECLASSIFIED BOARD PROPOSAL, AND
THE INDEPENDENT BOARD PROPOSAL.

Sincerely,

The Committee of Concerned
Maxxam Shareholders

For additional Information Please Call
Committee of Concerned Maxxam Shareholders
Scott Adams
Toll Free (877) 634-6546
or
Collect (510) 655-8248

DEFC14A Last "Page" of 18 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 18th


MAXXAM INC.
2000 ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS
THIS PROXY IS SOLICITED BY
THE COMMITTEE OF CONCERNED MAXXAM SHAREHOLDERS

The undersigned shareholder of Maxxam Inc. hereby appoints
each of Scott Adams and Jill Ratner, with full power of
substitution, for and in the name below, all shares of common
stock of Maxxam Inc. that the undersigned is entitled to vote if
personally present at the 2000 Annual Meeting of Shareholders of
Maxxam Inc., to be held on May 24, 2000 at The Power Center,
12401 South Post Oak, Houston, Texas at 8:30 A.M. (local time) or
at any adjournment, postponement or rescheduling thereof. The
undersigned hereby revokes any previous proxies with respect to
the matters covered by this Proxy.

THE COMMITTEE OF CONCERNED MAXXAM SHAREHOLDERS RECOMMENDS A
VOTE
FOR ABNER J. MIKVA AND PAUL SIMON (ITEM 1), FOR ITEM 2 (THE
CUMULATIVE VOTING PROPOSAL), FOR ITEM 3 (THE DECLASSIFIED BOARD
PROPOSAL) AND FOR ITEM 4 (THE INDEPENDENT BOARD PROPOSAL).

Item 1: Election of Directors
The Committee of Concerned Maxxam Shareholders intend
to use this proxy to vote for Abner J. Mikva and Paul
Simon, whom they have nominated to serve as two of the
Directors to be elected by holders of shares of
common stock (the "Common Directors"). By using this
card, you will not be able to vote for any of the
the Company's three nominees for Common Director
(Robert J. Cruikshank, Stanley D. Rosenberg and
Michael J. Rosenthal), or on the election of J. Kent
Friedman and Ezra J. Levin, the Company's two nominees
to be elected by holders of the common and preferred
stock, voting together. You should refer to the proxy
statement and form of proxy distributed by the Company
for the background, qualifications and other
information concerning the Company's nominees.

Item 2: To act upon a stockholder proposal, if presented at
the meeting, by As You Sow Foundation and John
Harrington requesting that the board of directors take
steps to provide for cumulative voting in the election
of those directors elected by holders of common stock.

Item 3: To act upon a stockholder proposal, if presented at
the meeting, by Brent Blackwelder, President of
Friends of the Earth, requesting that the board of
directors take steps to declassify the board and to
provide for the annual election of all General
Directors elected by the holders of common and
preferred stock voting together.

Item 4: To act upon a stockholder proposal, if presented at
the meeting, by the Rose Foundation for Communities
and the Environment and Nell Minow, requesting that
the board of directors take steps to provide that a
majority of all board members shall be "independent."

/x/ PLEASE MARK VOTES AS IN THIS EXAMPLE

The Committee of Concerned Maxxam Shareholders recommends a vote
FOR Abner J. Mikva and Paul Simon on Item 1, FOR Item 2, FOR Item
3 and FOR Item 4.

1. Election of Directors

Abner J. Mikva (for term expiring in 2001)
Paul Simon (for term expiring in 2001)
/ / For / / Withhold / / For both except

_______________________________________________
For both nominees except as noted above

2. Proposed resolution submitted by As You Sow Foundation
and John Harrington, requesting that the board of directors take
steps to provide for cumulative voting in the election of those
directors elected by holders of common stock.

For / / Against/ / Abstain / /

3. Proposed resolution submitted by Brent Blackwelder,
President of Friends of the Earth, requesting that the board of
directors take steps to declassify the board and to provide for
the annual election of all General Directors elected by the
holders of common and preferred stock voting together.

For / / Against/ / Abstain / /

4. Proposed resolution submitted by the Rose Foundation for
Communities and the Environment and Nell Minow requesting that
the board of directors take steps to provide that a majority of
all board members shall be "independent."

For / / Against / / Abstain / /

WHERE NO VOTING INSTRUCTIONS ARE GIVEN, THE SHARES REPRESENTED BY
THIS PROXY WILL BE VOTED FOR ABNER J. MIKVA AND PAUL SIMON ON
ITEM 1, FOR ITEM 2, FOR ITEM 3 AND FOR ITEM 4.

IN THEIR DISCRETION THE PROXIES ARE AUTHORIZED TO VOTE UPON SUCH
OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY PROPERLY COME BEFORE THE MEETING OR ANY
ADJOURNMENT, POSTPONEMENT OR RESCHEDULING THEREOF, HEREBY
REVOKING ANY PROXY OR PROXIES HERETOFORE GIVEN BY THE
UNDERSIGNED.

This Proxy, when properly executed, will be voted in the manner
marked herein by the undersigned shareholder. Securities and
Exchange Commission reg. 240.14a-4(d)(iv) requires the following
statement on this card: There is no assurance that the
registrant's nominees will serve if elected with any of the
soliciting party's nominees.

(place mailing label here)

Please date and sign this proxy exactly as your name appears
hereon:

Dated:________________________, 2000

____________________________ _______________________________
(Signature) (Signature, if held jointly)

_______________________________
(Title)

When shares are held by joint tenants, both should sign. When
signing as attorney-in-fact, executor, administrator, trustee,
guardian, corporate officer or partner, please give full title as
such. If a corporation, please sign in corporate name by
President or other authorized officer. If a partnership, please
sign in partnership name by authorized person.

To vote in accordance with the recommendation of The Committee of
Concerned Maxxam Shareholders, just sign and date this proxy. No
boxes need to be checked.

PLEASE MARK, SIGN, DATE AND RETURN THIS PROXY CARD PROMPTLY IN
THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE PROVIDED.


Dates Referenced Herein and Documents Incorporated By Reference

Referenced-On Page
This DEFC14A Filing Date First Last Other Filings

10/1/94 6
3/31/95 3 10-Q
8/2/95 8
11/1/95 6
12/8/97 3
9/30/98 8 10-Q
10/1/98 9
10/14/98 8
12/14/98 14
1/13/99 9
1/14/99 8 9
3/1/99 16
3/3/99 7 14
3/31/99 7 16 8-K, 10-Q, 10-K405
7/5/99 6
7/16/99 8
9/23/99 8
12/21/99 11 12
12/31/99 9 10-K405
1/24/00 3 12
3/17/00 6 14
3/20/00 6 14
3/31/00 3 4 10-Q
4/17/00 3
4/26/00 8 PRRN14A
Filed On / Filed As Of 5/9/00 2 DFAN14A, DEFA14A
5/24/00 2 18
1/1/01 17

Top List All Filings

Alternative Formats: Rich Text / Word (.rtf), Text (.txt), EDGAR (.sgml), XML (.xml), et al.
Copyright © 2007 Fran Finnegan & Company All Rights Reserved.
www.secinfo.com - Wed, 2 May 2007 06:51:57.2 GMT - Help at SEC Info