COMMUNITY COMMENTS ON MICHAEL ALLEN CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHARGES
Letter from Victoria Hogan:
Wysocky owes me and all the voters of Santa Rosa an apology. He ran emphasizing that he was a CPA and an independant thinker. People trusted him. I supported Wysocky in the 2008 City Council race but he has shown a cowardly, hypocritical, dishonest side of himself with his letter to the PD. He is responsible for appointing the sleaziest Santa Rosa planning commissioner in memory. He is now responsible for promoting a culture of corruption or worse in this town. After all, isn't paying for or accepting money for influencing a government decision usually called a bribe? That may still be illegal even in Santa Rosa. Assuming it is still illegal, Wysocky is supporting an illegal act. Wysocky is still a certified public accountant. If he has no problem with corruption and bribery on the part of his own city appointees, I wonder how much integrity he brings to the accounting work he performs. Wysocky called me last year to tip me to John Sawyer's failure to recuse himself from a city council decision involving a development project. Sawyer served on the advisory panel for the developer and Wysocky said that role created bias. Wysocksy was very clear on the need to recuse oneself in order to avoid a conflict of interest. I followed up by asking the City Attorney why Sawyer was allowed to participate in the vote. She told me it was because he had received no compensation and he had resigned from the advisory panel over a year prior to the vote. So Wysocky in 2009 was outraged by the conduct of a political opponent and wanted to engage in a "gotcha" with him by contacting people he thought might criticize Sawyer. Don't get me wrong, I think Sawyer should have recused himself after becoming an advocate for a development project and demonstrating bias by participating in some false accusations about the project opponents but in comparison to Allen voting on his own project and for compensation, Sawyer was a boy scout. For Wysocky to make an issue of Sawyer's failure to recuse while at the same time it turns out his own appointee had a serious conflict of interest, is hypocrisy pure and simple. An honest politician would be investigating what happened with Allen himself and telling us he didn't vet the candidates enough and would do better with his next appointees. That's not what we're hearing from Wysocky. Michael Allen arranged for much of the donations to Wysocky's campaign for City Council. When Wysocky won he asked Allen to help screen and interview the applications for appointments but Allen ended up recommending himself for the Planning Commission. That act should have been a clue to Wysocky that Allen was a sleaze. Instead Wysocky does as he is told just like a political puppet of the local union boss. In his letter Wysocky says he's proud Allen "accepted my appointment". That language implies it was Wysocky's idea and offer instead of the sham application and interview process that actually took place. It looks to me like Wysocky will say and do anything Allen tells him and is starting the fundraising process for the next campaign a little early. How sad.
Letter from Geoff Johnson:
I wrote earlier that Councilmembers are ultimately responsible for the actions of their appointees to City boards and commissions. At the time, I was a little uncomfortable about blaming Gary Wysocky for Michael Allen's self-serving conflict-of-interest, as Wysocky's appointee to the Planning Commission. But not any more. In a PD letter to the editor yesterday, identifying himself as a "City councilman", Gary Wysocky wrote: "The Michael Allen I know is a man of integrity. I am proud that he accepted my appointment to the city Planning Commission."
Letter to the California Latino Legislative Caucus:
Dear Caucus Members,
I was shocked to hear that the California Latino Legislative Caucus has endorsed Michael Allen for 7th District Assembly. I hope that this is not true.
I reported Mr. Allen to the FPPC for a serious conflict of interest in March 2010. The FPPC has assigned an investigating attorney to the case. We have his own contracts and invoices on our website as documented proof. I am sending you this information because I can't believe that you would endorse him if you had seen it. Michael Allen was paid by the Sonoma County Water Agency in 2009 to lobby the City of Santa Rosa regarding a property they own at 2150 West College Avenue, SR, while he was on the Planning Commission and VOTING on this issue. He voted to get the County the zoning they wanted. His own invoices clearly state that he was influencing the City at the same time that he was sitting on the Planning Commission. This is a serious conflict of interest.
There are two other Democrats running in this race. There is no honor in supporting a corrupt person for office. We want clean government. Please review this information and consider issuing a press release withdrawing your endorsement.
Steering Committee Member
NO RESPONSE HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE CALIFORNIA LATINO LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS AS OF JUNE 6, 2010.
A similar email was sent to Norman Soloman, FAIR, who also endorses Michael Allen. No response. This was a disappointment as we have respected Mr. Soloman in the past for his commitment to 'fairness and accuracy in reporting' and politics in general. He is based in the Sebastopol area.
Email message sent by Noreen Evans on May 28, 2010
I am proud to support Michael Allen to succeed me in the State Assembly. In Sacramento, we will fight together to create jobs, invest in our local economy, and protect vital services.
Please join me on Thursday, June 3rd at 5:30 pm for this event hosted by Lori and Don Edgar and the Consumer Attorneys of California in support of his campaign. To RSVP, contact Don Edgar at (707) 799-4090 or email@example.com.
For more information about Michael, visit his website at www.AllenforAssembly.com.