| timeline_on_allen_the_scwa_and_planning_commission2.doc |
| 2009_amended_contract-5.pdf |
| scwa_2009_invoices.pdf |
DOCUMENTATION FOR FPPC COMPLAINT AGAINST MICHAEL ALLEN ET AL
The timeline above takes you through the background and reason for the complaint
The 2009 Amended Contract between Michael Allen and SCWA.
When you are reading this contract pay specific attention to the Recitals, Letters F and H on page A1. This sets out the reason for the amendment. On page A2 take a look at 1.5 "Assist in Santa Rosa General Plan Amendment etc." This is the smoking gun. Our complaint specifically focuses on Allen's amended contract with SCWA dated January 27, 2009. Allen was appointed to the Planning Commission on January 13, 2009. The scope of work in the January 27 amended contract required Allen to "conduct additional planning, research, and collaboration with the City of Santa Rosa to include College Avenue property as part of the City of Santa Rosa's General Plan amendment." Allen voted on this issue on August 13, 2009. Allen was paid nearly $9,000 by SCWA while he sat on the Planning Commission. Under State ethics rules if a person has a potential for financial gain he must recuse himself. He did not do that. He suddenly resigned on February 5, 2010 saying that he needed time to campaign for his run for the District 7 Assembly seat.
The invoices (bills) Allen gave to the SCWA to get paid.
Please read his comments on the February 2009 invoice, but these invoices should leave no doubt in your mind that he was being paid to lobby the City of Santa Rosa at the same time that he was on the Planning Commission and actually voting on this issue.
BONUS INFORMATION: 2010 SCWA $75,000 Contract with Michael Allen (currently on hold with Board of Supervisors.) Details here.
HAVE ANY DOUBTS ABOUT WHETHER THIS WAS A VIOLATION? HERE ARE THE RULES---YOU DECIDE.
The following is from the conflict-of-interest provisions of the Political Reform Act (the “Act”) from the FPPC. Commission regulations appear at Title 2, sections 18109-18997 of the California Code of Regulations.
"The Act’s conflict-of-interest provisions are to ensure that public officials will perform their duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their financial interests. (Section 81001(b).) Specifically, section 87100 prohibits any public official from “making,” “participating in making,” or otherwise using his or her official position to “influence” a governmental decision in which the official has a financial interest. "
There are two rules as to whether a public official is using or attempting to use his or her official position to influence a governmental decision. The first rule applies when the relevant governmental decision is within or before the public official’s own agency, or an agency appointed by or subject to the budgetary control of the public official’s agency. (Regulation 18702.3(a).) In that case,
“... the official is attempting to use his or her official position to influence the decision if, for the purpose of influencing the decision, the official contacts, or appears before, or otherwise attempts to influence, any member, officer, employee or consultant of the agency. Attempts to influence include, but are not limited to, appearances or contacts by the official on behalf of a business entity, client, or customer.” (Ibid.)
Under this rule, attempts to influence a decision include a public official’s appearances or contacts before his or her own agency, including any member, officer, employee or consultant of that agency, on behalf of a client.[1] While in some contexts a city itself is considered a single agency, with respect to regulation 18702.3, the Commission will generally treat each public body, even within a single city, as separate public agencies. (Hons Advice Letter, No. I-00-255; Larmore Advice Letter, No. A-00-275; Stout Advice Letter, No. I-88-313.)
For purposes of determining whether a public official will be influencing a governmental decision through his or her communications or meetings with city staff, it is important to realize that staff does not exist in a vacuum; it is not a generic entity with its own identity. Rather, staff is a component of the agency to which it is assigned. An “agency” includes the staff assigned exclusively to a public official’s agency (Larmore Advice Letter, No. A-00-275; Martello Advice Letter, No. A-85-190) as well as staff that are shared between that and another agency (West Advice Letter, No. A-88-413). In recognition of this, we previously advised that a city planning commission, as an agency, includes the planning staff of the city (Martello Advice Letter, No. A-85-190) including both the planning department of the city and the city staff assigned to the planning department. (Kennedy Advice Letter, No. I-86-026). Similarly, in the case of an architectural review board that had its own assigned staff, we previously advised that the remaining city staff would come within the meaning of “other agency” as used in then-regulation 18700.1 (superceded in-part by regulation 18702.4(b)(5)(A).) (Sprague Advice Letter, No. I-88-093.) Thus, as a general rule a public official may not appear or otherwise communicate in his or her private capacity with either staff of his or her own agency, or staff that is shared between his or her own agency and another.
Generally, a public official must not contact staff of his or her agency for the purpose of influencing a decision in which he or she has a financial interest, including contacts on behalf of a business entity, client or customer. (Regulation 18702.3(a); Rumansoff Advice Letter, No. I-94-045; Holbert Advice Letter, No. I-90-080.)
WHAT DOES MICHAEL ALLEN HAVE TO SAY FOR HIMSELF?
Although there is clear documentation here, obtained from the SCWA, with signed statements from Michael Allen and invoices (bills) with payments, Michael Allen has tried to confuse the public.
GET INVOLVED-------IT'S YOUR STATE!
"The Act’s conflict-of-interest provisions are to ensure that public officials will perform their duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their financial interests. (Section 81001(b).) Specifically, section 87100 prohibits any public official from “making,” “participating in making,” or otherwise using his or her official position to “influence” a governmental decision in which the official has a financial interest. "
There are two rules as to whether a public official is using or attempting to use his or her official position to influence a governmental decision. The first rule applies when the relevant governmental decision is within or before the public official’s own agency, or an agency appointed by or subject to the budgetary control of the public official’s agency. (Regulation 18702.3(a).) In that case,
“... the official is attempting to use his or her official position to influence the decision if, for the purpose of influencing the decision, the official contacts, or appears before, or otherwise attempts to influence, any member, officer, employee or consultant of the agency. Attempts to influence include, but are not limited to, appearances or contacts by the official on behalf of a business entity, client, or customer.” (Ibid.)
Under this rule, attempts to influence a decision include a public official’s appearances or contacts before his or her own agency, including any member, officer, employee or consultant of that agency, on behalf of a client.[1] While in some contexts a city itself is considered a single agency, with respect to regulation 18702.3, the Commission will generally treat each public body, even within a single city, as separate public agencies. (Hons Advice Letter, No. I-00-255; Larmore Advice Letter, No. A-00-275; Stout Advice Letter, No. I-88-313.)
For purposes of determining whether a public official will be influencing a governmental decision through his or her communications or meetings with city staff, it is important to realize that staff does not exist in a vacuum; it is not a generic entity with its own identity. Rather, staff is a component of the agency to which it is assigned. An “agency” includes the staff assigned exclusively to a public official’s agency (Larmore Advice Letter, No. A-00-275; Martello Advice Letter, No. A-85-190) as well as staff that are shared between that and another agency (West Advice Letter, No. A-88-413). In recognition of this, we previously advised that a city planning commission, as an agency, includes the planning staff of the city (Martello Advice Letter, No. A-85-190) including both the planning department of the city and the city staff assigned to the planning department. (Kennedy Advice Letter, No. I-86-026). Similarly, in the case of an architectural review board that had its own assigned staff, we previously advised that the remaining city staff would come within the meaning of “other agency” as used in then-regulation 18700.1 (superceded in-part by regulation 18702.4(b)(5)(A).) (Sprague Advice Letter, No. I-88-093.) Thus, as a general rule a public official may not appear or otherwise communicate in his or her private capacity with either staff of his or her own agency, or staff that is shared between his or her own agency and another.
Generally, a public official must not contact staff of his or her agency for the purpose of influencing a decision in which he or she has a financial interest, including contacts on behalf of a business entity, client or customer. (Regulation 18702.3(a); Rumansoff Advice Letter, No. I-94-045; Holbert Advice Letter, No. I-90-080.)
WHAT DOES MICHAEL ALLEN HAVE TO SAY FOR HIMSELF?
Although there is clear documentation here, obtained from the SCWA, with signed statements from Michael Allen and invoices (bills) with payments, Michael Allen has tried to confuse the public.
- He says that these are 'old' charges. Not true: He was being paid right up until August/September 2009.
- He says we have a 'political grudge'. Not true. We have no particular interest in the assembly race beyond wanting an honest candidate/elected official.
- He says that he 'didn't think what he did was wrong and if it was he won't do it again.' As a person who served on a city board, as well as an employee of the State, Michael Allen was required to take a course in Ethics which clearly identified what he did as WRONG. No question about it.
GET INVOLVED-------IT'S YOUR STATE!
