Quantcast
 
Loading
WatchSonoma
WatchSonoma Watch

Auditor raises issues with Allen contract; Water Agency satisfied with his work

Michael Allen

By DEREK MOORE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

UPDATED VERSION OF STORY POSTED AT 4:55 PM THURSDAY

A formal audit of state Assembly candidate Michael Allen’s work for the Sonoma County Water Agency cited problems with how Allen documented a source for some of his reports and how the scope of his work was modified without proper authorization.

But County Auditor Rod Dole, who has endorsed Allen’s candidacy for the 7th Assembly District seat in the Democratic primary, also noted that Water Agency officials who were interviewed as part of the month-long investigation were “satisfied” with the work they paid Allen to produce.

There was debate Thursday on how to interpret the findings.

READ THE AUDITOR’S REPORT ON ALLEN’S CONTRACTS

Allen has refused numerous requests for comment this week, but his campaign staff characterized the report as a vindication of his work.

County Supervisor Valerie Brown, however, said she still has concerns about Allen using material from other consultants without properly citing their work.

In her opinion, the report raises concerns about the management and oversight of every contract the county has.

“For sure, there are some issues that have been pointed out in the audit that suggest to the board they need to review that,” she said. “The politics of it has to be secondary.”

The auditor’s office launched the review in early April after a Santa Rosa woman who had volunteered for former City Councilman Lee Pierce brought concerns to several county supervisors, including Brown, the board’s chairwoman.

Pierce also is seeking the Assembly seat being vacated by Noreen Evans.

The auditor’s report noted that a 2005 contract that was the focus of the plagiarism concerns did not prohibit Allen from using the work or ideas of others.

The Water Agency paid Allen $24,500 to research how seven acres of land the agency owns on West College Avenue could be placed in a trust that would lead to long-term management of a neighborhood of houses kept at median-price levels.

The auditor’s report found that Allen cited the work of a housing expert in one report he submitted to the Water Agency but that he did not do so in a subsequent report.

“My expectation is that people we contract with produce original work or document where they get that work from,” Brown said. “When I was a teacher, I expected that from my students. I expect if from my staff.”

The auditor’s report noted that the expert whose work Allen included — Philadelphia-based consultant Daniel Hoffman — was aware that his work was being referenced. In an interview with The Press Democrat, Hoffman said he only found out about the contract from the former Pierce volunteer who contacted him earlier this year.

In an e-mail Hoffman later sent directly to Allen, he told Allen that he had no concerns that his work was used improperly and hoped the matter could be put to rest.

The county auditor instead launched the investigation on April 8 after receiving a request from the Sonoma County Counsel’s office. The report is, in essence, a fact-finding document. It’s up to county supervisors to interpret those findings and take any necessary action.

In 2007, Allen entered into a contract with the Water Agency to develop a plan to construct about 100 units of affordable housing on the West College Avenue site. However, auditors concluded that the contract was improperly modified.

According to the report, Allen and Mike Thompson, the agency’s deputy chief engineer, verbally agreed that Allen should work with Northbay Family Homes to develop a housing assistance program rather than with a non-profit land trust that was in the original contract.

That violated terms of the agreement that stated any changes or extra work had to be documented in writing and signed by both parties, the report stated.

In another section, auditors found that Allen did not meet all of the requirements of a Water Agency housing plan because Allen did not “clearly address” the financing alternatives for agency employees.

The total amount of the three contracts Allen entered into with the Water Agency was $119,500. Allen was ultimately paid $109,858, according to the auditor’s report.

The state’s Fair Political Practices Commission also is conducting an inquiry to determine whether Allen violated conflict-of-interest laws while he was a member of the Santa Rosa Planning Commission and working for the Water Agency.

That probe centers on Allen’s vote in August to approve an overhaul of the city general plan that changed the land-use designation for property owned by the Water Agency. Allen at the time was under contract to the agency to lobby for that change in the general plan designation.

Allen has denied talking to fellow commissioners or city staff members about the project once he was appointed to the commission.

One of his billings to the Water Agency indicated, however, that he had a brief conversation with Advanced Planning Director Wayne Goldberg in March 2009.

The auditor’s report also concluded that based on a review of monthly invoices, progress reports and talking with Water Agency officials, Allen did in fact work with the city on the “planning, research and collaboration” of the general plan amendment as he was hired by the agency to do.

The county’s probe was sparked by concerns raised by Victoria Hogan, a retired government employee in Santa Rosa who was working for Pierce as a campaign volunteer last December when she said she requested information about Allen’s contracts from the Water Agency.

Pierce acknowledged having conversations with Hogan about the contracts but maintains that he had no involvement in Hogan’s efforts.

The audit report was based on a review of documents provided to Dole’s office by the Water Agency and interviews with Thompson and Allen. Under the heading of “Limitations,” the report states that due to the specialized and unique field of employer housing programs, “we did not address the sufficiency of the services and documents provided by Mr. Allen to the (Water) Agency.”

“If we had obtained the services of an expert in the field of employer housing programs, information may have come to our attention that could have materially changed our results and conclusion,” the report stated.

Dole, the ciunty auditor, on Thursday dismissed any concerns about his endorsement of Allen’s candidacy and his office overseeing the audit investigation.

“I endorsed Mr. Allen before I was ever asked to do this report,” Dole said. “If you want to look into the contracts, I welcome you to do so.”

Dole said his audit staff by charter can go directly to supervisors if they have concerns with how a particular audit is being conducted.

“I don’t believe there is an issue with the independence of this report,” he said.





102 Responses to “Auditor raises issues with Allen contract; Water Agency satisfied with his work”

  1. Voice of reason says:

    The Water Agency said that Michael Allen did in fact lobby the City of Santa Rosa for a zoning change they wanted. Then he voted on it too. That’s an obvious ethics violation. He hasn’t been cleared of any complaints filed against him, rather the Water Agency confirmed that he acted unethically by completing his lobbying contract while on the Planning Commission.

    Michael Allen also headed the discredited (by the Grand Jury) Accountable Development Coalition. This unelected group has installed themselves into the development review process and are now holding up developers for cash, that want their projects approved.

    The ADC attacked and killed the Lowe’s project under Michael Allen’s leadership and while he was on the Santa Rosa Planning Commission and voting on the issue. The Grand Jury said he should have recused himself. He knew what he was doing was wrong but felt like he could get away with it. He didn’t. Now his supporters are angry with the people who caught him. Michael Allen and his supporters are sore losers and they think if they can just attack people enough that this whole thing will go away. Michael Allen should just go away. Doris Gentry has my vote.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. KICK ALLEN TO THE CURB says:

    I hope no one votes for this guy.

    He’s got such a big ‘support’ network. It’s kind of scary how aggressive they are. Will they be appointed to boards and commissions if he wins?

    What a machine.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5

  3. Laura Gonzalez says:

    Wow. Go away for a few days and this thread has become a big bowl of crazy, led by Lee Pierce’s bulldog! The mutt has been unleashed and is out of control. Seriously.

    Someone clearly has a life not worth living if they’re up in the middle of the night posting a candidate’s FPPC info.

    **As for Michael Allen’s special interest groups, look at all this evil: Operating Engineers-bad people all the way around; Nurses-worthless; Law Enforcement-baloney; electricians-loozers; Teachers-worse than used car salesmen; engineers-miscreants, etc. Yup, all these nobodys don’t contribute to our society so who cares what they think? Why don’t they all just crawl back under their rocks?

    **But Chevron, YES!! And…whoever…supports Lee Pierce. They’re the good guys, not special interest groups.

    You may now return back to your asylum politics…..

    (**Examples of sarcasm)

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9

  4. Diana says:

    Posting about his ex wife…really? Attacking the friends of the campaign (and there are a LOT of them) and trying to stir up controversy about Michael having a paid staff working on the campaign? (As if Michael Wilson doesn’t, and Lee Pierce would if anyone supported him)

    Stop insulting our intelligence, we know all of those posts are from the same, single individual who has a grudge against Michael.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6

  5. This is hilarious says:

    It’s almost over folks, and the opposition is getting restless.

    There was only ONE comment yesterday on this forum, and only 4 the day before.

    So this issue just magically sprang back to life with 13+ comments over the next 15 hours or so? No. Look between the lines and see that Michael Allen’s opponents will stop at nothing to try and discredit him.

    They’re even throwing the ex wife out there now! (Seriously…would you endorse any of your ex’s for anything?)

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6

  6. No Endorsement from Allen's Ex says:

    The former Mrs. Michael Allen, Lee Allen, does not appear on the Michael Allen endorsement list. She wrote a letter published in the Press Democrat in 2005 that may explain why or it could be just a coincidence.

    None of Allen’s ex’s live in Texas but they are not stepping up to support him.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6

  7. Worthless Endorsements says:

    Endorsements are particularly useless this year. Lisa Maldonado was in charge of gathering endorsements for Allen last year and she used her usual heavy handed pressure tactics and all before anyone knew that he was on the take.

    People don’t need Maldonado, Stephan Gale or Wysocky to dictate to them how to vote this year.

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6

  8. Allen's Lobbyist Campaign Manager says:

    Allen’s Campaign Manager Whitehurst brags about making money off his relationships with the candidates he elects…because as soon as the election is over he turns back into a lobbyist…look it up…search the Center for Public Integrity and Whitehurst.

    Lisa Maldonado is just a Whitehurst wannabe.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6

  9. Allen is a crook says:

    This Antonio poster is full of it. He’s on the Allen payroll and Allen’s assigned his staff to attack Pierce .

    The only candidate under investigation in this race is Michael Allen. The Sonoma County Auditor confired Allen took money from the Water Agency to influence the City of Santa Rosa.

    Allen is clearly bought and paid for by the special interests.

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7

  10. Antonio says:

    Lee Pierce is pretty shady. His campaign manager Victoria Hogan throws a lot of (boring and useless) dirt at Michael Allen(who else reposts FFPC reports in the middle of the night?)meanwhile Pierce never reports that he was working and being paid as a lobbyist for Industrial Carting while he was running for office and lobbying the city council. I guess Victoria Hogan thinks the best offense is a good defense. Lee has no endorsements and hardly ever even shows up anywhere to talk about his campaign. Meanwhile his campaign manager continues her Captain Ahab impression against Michael Allen. Pathetic!

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9

  11. pollster says:

    As of last week it’s Pierce, Wilson, Allen but the numbers are fairly close. Look for an avalanche of mailers from special interests trying to reverse that in the coming days.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4

  12. WOULDN'T VOTE FOR ALLEN FOR DOGCATCHER says:

    That’s a lot of dough for a lousy assembly race. What’s he spending? More than a year’s salary on ‘campaign consultants’ and attack dogs?

    That assembly seat must be worth a whole lot to him…is he planning to sell influence there too?

    Why would people give him so much money to pay for high-priced ‘campaign consultants’ if they didn’t think they’d get their money’s worth? With his record they can count on it.

    Allen needs an ankle bracelet, not an elected position.

    Lee Pierce or Michael Wilson for Assembly

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7

  13. Is that supposed to be persuasive? says:

    Is posting the campaign reports supposed to persuade people of something?

    All it’s showing me is that you’re running out of things to attack Michael Allen on. I’m sure other people are starting to notice how petty your attacks are becoming, too.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9

  14. Allen Campaign Manager says:

    Here is what the Allen campaign is paying for their campaign manager John Whitehurst and field staff:

    02/12/2010 WHITEHURST/MOSHER CAMPAIGN STRATEGY AND MEDIA CAMPAIGN LITERATURE AND MAILINGS SEE SCHEDULE G FOR SUB-VENDOR PAYMENTS OF $500 OR MORE. $11,600.00
    01/14/2010 WHITEHURST/MOSHER CAMPAIGN STRATEGY AND MEDIA CAMPAIGN LITERATURE AND MAILINGS SEE SCHEDULE G FOR SUB-VENDOR PAYMENTS OF $500 OR MORE. $11,117.76
    11/04/2009 WHITEHURST/MOSHER CAMPAIGN STRATEGY AND MEDIA CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $4,000.00
    11/09/2009 WHITEHURST/MOSHER CAMPAIGN STRATEGY AND MEDIA CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $4,000.00
    12/09/2009 WHITEHURST/MOSHER CAMPAIGN STRATEGY AND MEDIA CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $4,000.00
    01/14/2010 WHITEHURST/MOSHER CAMPAIGN STRATEGY AND MEDIA CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $4,000.00
    10/31/2009 WHITEHURST/MOSHER CAMPAIGN STRATEGY AND MEDIA CAMPAIGN LITERATURE AND MAILINGS $2,380.50
    07/02/2009 COHN, JO ANNE CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $2,000.00
    09/03/2009 COHN, JO ANNE CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $2,000.00
    08/03/2009 WHITEHURST/MOSHER CAMPAIGN STRATEGY AND MEDIA CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $2,000.00
    09/12/2009 WHITEHURST/MOSHER CAMPAIGN STRATEGY AND MEDIA CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $2,000.00
    12/09/2009 WHITEHURST/MOSHER CAMPAIGN STRATEGY AND MEDIA CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $2,000.00

    07/06/2009 HEIDI CON SZELISKI CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $12,450.00
    02/20/2010 ML ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (LEGAL, ACCOUNTING) $1,357.10
    10/05/2009 COHN, JO ANNE CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $1,000.00
    10/31/2009 COHN, JO ANNE CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $1,000.00
    11/30/2009 COHN, JO ANNE CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $1,000.00
    12/31/2009 COHN, JO ANNE CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $1,000.00
    01/31/2010 COHN, JO ANNE CAMPAIGN FIELD STAFFER PAYMENT $1,000.00
    02/28/2010 COHN, JO ANNE CAMPAIGN FIELD STAFFER PAYMENT $1,000.00
    12/06/2009 NELSON, VERONICA CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $900.00
    07/02/2009 JANSEN CONSULTING CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $750.00
    07/20/2009 JANSEN CONSULTING CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $750.00
    08/25/2009 JANSEN CONSULTING CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $750.00
    09/01/2009 JANSEN CONSULTING CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $750.00
    09/21/2009 JANSEN CONSULTING CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $750.00
    10/06/2009 JANSEN CONSULTING CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $750.00
    10/19/2009 JANSEN CONSULTING CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $750.00
    11/01/2009 JANSEN CONSULTING CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $750.00
    11/20/2009 JANSEN CONSULTING CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $750.00
    12/07/2009 JANSEN CONSULTING CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $750.00
    12/15/2009 JANSEN CONSULTING CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $750.00
    01/20/2010 JANSEN CONSULTING FUNDRAISING EVENTS FUNDRAISING SERVICES $750.00
    02/04/2010 JANSEN CONSULTING FUNDRAISING EVENTS FUNDRAISING SERVICES $750.00
    02/15/2010 JANSEN CONSULTING FUNDRAISING EVENTS FUNDRAISING SERVICES $750.00
    03/04/2010 JANSEN CONSULTING FUNDRAISING EVENTS FUNDRAISING SERVICES $750.00
    01/15/2010 POPE, MATTHEW CAMPAIGN FIELD STAFFER PAYMENT $750.00
    02/01/2010 POPE, MATTHEW CAMPAIGN FIELD STAFFER PAYMENT $750.00
    08/10/2009 ML ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (LEGAL, ACCOUNTING) $648.50

    03/09/2010 ML ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (LEGAL, ACCOUNTING) $636.50
    03/01/2010 POPE, MATTHEW CAMPAIGN FIELD STAFFER PAYMENT $600.00
    03/16/2010 POPE, MATTHEW CAMPAIGN FIELD STAFFER PAYMENT $600.00
    11/18/2009 PAYPAL OFFICE EXPENSES $500.00
    01/16/2010 SONOMA COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND APPEARANCES $500.00

    08/21/2009 JANSEN CONSULTING CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $400.00
    01/04/2010 NELSON, VERONICA CAMPAIGN FIELD STAFFER PAYMENT $400.00

    01/13/2010 POPE, MATTHEW CAMPAIGN FIELD STAFFER PAYMENT $375.00
    02/15/2010 POPE, MATTHEW CAMPAIGN FIELD STAFFER PAYMENT $375.00
    03/09/2010 ML ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (LEGAL, ACCOUNTING) $350.39
    10/25/2009 JANSEN CONSULTING CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $350.00
    03/13/2010 WEINSTEIN, MATTHEW PHONE BANKS $320.00
    07/02/2009 COHN, JO ANNE CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $300.00
    07/30/2009 COHN, JO ANNE CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS $277.98

    10/30/2009 SANTA ROSA PRINTING CO, INC. CAMPAIGN LITERATURE AND MAILINGS $275.04

    03/15/2010 WOODSEN, KAY CAMPAIGN FIELD STAFFER PAYMENT $250.00

    02/15/2010 POPE, MATTHEW CAMPAIGN FIELD STAFFER PAYMENT $200.00

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6

  15. Pork 2 says:

    Speicial Interests have poured $114,400 into the Allen campaign accounts just in April and May. That pays for a lot of brochures and all those consultans, employees in the field and online.
    http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1317457&session=2009&view=late1

    During the same period Wilson had $30, 612 most of which was special interest money.

    During the same period Mr. Pierce had $2,500 from an individual supporter.

    The special intererst money is on Allen. The only clean candidate is Pierce. Good thing people already know him.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9

  16. Pork says:

    According to the Secretary of State’s office, the Allen campaign spent between $80,000 and $90,000 for staff just through February. He has so many paid staffers, he can afford to pay people to criticize Lee Pierce and Michael Wilson on this site. Too bad these operatives don’t come with warning labels. Allen also has Lisa Maldonado of the North Bay Labor Council, Ben Boyce his employee, and Stephen Gale posting here regularly to trash his opponents. Boyce admits its a strategy in the internet age. Here is a list of Michael Allen’s 10 paid staff:

    Whitehurst/Mosher

    Heidi Con Szeliski

    Jo Anne Cohn

    ML Associates

    Jansen Consulting

    Alene Seward

    Matthew Pope

    Kay Woodsen

    Veronica Nelson

    Mathew Weinstein

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8

  17. Bill says:

    http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Candidates/Detail.aspx?id=1317458&view=lateexpn

    Independent Expenditure money:
    Allen $28,000
    Pierce $0
    Wilson $0

    Don’t vote for anyone the special interests love enough to form special committees to support. Vote for one of the two clean candidates.

    Don’t vote for Allen, he’s corrupt.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7

  18. Wiseone says:

    Antonio is smearing both Wilson and Pierce just like the other Allen employees have been doing here. I don’t see either Wilson or Pierce trashing Allen. Allen is a jerk.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7

  19. KICK ALLEN TO THE CURB says:

    Vote Lee Pierce. He’s ethical. He has experience on City Council. He’s not endorsed by all the usual suspects. He’s supported by the people.

    Lee Pierce for Assembly

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7

  20. AntonioS says:

    Disgusted with Wilson & Lee Pierce.
    What a bunch of phonies! Wilson takes money from Chevron and real estate interests as well as from big hospital corporations and then sends mail saying he’s a man of the people and call s himself “working Wilson” And Lee Pierce stands in the backround while his vicious campaign manager smears his opponent… I am voting for Michael Allen, a man whose 30 years of good works in our community and efforts to help others speak for themselves.

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 11

  21. Michael Allen Supporter says:

    I’m just happy this report came back and vindicates the best candidate in this race. Michael Allen is the only candidate who understands what it takes to correct California.

    VOTE MICHAEL ALLEN ON JUNE 8TH!

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12

  22. Thompson Cannot Clear Allen says:

    An Auditor doesn’t “clear” people.
    An Auditor finds facts.

    Rod Dole’s report finds facts for 16 pages. The facts include Allen used “identical language” without acknowledging a source and the Agency did not receive all the documents identified in the contracts. But what about services Allen supplied? For that, Dole needed to interview the individual who oversaw the contract.(County employees who oversee contracts have to perform some “due diligence.”)

    The Auditor interviewed only one employee of the SCWA, Michael Thompson. Thompson is under investigation by the FPPC for arranging to pay Michael Allen to influence the outcome of a decision after Gary Wysocky appointed Allen to the City Planning Commission.

    Ironically,in this case, to document that there was a contract extension to assist the Agency with the “planning, research, and collaboration” as part of the Santa Rosa General Plan and that this task was “met” or that Thompson was “satisfied” with Allen’s services doesn’t “clear” either Allen or Thompson. Far from it.

    The FPPC will tells us in a few weeks or months if they believe this is a case of influence peddling or other violation of ethics. Generally speaking, public officials accepting money in any form in connection to their official duties is considered wrong.

    In this case, it was contractual and the County Auditor is reporting the SCWA is satisfied with the services Allen performed for them. The Auditor is making no judgment about whether or not the Agency should be contracting with city officials to “assist” them with zoning changes.

    The statement of satisfaction reflects the objective of the review which was to see if the Agency recieved all the services listed in the contract’s scope of work. The best source for verification of a service performed is to check with the staffer overseeing the project because as the Audit Report stated,”there were no documents required for this task.”

    After reviewing the invoices and talking with Thompson, the Auditor decided all the requirements described under Task 5 “assist in the General Plan Amendment” were “met.” Thompson is the one who signed off on all the monthly summaries and invoices submitted by Allen. So when the Auditor reports that Thompson (who is referred to as “staff”) is satisfied with the work of Allen, that doesn’t mean anyone else is or should be.

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8

  23. Zuma says:

    This guy doesnt have the morals to hold any public position!

    Thumb up 14 Thumb down 9

  24. Just saying says:

    I love how this conversation is rapidly approaching 100 comments and the people who started commenting in favor of Michael Allen are STILL in favor of him, and the people against him are STILL against him.

    We are rapidly approaching 100 useless comments.

    I recommend (to anyone who actually tries to read the comments for help) to just read the report yourself. It will save you time…

    Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1

  25. @Antonio says:

    Oh you are so clever. But you miss the point. Copyright allows for \fair use.\ What Allen did was take a copyrighted article and use it for commercial gain.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6

  26. @Victoria Hogan says:

    You claim no one has responded to how Michael Allen was “Cleared”

    …I guess the conclusion where it says they were satisfied with his work doesn’t count as being cleared?

    …How about the fact that the “uncited” material you reference was the executive summary, not the full report (which you knew when you filed this claim) and the audit points out.

    You also keep mentioning that the audit states he was missing documents WITHOUT mentioning the report puts that fault on his boss, who changed the scope of his report incorrectly. NOT on Michael Allen.

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 8

  27. Emily Litella says:

    As I said on Saturday Night Live a few years back, “never mind.”

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  28. Victoria Hogan says:

    I find the audit report supports and confirms my statements about Allen’s work on the 2005 and 2007 SCWA contracts. I made what I thought would be a simple request for a copy of the reports on housing Allen submitted to the SCWA. After much stalling, it became clear in March that the reports could not be delivered to me because the reports had not been delivered to the Agency by Mr. Allen. I asked the Board of Supervisors and the County Counsel for an audit and they agreed with me it was needed in this situation.

    An audit report is fact finding.

    The Audit Report on the 2005 contract describes two separate tasks involving two separate documents.

    The 92 page document Allen submitted to the SCWA was in response to Task 1 to “Investigate Existing Public Employee Housing Programs”. Allen was paid $5,000 for the investigation which turned out to be copies of a number of articles and documents from a number of sources all clipped together. This document is not an issue, never was. It has been brought up by the Allen team only to confuse the issue of Allen’s plagiarism of the report he turned in to complete Task 2. The executive summary Quock and others are referring to is not connected to Task 1.

    The Auditor described the Allen report for Task 2 having “language identical” to the Hoffman article. That’s because the language is identical. The report at issue is 3 pages long. Allen padded the report a little by borrowing some of the language Mr. Hoffman used at the beginning of his article for an “executive summary” of the 3 page report. Does a three page report require an executive summary? Probably not. But the point is neither the three page report nor it’s summary made any mention of it’s source as the Audit Report makes clear. Since this was a separate task and Allen was paid $17,000 separately for it, when Allen whited out or deleted Hoffman’s name and added a cover letter calling it his own, he lied. He plagiarized. This is about his integrity. Instead of admitting what he did, he sends his inner circle of supporters to this site to make excuses, confuse,speculate and do their baseless namecalling routine. That’s just part of a political strategy and most people understand what they are up to.

    But the audit report on page 3 and 4 also points out that Allen was required to submit “the Agency’s and employees estimated costs for the housing and administrative and describe legal requirements” as required in the scope of work. The report he submitted did not have any estimated costs and it did not have any information about legal requirements. If you take someone else’s work that is several years old, it’s risky. The Hoffman article didn’t contain any cost estimates or legal information so Allen needed to add those parts himself and did not. That is somewhat puzzling because Allen is an attorney who is a member of the State Bar. He should be able to write something about the legal requirements of a housing program. But he did not.
    The Auditor documents this omission and makes the following finding, “In our opinion the report provided by Mr. Allen does not meet all of the requirements of Task 2 a and b.”

    So Ms. Quock’s position is inconsistent with the Auditor’s.

    She and other’s have repeated the claim that the Audit “clear’s” Allen but cannot tell us where the report says that. The Auditor makes clear the objective of his report was to “determine if the agency received all of the documents and or services identified in the scope of work.” The Audit Report then proceeds to go over each requirement of each of the Allen contracts. The Audit Report factually states the report provided by Allen in 2006 for Task 2 “does not meet” all the requirements (see page 4).

    The Report also factaully states with regard to Task 2 of 2007′s contract, “The Agency did not receive a report..” and “Although the Agency was satisfied with the documents they recieved from Mr. Allen, in our opinion the documents submitted to the Agency did not meet the requirements of Task 2a.”(again page4)

    Third, the Audit report factually states on page 5 that “In our opinion the documents submitted to the Agency did not meet all of the requirements of Task 4″ of the 2007 Contract.

    Allen was paid $20,000 of ratepayer money for the missing reports. How is this acceptable to anyone other than the people Allen pays to say it’s okay?

    If an auditor sets out to determine if everything was received and he finds that everything was not received, then that’s a problem because we are talking about public funds here.

    I brought to the attention of the Board that there were two missing reports and one plagiarized report. The auditor found that and more.

    Ms. Quock should explain to us how a report documenting the failure to complete required reports for a contract “clears” the contracting consultant. Please keep in mind the objective of the report was not to determine whether or not Mr. Thompson was satisfied. Mr. Allen was accused of not completing all the work required in the SCWA contract and that’s what the Audit found.

    This is important because government agencies cannot have a double standard for politicians and candidates for office. They need to be consistent. If an audit finds any consultant did not meet the requirements or the Agency did not recieve work it paid for then its Board of Directors have a fiduciary duty to respond with due diligence. The fact this consultant is a politician complicates the matter but the Supervisors need to set that aside and treat him like any other consultant who fails to deliver on a contract.

    If they blow it off, then how can any County contract with a consultant be enforced? If they don’t value the total of $37,000 (three reports valued at $17,000, $5,000, and $15,000 each)in ratepayer money paid out to Allen on the portions of the two contracts that were documented to have “issues” then how can they meet their fiduciary duty to the public and the SCWA employees? After all, the stated purpose of all the money and time was supposed to be in service of developing a housing program for employees. Right now the SCWA does not have a housing program for its employees.

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 8

  29. AntonioS says:

    Hope Lee Pierce and Victoria Hogan got permission from the authors to reprint their work! That might be a copyright violation!

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8

  30. Ignoring the issue says:

    Yeah, the issue isn’t whether he USED the work- that has never been a question. The issue is if it was cited. And the answer (according to the audit) was yes. Posting both long articles on here is completely pointless and akin to Republicans trying to “show how long” the health care reform bill was. It lends absolutely nothing substantive to the issue.

    Michael Allen was CLEARED. While you’re on here trying to defame him, I’m sure he’s out shaking hands and talking to voters. Something the other candidates should have been focused on from the get go.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12

  31. More Excerpt's from Allen Report says:

    9. Construction Financing – Major employers can
    borrow short-term at or near the prime rate. Real estate
    developers particularly nonprofit developers can borrow
    only at much higher rates. Major employers could borrow
    or guarantee loans for housing developers and by doing
    so pass through the employer’s borrowing capacity to the
    developer. The result of such a program is substantial
    savings in construction finance interest charges. This allows for improved initial affordability of the housing units. The university of California and Cal Poly are partnering with private sector developers (profit and non-profit).

    10. Cash – Cash contributions can be used to write down construction costs or rent rates on apartments, or sales prices on homes or condominiums, or to purchase shares on behalf of employees living in mutual housing projects. The University of California System utilizes cash subsidies both for purchase and rentals.

    11. Purchase Guarantees – Building housing that is
    meant for sale has certain risks for the builder. Perhaps
    greatest among those risks is that the housing won’ t be
    sold. Employers can help eliminate this risk for a builder
    by agreeing to purchase some number of units on a
    certain date if those units are not sold by the builder. In
    return the builder agrees to market the units to the employer’s
    employees at a substantial sales price discount. If the
    specified number of units are purchased by the employer’s
    employees the employer is relieved of the responsibility
    of purchasing units, and the benefit becomes, in effect,
    costless. The Coastal Housing Partnership (a non-profit serving employees in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties) has utilized purchase guarantees to local developers. The Partnership is a multi-employer consortium designed to alleviate chronic housing affordability problems.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  32. Excerpt's from Allen Report says:

    “3. Mortgage Guarantees – Employers can guarantee all, or a portion of, a mortgage. By guaranteeing a mortgage an employer can reduce lender risk. In return the lender can reduce down payment requirements, offer more flexible loan underwriting criteria, and waive private mortage insurance premiums (saving the borrower about 1/2% annually). The University of California offers this benefit program to a segment of its staff (professors.)”

    “4. Group Mortgage Insurance – offers the same benefit to the employee as a mortgage guarantee program does. To the employer the difference between the two programs is that a mortgage guarantee results in the employers incurring a contingent liability. An insurance program enables the employer to transfer this liability to an insurer in return for a premium. Because the default experience rate for employers has been so low (typically less than a 2 % default experience rate), many employers opt to self insure using an identified reserve of funds. The University of Pennsylvania has successfully self insured for the past 30 + years.”

    7. Purchase of Mortgage Backed Securities – Mortgage revenue bonds are commonly issued by local and state agencies and many private real estate lenders. Employers can request that these issuers issue taxable bonds paying a below market rate, which the employer would purchase. The proceeds from the bonds would be used to fund mortgages or second mortgage down payment loans for the employer’s bond. Thus the employer would actually earn a return on a personnel benefit. Mortgage revenue bonds have been utilized to produce affordable housing nationwide. These bonds are commonly used by Private Sector Employers due to favored tax treatment. The Public Sector most commonly used by Private Sector Employers due to favored tax treatment. The Public Sector most commonly uses bonds for community redevelopment, and affordable housing development.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  33. Hoffman's Blueprint Article in full says:

    http://www.eahousing.com/Blueprintarticle.html

    A Blueprint for
    Employer-Assisted
    Housing

    Housing benefit programs are being developed by
    employers and unions on an ad hoc or individualized
    basis. Partly, this is a result of the lack of standardized
    benefit packages being marketed to employers by the
    shelter industries, or by personnel benefit consultants.
    While the lack of standardized benefit plans does tend to
    limit the knowledge base for the employers and unions
    wishing to offer a housing benefit, this ad hoc or
    customized benefit approach has encouraged some
    useful experimentation which can ultimately serve to
    inform employers and employees as to the
    cost-effectiveness, administrative complexity, and utility
    of various housing benefit approaches.

    Housing benefits can be implemented in a variety of
    ways, but most programs fall into one of two categories.
    One category of program enhances the affordability of
    existing housing enabling employees to obtain housing
    already available on the market. Such programs, known
    as demand programs, do not add to the regional supply
    of affordable housing. The other category of program
    can be described as supply oriented, these programs do
    add affordable units to a regional housing market.
    Demand programs more closely resemble other types of
    personnel benefit programs in that employer involvement
    is usually indirect and all eligible employees may access
    the program at any given time. Supply programs, by
    definition, limit the number of participants to the number
    of homes being built or rehabilitated. Supply programs
    can develop fee simple ownership housing, rental units,
    or limited equity housing. Demand programs, currently,
    tend to provide only homeownership opportunities.
    At present, there are seven ways of implementing
    demand programs and four ways of implementing supply
    programs. Some methods within supply and demand
    categories can be implemented with each other and
    some methods between categories can be implemented
    with each other, though the merging of supply and
    demand programs within a single housing activity is less
    likely.

    The seven demand models are: group mortgage
    origination, closing cost subsidies, mortgage guarantees,
    group mortgage, insurance, down payment loans,
    mortgage buy down programs and the purchase of
    mortgage backed securities. The four ways employers
    can provide housing supply assistance is by providing
    sites, cash subsidies, construction financing or purchase
    guarantees. What follows in a brief description of these
    11 programs.

    Demand Programs

    1. Group Mortgage Orientation Plans- are essentially
    volume discount programs whereby a mortgage lender
    voluntarily reduces mortgage interest rates, closing
    points, and/or application fees in return for a bulk
    mortgage lending commitment or some other expectation
    of a certain level of mortgage lending activity. The lender
    subsidy will vary with the number of mortgages originated
    and other market conditions, but in any substantial
    program the value can be expected to approximate a 25
    basis points (1/4%) reduction on the mortgage interest
    rate and about one point (1%) lower on the closing costs.

    2. Closing Cost Assistance Programs- arc usually
    matched with group mortgage origination plans. An
    employer offering a closing cost subsidy program can
    pay closing points on a mortgage (usually 1-3% of the
    mortgage). Another closing cost subsidy program that
    employers can offer is to cover legal costs associated
    with the purchase of a home. This benefit, particularly if it
    includes title insurance, which lawyers usually offer or
    arrange for, can be worth a thousand dollars or more.

    3. Mortgage Guarantees – Employers can guarantee all,
    or a portion of, a mortgage. By guaranteeing a mortgage
    an employer can reduce lender risk. In return the lender
    can reduce down payment requirements, offer more
    flexible loan underwriting criteria, and waive private
    mortgage insurance premiums (saving the borrower
    about 1/2% annually).

    4. Group Mortgage Insurance – offers the same benefit
    to the employee as a mortgage guarantee program
    does. To the employer the difference between the two
    programs is that a mortgage guarantee results in the firm
    incurring a contingent liability. An insurance program
    enables the employer to transfer this liability to an
    insurer in return for a premium.

    5. Down payment Loans – Down payment loan programs
    can be structured in several ways including, reduced
    interest rate loans and deferred loans, but perhaps the
    most interesting form being offered is a forgivable down
    payment loan. Firms are discovering that they can afford
    to forgive down payment loans if the rate of forgiveness
    is equal to, or less than, the rate of employee turnover
    and the cost of recruitment and training. By having the
    loan forgiven over time (generally 4-6 years) the
    employee has a powerful incentive to remain with the
    firm. Conversely, if the employee does not remain with
    the firm the loan can be structured so as to be due
    immediately, and thus the employer can fully recapture
    the investment in the employee. For employers
    concerned with attracting and retaining employees,
    concerned about employee turnover and training costs,
    a down payment program can be a cost-effective and
    riskless benefit.
    6. Mortgage Buy down Programs- Firms offering
    relocation programs are familiar with mortgage buy down
    programs as the practice of subsidizing mortgage interest
    rates is a mainstay of corporate relocation programs.
    These programs pay multiple points at the time of
    closing, usually 6-l6 points, driving down interest rates
    100-300 basis points. Ten points on an eighty thousand
    dollar mortgage is $8,000, a substantial sum for a
    broad-based benefit program. For this reason many firms
    will want to offer other types of benefit programs including
    the next program discussed which can offer a similar
    benefit at ultimately a lower cost. However, firms that are
    in the finance sectors, banks, S & L’s, and insurance
    companies are familiar with the reduced interest rate
    concept and they frequently offer what is essentially a
    mortgage buy down benefit, by agreeing to hold a below
    market rate loan in the lender’s own portfolio.

    7. Purchase of Mortgage Backed Securities – Mortgage
    revenue bonds are commonly issued by local and state
    agencies and many private real estate lenders.
    Employers can request that these issuers issue taxable
    bonds paying a below market rate, which the employer
    would purchase. The proceeds from the bonds would be
    used to fund mortgages or second mortgage down
    payment loans for the firm’s employees, and the
    repayment of the mortgages would repay the employer’s
    bond. Thus the employer would actually earn a return on
    a personnel benefit.

    Supply Programs

    The following supply program subsidies all result in a
    developer (nonprofit or for profit) being able to build or
    rehabilitate units al a reduced cost. As a result of the
    employer assistance the firm’s employees receive priority
    access to the units created and a reduced sales price or
    rental rate.

    8. Housing Site Subsidy – Some firms may have excess
    land suitable for housing development, while other firms,
    or a consortium of firms, may be able to purchase a site
    or even a building proximate to corporate facilities. By
    selling at a discount, leasing, or donating the parcel to a
    developer (nonprofit or for profit) housing affordability
    and availability can be increased. Land can either be
    held by the firm or firms, or leased to a developer or held
    by a nonprofit or land trust

    9. Construction Financing – Major corporations can
    borrow short-term at or near the prime rate. Real estate
    developers particularly nonprofit developers can borrow
    only at much higher rates. Major employers could borrow
    or guarantee loans for housing developers and by doing
    so pass through the firm’s borrowing capacity to the
    developer. The result of such a program is substantial
    savings in construction finance interest charges.

    10. Cash – Employers are familiar with providing cash
    infusions to projects, traditionally by making charitable
    contributions. By providing corporate rather than
    charitable contributions the firm can access units for their
    employees. Cash contributions can be used to write down
    construction costs or rent rates on apartments, or sales
    prices on homes or condominiums, or to purchase shares
    on behalf of employees living in mutual housing projects.

    11. Purchase Guarantees – Building housing that is
    meant for sale has certain risks for the builder. Perhaps
    greatest among those risks is that the housing won’ t be
    sold. Employers can help eliminate this risk for a builder
    by agreeing to purchase some number of units on a
    certain date if those units are not sold by the builder. In
    return the builder agrees to market the units to the firm’s
    employees at a substantial sales price discount. If the
    specified number of units are purchased by the firm’s
    employees the employer is relieved of the responsibility
    of purchasing units, and the benefit becomes, in effect,
    costless.

    By implementing any of these programs employers have
    the opportunity to address important recruitment, training
    and productivity cost issues by providing employees a
    permanent valuable benefit. The specific program
    undertaken will depend on the goals and problems faced
    by an employer and the employees, but
    employer-assisted housing is a benefit worth
    consideration.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  34. Hoffman's Intro/Allen's Summary says:

    Copyright, Daniel N. Hoffman.
    All rights reserved. http://www.eahousing.com/Blueprintarticle.html
    A Blueprint for
    Employer-Assisted
    Housing

    …Housing benefits can be implemented in a variety of
    ways, but most programs fall into one of two categories.
    One category of program enhances the affordability of
    existing housing enabling employees to obtain housing
    already available on the market. Such programs, known
    as demand programs, do not add to the regional supply
    of affordable housing. The other category of program
    can be described as supply oriented, these programs do
    add affordable units to a regional housing market.
    Demand programs more closely resemble other types of
    personnel benefit programs in that employer involvement
    is usually indirect and all eligible employees may access
    the program at any given time. Supply programs, by
    definition, limit the number of participants to the number
    of homes being built or rehabilitated. Supply programs
    can develop fee simple ownership housing, rental units,
    or limited equity housing. Demand programs, currently,
    tend to provide only homeownership opportunities.
    At present, there are seven ways of implementing
    demand programs and four ways of implementing supply
    programs. Some methods within supply and demand
    categories can be implemented with each other and
    some methods between categories can be implemented
    with each other, though the merging of supply and
    demand programs within a single housing activity is less
    likely.
    The seven demand models are: group mortgage
    origination, closing cost subsidies, mortgage guarantees,
    group mortgage, insurance, down payment loans,
    mortgage buy down programs and the purchase of
    mortgage backed securities. The four ways employers
    can provide housing supply assistance is by providing
    sites, cash subsidies, construction financing or purchase
    guarantees. What follows in a brief description of these
    11 programs.

    Michael Allen’s Executive Summary:

    Eleven types of Housing benefit programs are identified and programs generally fall into two categories. Demand programs enhance the affordability of existing housing stock. These programs most closely resemble other types of personell benefit programs in that employer involvement is usually indirect. Supply programs increase the number of affordable housing units in a regional housing market. These programs can provide home ownership housing, rental housing, limited equity housing, or rehabilitation of existing housing. Both types of programs can be used exclusively, or in conjunction with other housing program types.
    The seven demand models identifed as alternatives for the Water Agency are: group mortgage
    origination, closing cost subsidies, mortgage guarantees,
    group mortgage, Insurance, Down Payment Loans, and Mortgage Buy Down Programs and
    mortgage backed securities.
    The four ways employers
    can provide housing supply assistance is by providing
    sites, cash subsidies, construction financing or purchase
    guarantees. These models were also identified as alternatives for the Water Agency…

    This summary was followed by a report Allen described in his cover letter as “my draft alternatives for the Water Agency and recommendations” and “my report.” He said, “I am giving you two(2) complete copies of my most recent draft of recommendations and identificatin of alternatives for the design of a multi-faceted housing assistance program for the Agency.”…
    The three page report attached to the cover letter, recommendations and summary was titled “Sonoma County Water Agency Employee Housing Program Alternatives.” It contained the 11 descriptions of demand and supply programs Hoffman included in his article “Blueprint for Employer Assisted Housing” several years earlier.
    So Lindsey Quock either hasn’t actually looked at the document or is here as part of the Allen team’s effort to deliberately obfuscate the issue.
    This is what plagiarism looks like and why the Auditor in his fact finding report stated it was “language identical.”

    Using other people’s words, ideas, and published articles as your own is plagiarism. Submitting another professional’s work to a government agency should be a crime if it isn’t already.
    Sonoma County ratepayers paid Allen $17,000 for a report. Allen took the Hoffman article, stripped off the author’s name, changed the title and inserted a few lines of examples. If it’s not plagiarism, then why didn’t he leave the author’s name on the document?
    The Press Democrat has the two documents. They could post them here if they wanted to.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

  35. Lindsey Quock says:

    Correction:

    The report is finally up but I have not compared to make sure the whole thing is.

    Either way, read it and decide for yourself. The full report (92 pages) was properly cited and the author in the citation approved its use. NOT plaigarism.

    The executive summary did not have a citation, because they don’t require one. A summary is a summary, not a report.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

  36. Lindsey Quock says:

    @Victoria Hogan:

    Instead of selectively pulling quotes, POST THE FINDINGS on your website, Victoria Hogan.

    Or are you afraid your tactics will backfire when people read that, as I posted before, Michael Allen was cleared and the only “uncited” portion of the report was his executive summary- which never have citations!

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6

  37. @Lindsey Quock says:

    The Sonoma County Auditor stated as fact:

    “Except for the cover letter and the recommendations, a portion of the report received by the Agency contains language identical to a paper written by Daniel hoffman titled A Blue Print for Employer Assisted Housing Benefit Programs.”

    This document had a cover letter signed by Allen. This docment had a page with a one section titled “recommendations” and another section called “executive summary.” The executive summary was supposed to be a summary of Allen’s three page list of program alternatives. All three pages of the report on program alternatives and its summary was plagiarized from Hoffman’s article. The Water Agency paid Allen $17,000 for this exercise in cheating.

    But clearly you just here to offer up excuses for Michael Allen.

    I’ll see if I can post a larger section of the plagiarized document. In meantimem, anyone who wants to see the two documents in question should go to:

    http://michaelallenplagiarism.weebly.com/

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5

  38. The report was on the website yesterday, try hitting your refresh button. The report supports the allegations.

    http://michaelallenplagiarism.weebly.com/

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  39. Lindsey Quock says:

    Victoria Hogan is absolutely right. The audit, which clears Michael Allen DOES say he did not cite the study in his 5 page paper.

    Unfortunately for Victoria, that five page paper was the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, which never has citations.

    The full report, however, was properly cited.

    Hope this clears things up for everyone. And Victoria has still refused to place the full report on her website. Just saying…

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8

  40. Geoff Johnson says:

    Michael Allen’s campaign website says that “Michael has had an extensive career as a registered nurse, lawyer and then labor leader.” He was Executive Director of Service Employees International Union, Local 707, from 1984 to 2004. He is not a professional planner, developer, builder, or real estate man.

    Yet on 10/31/05, Allen represented that he was “a duly qualified attorney with expertise in public housing issues and related services”; and SCWA head Randy Poole hired him for $24,500, to provide “advice and services” re “development of a work force housing program”.

    Seven months later, Allen represented that he was “a duly qualified housing consultant with expertise in public housing issues and related services”; and the Board of Supervisors hired him 1/23/07, for another $70,000, to evaluate “the feasibility of converting [the SCWA’s] West College Site to employee housing for Agency”.

    Allen’s first Task was to hire someone who was competent to prepare a conceptual Master Plan for development of the SCWA’s seven-acre former office property. He hired Marin County developer Rob Hart, whose 7/9/08 College Creek Business Plan noted that “The for-sale real estate market in Santa Rosa has collapsed.”

    Conversion of the SCWA property to employee housing apparently wasn’t feasible. Hart’s plan said “The Assignment” was to “Provide about 140 units of housing in a creative setting”; with “Approx 10 units for SWCA employees affordable to those employees at their current pay scale.”

    Councilman Wysocky appointed Allen to the SR Planning Commision 1/13/09; and Randy Poole amended the 2007 Agreement 1/27/09, to pay Allen $95,000 more. He was “to conduct additional planning, research, and collaboration with City of Santa Rosa to include College Ave property as part of the City of Santa Rosa’s General Plan amendment; and to identify existing home ownership programs for employees.”

    So the County Auditor’s superficial review failed to consider several significant issues. Why did Randy Poole and the Supervisors hire a “nurse, lawyer, and then labor leader”, to plan a proposed housing project? Why didn’t they hire a planner or developer in the first place?

    If the real estate market had collapsed, why didn’t Poole table the project? Why did he pursue a 140-unit project that would provide only 10 units for SCWA employees? Why did he pay Allen to lobby the City to include an apparently unfeasible new residential development in its General Plan update?

    Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6

  41. Voice of Reason says:

    Michael Allen’s friends are on overtime with the spin thing here. It’s pretty obvious that there are serious problems with him.

    I don’t care if he gave credit somewhere in 92 pages. It’s clear that he did his concluding statement, the one he submitted as his recommendations for $17,000 in payment, and copied it ALMOST WORD FOR WORD from a real expert’s report. Without giving credit.

    Period. End of story.

    This is dishonest and looks rotten. What kind of a guy is this?

    He’s working for 4 or 5 employers at the same time, one of the jobs is supposedly full time (dist. director for Wiggins), he takes a contract to influence the city of Santa Rosa while he’s on the planning commission–ethics don’t seem to be his strong point.

    He founded the ‘Accountable Development Coalition’ and then had it lobby him while he sat on the planning commission. And then he has the Sonoma Mountain Village pay the Accountable Development Coalition for ‘support’.

    I am not in favor of selling influence. I am not in favor of questionable ethics. I don’t support Michael Allen. If his supporters are all like the attack types on this site then this is another indicator of who he’ll be giving appointments to if he gets elected.

    NO ON ALLEN. I AM VOTING FOR MICHAEL WILSON.

    and by the way, if someone has the nerve to find stuff out and report it then they should be thanked by the whole district. this trashing of Ms. Hogan is an outrage.

    Thumb up 15 Thumb down 10

  42. @Can we vote for none says:

    Allen has proven to have taken money for influencing a governmental decision, proven to be a plagiarizer, proven to have ripped off the water ratepayers, proven to have over $200,000 in special interest donations. Allen has never been elected to any office.

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6

  43. Generic Allen Supporters says:

    Thank you for volunteering to help elect Michael Allen to the state legislature. Below is a helpful guide for your use on the Press Democrat’s Watch Sonoma County site where they allow people who do not support Allen to comment. We’d like you to post at least three times a day until you are asked to back up your statement. Don’t worry about what you say, it’s just the internet. In between your online messages, pleasee stop by our phone bank where we will give you another script written by our campaign manager.

    (insert name) lies!
    (insert name)is a mudslinger!!
    insert name)is attacking Allen!!!
    (insert name) is slandering Allen!!!!
    (insert name) has a vendetta!!!!!
    (insert name) supports dirty tricks!!!!!
    (insert name) is filled with rage!!!!!!!
    Oh no!!!( insert name) wants to look at Allen’s resume and that’s a terrible invasion of his privacy!!!!!!
    Oh god…!!!!!!!(insert name)is asking questions about Allen’s background and must be stopped. For god’s sake, we have a bio on our website. What do these people want? What’s wrong with these people? Why do they have to ask so many questions?

    Tragically(insert name)is writing something about our candidate, a poor defenseless attorney, nurse, mediator,community organizer, housing consultant,labor leader,planning commissioner with 4, no 8, no 30 years of public service who can’t speak for himself!

    Thumb up 12 Thumb down 9

  44. Victoria & Lee Pierce's Unhealthy Obsession says:

    Pierce campaign and Victoria Hogan continue mudslinging. Well, since even the PD (anti-labor rag that it is) has even declared that the auditor says Allen’s work satisfied the agency and was cited correctly, I am not going to keep arguing with you.Because you seem to be on an obsessive witchunt that almost everyone can recognize as out of control and politically motivated it serves no purpose. Keep posting selected and edited pieces and wikipedia definintions. Also because it is fairly apparent that the goal is to just keep saying lies in an effort to smear Michael Allen. Your campaign has descended to an all time low and I am leaving you two to play in the mud for as long as you like. Good luck getting votes. Mr Allen’s campaign continues to raise support and endorsements and money because your scary, freaky behavior only alarms people who are not mentally ill and are trying to do some good for the state which needs a strong advocate like Michael Allen.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 15

  45. @lisa maldonado says:

    If the 5 page report (task 2) is not a separate report but part of the 92 page survey (task 1),have you contacted the auditor to let them know you think they made a big mistake in the way they reviewed the contracts and the results of the review? Because on page 3 of the Audit Report there is a detailed description that is inconsistent with what you are describing. You’ve read it, right?

    If the auditor did get it wrong and you are right then, what did Allen do to complete task 2?

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 9

  46. @lisa maldonado says:

    Where in the report does it say the Auditor “cleared” Allen? I must have missed that part.

    Also please do point out on which page and section the audit report states that Allen properly credited the source of the “Draft Alternatives for the Water Agency and Recommendations.” What I see on page 3 I.1b says, “…this subsequent report did not identify Mr. Hoffman’s document as a source.”

    Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

  47. @Anthony says:

    First of all Anthony, you might want to look up the term slander. It applies to oral misrepresentations but nothing written here.

    Have you bothered to click on the report and read it or are you one of the people who have just read the one paragraph conclusion and want to argue about trivia and harrass other posters in the belief that you are doing Mr. Allen a favor?

    Second, let’s talk about your point about satisfaction. Mr. Allen sent out a message to his inner circle telling them to emphasize that one line of the 16 page report stated the Agency was satisfied with his work. He evidently thinks that is meaningful. So as one of his loyal supporters, you embrace that position too. But Allen omits the fact the Auditor was not satisfied.

    The first line of the Audit Report’s conclusion stated, ” Based on our discussions with Agency staff they indicated that although issues have been identified, the Agency is satisfied with the work and documentation provided by Allen..”

    However, on page 4 of the Audit Report discussing the results of the investigation you will find the bottom line states, “Although the Agency was satisfied with the documents they received from Allen, in our opinion the documents submitted to the Agency did not meet the requirements of Task 2 a.”

    So the Auditor disagreed with the Agency.

    And what is meant by Agency? Only one person at the Agency was interviewed for the report, Michael Thompson. Thompson was Allen’s supervisor and he is under investigation by the FPPC just like Allen. So who’s satisfaction is more important, Thompson or the Auditor?

    You need to bear in mind the Audit’s purpose was not to investigate whether the Agency was satisfied. It’s objective was to determine if the Agency received all the documents or services identified in the scope of work. (see page 1 of Audit Report).

    How do you know whether or not Allen misrepresented his credentials? Have you seen any resume that describes his expertise, training or knowledge of workforce housing? The Sonoma County Water Agency told the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors that Allen had experience working as a housing consultant to other agencies but can’t come up with any details. Perhaps you can? Where other than the SCWA did Allen serve as a workforce housing consultant? Or perhaps you can explain what expertise Allen has on public housing issues and on what basis he is a workforce housing expert. Where other than the SCWA has your candidate consulted on workforce housing? Mr. McHugh is simply stating an expert in a field does not plagiarize. People who are not expert often do.

    Your statement about the Agency makes no sense because the Agency is responding to not making allegations.

    As to your last statements where you so casually insult Mr. McHugh, you posted twice earlier and both times you erroneously made reference to the wrong report. You were referred to the Audit Report so you could refresh your memory about its contents. But lets go over that plagarism part of the report for you one more time. It’s covered in detail on pages 2 and 3 of the Audit which says, “A portion of the report on Employee Housing Program Alternatives received by the agency contains language identical to a document written by Mr. Hoffman…this subsequent report did not identify Mr. Hoffman’s document as a source.” (page 2 Summary of Results) and “Except for the cover letter and the recommendations, a portion of the report received by the Agency contains language identical to a paper written by Daniel hoffman titled A Blue Print for Employer Assisted Housing Benefit Programs.”

    Not to put too fine a point on it but it is the Auditor that is saying Allen plagiarized Hoffman. If you disagree with the Audit, please explain what your basis is. Mr. McHugh and Ms. Hogan are accurately reporting what the report says.

    If you think there is anything in the Audit report that says Allen did not plagiarize, please point that out with the page and section number. If you have interpreted the Auditors lines above differently, then you need to explain why identical language taken from another author without identifying a source is not in your view plagiarism.

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5

  48. Can we vote for none of them? says:

    So Michael Allen may or may not have plagiarized,

    Lee Pierce may or may not have let his dog off the leash to attack Michael Allen

    And Michael Wilson took Chevron money and used it to do a push poll against Michael Allen.

    I’ll take the lesser of the evils

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8

  49. Lisa says:

    Finally a breakthrough! Yes we agree there are 2 documents one of which is cited correctly and the other is not. WHY? Because the second is a 5 page SUMMARY of the first 92 PAGE REPORT! It is part of the same survey and you don’t have to cite in a summary if you have already cited in the complete document as Mr Allen had. GET IT? Do you see how Ms Hogan in her vicious and hatefilled vendetta has so misrepresented things? It doesn’t even make sense why would someone who had cited the earlier complete report, deliberately try to omit a cite in the the precis (or summary) document when they must know that the reader would recognize the same content. Ms Hogan has been “investigating” various “allegations” against Michael Allen for over a year in an effort to help her candidate Lee Pierce. She tried to convince a reporter in napa that Michael Allen was not a licensed RN but was unable to make that stick (he is) She tried to question his ethnicity and said he was not Mexican (he is) I personally have been on a website (the realsr) where Ms HOgan described her vendetta and efforts to bring down Michael Allen and Stephen Gale (who she also did a Freedom of Information request on and posted his personal child support order publicly to destroy his name as well) This is not a new trick for her. Its sad and pathetic but she tries to do real damage to those she abhors and she is now attacking someone whose whole life has been about helping workers, and low income people and the environment. Look at the very issue she is lying about! Michael Allen was working with the county to help create housing opportunities for workers-not make himself rich by developing malls !

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 13

  50. Lisa Maldonado says:

    Mr McHugh
    It’s obvious you are only interested in repeating the same lies and slander that Mr Pierce’s Campaign (which you are a supporter of infact) and you seem to think that selecting and highlighting and redacting parts of the auit you can continue to call vile names and make untrue accusations. The audit cleared Mr Allen and they are satisfied that he did what he was paid for and properly credited the source. I know these facts are unpleasant for you and Mr Pierce. but they are true. Keep shrieking “plagerism” if you wish but as you can see from this board most people are on to Mr Pierce’s and Ms Hogan’s dirty tricks.And now they are on to yours as well.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 14

  51. Anthony says:

    Again with the slander! You seem reluctant to admit that the Agency was not only satisfied with Mr Allens work and credentials (which were not misrepresented, Mr Allen has worked on the issue of workplace housing and the Agency does not even allege that he misrepresented his credentials so you are wholly making that up) You can keep yelling “plagerisim” as much as you want (just like the more bombastic but no less slanderous Victoria Hogan.) But your lies don’t work.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13

  52. John McHugh says:

    Lisa,

    I sorry you feel that I have slandered Michael Allen. I’m just looking at the facts which you can’t bring yourself to do. The following recitals are in each contact Michael Allen signed with the Water Agency. Notice that he represented himself as a duly qualified workforce housing consultant and the Water Agency hired him based upon his certification.

    RECITALS
    A. Sonoma County Water Agency (“Agency”) and Michael Allen (“Consultant”) entered into an agreement for Agreement For Investigating the Feasibility of and Providing Recommendations for a Potential Home Ownership Assistance Program (Work Force Housing Project) Phase 2, dated January 23,2007.

    B. Consultant represents that he is a duly qualified workforce housing consultant with expertise in public housing issues and related services.

    It appears from the Auditors report that Allen may have stretched the truth a bit about his expertise. An expert would not have to plagiarize another’s work.

    Thumb up 14 Thumb down 10

  53. @Anthony says:

    You have two posts here and both refer to a document that is not at issue. The County Counsel and the entire board of supervisors requested an audit of the Allen contracts for a reason. They looked at this document and recognized the problem. The County Auditor is also not easily confused, he wrote up a very clear report distinguishing the two documents.

    The Auditor makes clear that the 2005 contract required Allen to produce two reports. One of them (Task 1a) is a 92 page survey of literature just as you and Allen say. No one has raised an issue with that document except Mr. Hoffman who thinks a $10 an hour grad student could have pulled it together for a fraction of what the SCWA paid Allen which was $5,000.

    The plagiarized report is the 5 page report that was supposed to provide some analysis and recommendations. This second report is discussed on page 3 under 1b. The Auditor stated, “Except for the cover letter and the recommendations, a portion of the report received by the Agency contains language identical to a paper written by Daniel Hoffman.” This five page plagiarized report cost the ratepayers $17,000.
    The PD has made it easy for you to find this information. Just click on the Audit.

    To see the plagiarized report go to:

    http://michaelallenplagiarism.weebly.com/

    You should be able to recognize it. It has a cover letter signed by Michael Allen.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5

  54. Valerie Brown Rocks says:

    It shouldn’t require an act of courage to come out against plagiarism or “language identical”, but Valerie Brown, chair of the Board of Supervisor’s, did in today’s paper. Finally a voice of reason. It’s not about the politics of the moment. It’s about integrity and leadership.

    If there’s nothing preventing Allen from plagiarizing a consulting report, what’s to prevent every other County consultant from doing the same?

    Teachers understand the damage done by cheating. Teachers will support you Supervisor Brown. Stick to your guns.

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4

  55. The County Auditor says... says:

    Last month the big controversy over Allen was his conflict of interest on the Santa Rosa Planning Commission. The Sonoma County Auditor-Controller’s Review Report issued May 19, 2010 page 5 says, “Task 5 Assist in the Santa Rosa General Plan Amendment” “There were no documents required for this task. Based on our review of monthly invoices, progress reports and our discussion with Mr. Thompson, Mr. Allen did assist the Agency with the planning, research and collaboration as part of the Santa Rosa General Plan Amendment. In our opinion the requirements of Task 5 were met.”

    The contract describes Task 5 as, ” By April 31, 2009 conduct additional planning, research, and collaboration with City of Santa Rosa to include College Ave. property as part of the City of Santa Rosa’s General Plan amendment.”

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

  56. @Allen Support says:

    Allen support comes from Sacramento special interests and anyone with an arm that can be twisted.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7

  57. Victoria says:

    “Lisa, Stephen and Ben are encouraging our friends to send letters and post on the PD Web site…Michael”

    If you find the candidate coordinated comments and attacks from Lisa Maldonado, Stephen Gale and Ben Boyce and their stagenames below at all attractive, vote for the candidate they’ve been pushing hard for the past year. There’s more where that comes from! And if you like to wait to be told who the legislators in Sacramento want you to vote for before making a move, you are in luck.

    Sadly Lisa Maldonado and Stephen Gale represent the status quo and local establishment of the Democratic Party. Maldonado’s organization pays for the hit pieces we’ve all come to know so well and Gale is the local party boss. They have a “small tent” closed system and tolerate no independant thought or opinion on issues or candidates. The candidates are handpicked and the rhetortic strident, abusive and offensive. They make threats against elected officials. They give lip service to environmental causes but that’s about all. When they dominate online discussion groups, it’s all just part of the cynical strategy as Michael Allen himself made clear a couple of nights ago. It’s just filler in-between direct mail pieces produced by their campaign consultant John Whitehurst.

    But,if you want some fresh faces and more substance and civility in government, vote for one of the other candidates.

    If “brass tacks” is referring to me when she claims there’s some sort of “chamber/developer axis” and other conspiracy theory nonsense behind the criticism of Allen, you could not be more wrong. I’ve never been a developer although Michael Allen has been acting as a developer for the past five years. He is redeveloping the 2150 West College site with an apartment complex for the Sonoma County Water Agency. I’ve never belonged to any chamber but I believe Michael Allen is a member of at least one, so if you have some concerns about a chamber/developer axis, then you might want to look a little closer at Mr. Allen’s resume and record. As it happens, I’m just a knowledgeable grassroot. Allen’s money, endorsements, slick packaging, various titles and staff do not impress me.

    Allen won’t even talk to the Press Democrat and defend his record himself. His was a big “no comment” this week. So what that means is he is not denying he plagiarized his report to the SCWA. Instead based on the email he sent out, he just depends on his inner circle to post a lot on this site. Their mission: confuse the public.

    I do like “brass tacks” idea to follow the money. Let’s do that. Last time I checked Allen had over $250,000 and lots of overhead to pay for all the ( 10 to 12 names?) field staff and big shot San Francisco consultants fanning out across the district and online to sing his praises. Next Mr. Wilson had around $100,000 reported with a just a couple staffers and Mr. Pierce a little over $50,000 and no staff. So the guy with all the money and staff is regularly and indirectly whining about Wilson’s contributions and Pierce’s former volunteers. Neither Wilson nor Pierce have representatives on this site ready to pounce on posters. They don’t require that kind of muscle. Allen does.

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 7

  58. Desperate Times says:

    This is what I find humorous-

    I will be driving down the road and see a “Michael Allen” sign and say to myself, “Yeah!! Go team Allen!”

    The next day, I drive down that same road and the Michael Allen sign has been removed and a Lee Pierce or Michael Wilson sign is put in its place….bad, bad losing candidates. Shame on you!

    What even more entertaining is that out of all the candidates, Michael Allen is the ONLY candidate compliant the City of Santa Rosa Sign Laws. Yes, I said it. Both Michael Wilson and Lee Pierce are posting signs ILLEGALLY- without sign permits.

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 15

  59. Allen Support says:

    Endorsement Rundown…

    Michael Wilson- Endorsed by Chevron, PD

    Lee Pierce- Endorsed by Republicans

    Michael Allen- Endorsed by the DEMOCRATIC Party + hundreds more!

    When the three of them go into endorsement meetings, Michael Allen is the ONLY candidate that leaves with the endorsement. Everytime.

    Michael Allen is the best choice.

    Michael Allen is the only choice.

    Thumb up 15 Thumb down 14

  60. @Brenda says:

    Actually, Brenda, he was paid $109,000 for works related to this project. Meetings, research, reporting, advising. Over a 5 year span, I believe.

    Let’s break that down further: that’s less than $2,000 per month for a comprehensive project.

    Maybe the P.D. should spend less time spinning and more time reporting

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 12

  61. Brass Tacks says:

    “Progressive Democrat Michael Allen hounded by Chamber/developer proxies”

    The headline we won’t see in the PD.

    Primer for newcomers on why so much heat is being applied to candidate Michael Allen: follow the money. Let’s get down to brass tacks. It is because Michael Allen represents a new formation of power which is challenging an entrenched economic elite who have run this county for decades. The Press Democrat and its sister publication, The Northbay Business Journal, are cheerleaders and house organs for an old boys (and girls) network who have grown rich by pushing a low-wage,non-union, sprawl development strategy in Sonoma County. The only check on their power has been the local environmental movement and the small but vigorous union movement through the North Bay Labor Council. For decades, the Chamber/developer axis maintained power by playing off the environmentalists against labor interests. What Michael Allen accomplished (and why they consider him dangerous enough to subject to this campaign of harassment) is to unite labor and environmentalists on a common platform of smart growth with shared prosperity. His unique leadership abilities helped forge deep and lasting networks among the key elements of a natural progressive coalition, which has begun to take power in the county and in city governments.

    This newly minted progressive majority coalition is reshaping land-use, development, and labor market conditions in the county. Michael’s leadership role in forging this progressive coalition is his real “crime”. The PD/Chamber/developer axis knows that if this coalition takes power, their low-road business model is threatened.

    Where there is smoke there is fire. The smoke is the miasma of manufactured charges. The fire is a very real contest for power, based on a vision for the future of the county. A vote for Michael Allen is a vote for a new paradigm of high-road economic development, with living wage jobs, green building standards, transit-oriented and city-centered construction, and a strong social safety net for all citizens. That’s what the fuss is about. Don’t let the Rovian dirty-tricks operators distract you with their little stink bombs. Vote for a better future for the North Bay, and help make it place where your children can live and thrive.

    Thumb up 15 Thumb down 14

  62. Brenda says:

    Let me see if I’ve got this straight: Michael Allen was paid $109,00 for work he either did not do or copied from someone else and now the water agency wants to raise water and sewer rates.

    How many other contractors were paid like this?

    Thumb up 12 Thumb down 11

  63. Brass Tacks says:

    I’m not done yet with identifying the guilty parties in this witch-hunt. We are reminded of why Valerie Brown will go down to defeat if she runs for 1st District Supervisor again. She is the third corner of this political hatchet job operation, by providing an insider official to reinforce the bogus manufactured controversy.

    Supervisor Brown was adamant in her opposition to Michael Allen getting the contract with the county to begin with, and she is doing her crooked best to keep the pot boiling. She would be well advised to retire after her term is over, because she will go down to defeat if she runs again. She’s shown her true colors and it’s not a pretty sight.

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 16

  64. I just posted on here Victoria Hogan’s role, but I would like to invite everyone to read the report for themselves (posted into the story)

    I would also encourage anyone with concerns or questions to go to one of Michael Allen’s events over the next three weeks and see for yourself why he has more supporters than anyone else in this race.

    His website is here:

    http://www.allenforassembly.com

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 14

  65. Brass Tacks says:

    “PD Continues to Manufacture Controversy”

    That is the headline we should be reading, if there were truth in advertising at the Press Democrat. Those of of who were expecting the PD to do the right thing, and clearly retract the spurious charges against Michael Allen were shown to be naive by the brazen and cynical abuse of public trust by the PD staff. We all get it now. The Chamber/developer axis of influence, working in tandem with the same pack of ‘To Tell the Truth’ dirty tricks operators who have polluted Sonoma County politcs for years, are using their house organ, the PD, to try to spike Michael Allen’s bid for the State Assembly.

    When I saw the PD headline in the Empire News section this morning, I knew that the fix was in. “Audit of candidate’s work setles little”. Of course. It doesn’t settle the fact that the vicious pack of haters, enabled by the reprehensible stooge Derek Moore, have not stopped barking. What a mealy-mouthed, deliberate distortion of the fact that the auditor’s office cleared Michael Allen of malfeasance, after being subjected to a trash-fishing expedition. It did not think that it was possible, but my estimation of the PD has sunk to an even lower level. They have abused the public trust, and no longer deserve to claim to be a paper of record.

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 14

  66. Wow Victoria says:

    You are trying REALLY hard to convince people. Desperate much?

    Let people read the report for themselves and they will see Michael is cleared.

    As for you, Ms. Hogan, so people are clear on YOUR role in this:

    -You were Lee Pierce’s (Michael’s opponent)campaign manager

    -You have consistently lied about this fact, even though county records show he paid you for your work and admitted as much

    -You accused Michael Allen of lying about being a lawyer

    -Your campaign accused Michael Allen of lying about being Latino

    -You filed a freedom of information act request to dig up more dirt

    -You emailed the professor claiming Michael plagiarized his work

    -You pushed the board of supervisors to review this case

    -You created a SECOND website dedicated to attacking Michael Allen

    -You have now posted at least 11 of the 35 comments on here

    -You have “obtained” and posted confidential emails within the campaign and tried to portray them as proof of something criminal

    -You have REFUSED to put the Agency report clearing Michael up on your website

    -You now accuse the auditor of foul play

    It looks to me like the only mischievous person in this whole affair is YOU, Ms. Hogan.

    Thumb up 17 Thumb down 14

  67. Anthony says:

    Victoria Hogan leaves out the fact that the document in question was a “SURVEY OF LITERTATURE ON HOUSING” in a survey such as this one is supposed to use the outside literature to show what is out there. PULEASE!! The auditor found he cited the author and used the material correctly. I really have to wonder why this woman is on such a destructive and zealous mission to try to destroy Allen’s reputation. I know she works for Pierce but from her postings the hatred and bitterness is so pointed it’s almost like it’s personal or something..

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 14

  68. Allen's Plagiarism Excerpt 2 says:

    Mr. Hoffman wrote: “4. Group Mortgage Insurance – offers the same benefit to employee as a mortgage guarantee program does. To the employer the difference between the two programs is that a mortgage guarantee results in the firm incurring a contingent liability. An insurance program enables the employer to transfer this liability to an insurer in return for a premium.”

    Mr. Allen’s report to the SCWA: “4. Group Mortgage Insurance – offers the same benefit to the employee as a mortgage guarantee program does. To the employer the difference between the two programs is that a mortgage guarantee results in the employers incurring a contingent liability. An insurance program enables the employer to transfer this liability to an insurer in return for a premium. Because the default experience rate for employers has been so low (typically less than a 2 % default experience rate), many employers opt to self insure using an identified reserve of funds. The University of Pennsylvania has successfully self insured for the past 30 + years.”

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 8

  69. Excerpt of Allen's Plagiarism says:

    Here an excerpt from Daniel Hoffman’s “A Blueprint for Employer-Assisted Housing” article:

    “3. Mortgage Guarantees – Employers can guarantee all, or a portion of, a mortgage. By guaranteeing a mortgage an employer can reduce lender risk. In return the lender can reduce down payment requirements, offer more flexible loan underwriting criteria, and waive private mortgage insurance premiums (saving the borrower about 1/2% annually).

    Here is an excerpt from Michael Allen’s “Sonoma County Water Agency Employee Housing Program Alternatives” report:

    “3. Mortgage Guarantees – Employers can guarantee all, or a portion of, a mortgage. By guaranteeing a mortgage an employer can reduce lender risk. In return the lender can reduce down payment requirements, offer more flexible loan underwriting criteria, and waive private mortage insurance premiums (saving the borrower about 1/2% annually). The University of California offers this benefit program to a segment of its staff (professors.)”

    All together Hoffman and Allen both offered up descriptions of 11 housing benefits programs. All 11 descriptions were nearly identical.

    Cost to Sonoma County Water Agency Ratepayers for Allen report: $17,000.

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 10

  70. Allen is a Plagiarist 2 says:

    The Sonoma County Auditor-Controller’s Review Report on the SCWA contracts with Michael Allen contained a summary of results. The summary of the report stated,” A portion of the report on Employee Housing Program Alternatives received by the agency contains language identical to a document written by Mr. Hoffman.” And, “The report on Employee Housing Program Alternatives prepared by Mr. Allen included language from Mr. Hoffman’s report which had previously been submitted to the Agency, this subsequent report did not identify Mr. Hoffman’s document as a source.”

    In the “results” section of the report which was the basis of the summary above stated, “the Agency received a letter and report dated February 9, 2006, of the Draft Alternatives for the Water Agency and Recommendations. Except for the cover letter and the recommendations, a portion of the report received by the Agency contains language identical to a paper written by Daniel Hoffman titled “A Blue Print for Employer Assisted Housing Benefit Programs.” And, “…this subsequent report did not identify Mr. Hoffman’s document as a source.” And, the bottom line of the results of the review on this matter states, “In our opinion the report provided by Mr. Allen does not meet all of the requirements of Task A and B.”

    So if anyone–much less a consultant who is selling their services as an expert–contains language identical to a document written by someone else without documenting or identifying a source, that is what is commonly known as plagiarism.

    Some people might not like the word plagiarism and pull out a thesurus. Lifting, copying, borrowing, cribbing, cheating, etc. all get at the same kind of thing.

    I called it plagiarism. The Auditor Rod Dole twice called it “language identical” and noted no source was cited. We agree.

    I’ve posted the two documents on a website so anyone who cares can take a look directly.

    http://michaelallenplagiarism.weebly.com/

    Thumb up 14 Thumb down 8

  71. Let's Talk About Truth says:

    Victoria’s claim: Michael plagiarized

    Truth: Michael did not, it is an absolute lie.

    Source: Sonoma County Auditor AND the author of the work who authorized the use of his work- emails posted on PD to verify.

    Victoria’s claim: She doesn’t work for Lee Pierce

    Truth: She was his campaign manager

    Source: Lee Pierce, Press Democrat, official forms filed by county.

    Victoria’s claim: Michael is not a lawyer

    Truth: The bar would certainly disagree

    Source: Well documented

    Victoria’s claim: She’s interested in the truth

    Truth: She only cares about discrediting this candidate

    Source: She has TWO websites up “documenting” these (now rebutted) transgressions, is posting inside memos to a select few of Michael’s campaign staff in an attempt to discredit his campaign, filed two complaints regarding issues that happened YEARS ago once HER campaign started losing.

    Victoria’s claim: Michael is not the choice for the Assembly

    Truth: Michael has carried himself with the grace and class of an elected official worthy of our support and will continue to fight for our community in Sacramento.

    Source: Michael’s more than 400 individual supporters, 70+ current and former elected officials and representatives (who KNOW what the job entails) and 60+ organizations who have endorsed him as THE choice for the seventh district.

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 13

  72. Anthony says:

    Lee Pierce & Victoria Hogan continue to Lie. The audit clearly stated that Allen credited his source. The author of the source document claims that he was credited and the material was used properly (it was a survey of literature on housing so of course it included ideas from other sources-duh!) it’s pretty obvious when Pierces’s camapign has to resort to posting dictionary and wikipedia definations of plaigerism that they are only interested in sliming Michael Allen and not in the real facts! Negative campaigning may help you trash Michael Allen, Victoria but it won’t get anyone to vote for Lee Pierce. In fact I don’t think he could get elected dog catcher in this town anymore…

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 11

  73. Allen is a Plagiarist says:

    On 5/19/10 Michael Allen sent out a message to his team telling them “Audit -overall no plagiarism”. The distribution list included Lisa Maldonado, Ben Boyce, Stephen Gale and a dozen other others. So we will not expect them to admit that Allen plagiarized a report. They can’t disagree with the boss. However, they do admit that the Audit Report is factual. I say the Audit Report describes…plagiarism. For this we will need to define terms.

    Noun
    S: (n) plagiarism (a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work)
    S: (n) plagiarism, plagiarization, plagiarisation, piracy (the act of plagiarizing; taking someone’s words or ideas as if they were your own)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
    http://www.stonybrook.edu/library/tutorial/glossary/#p
    Plagiarism Presenting the words or ideas of someone else as your own without proper acknowledgement of the source.

    Plagiarism
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    For Wikipedia policies concerning plagiarism, see Wikipedia:Plagiarism and Wikipedia:Copyright violations.
    For other uses, see Plagiarism (disambiguation).
    Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the “use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.”[1] Within academia, plagiarism by students, professors, or researchers is considered academic dishonesty or academic fraud, and offenders are subject to academic censure, up to and including expulsion. In journalism, plagiarism is considered a breach of journalistic ethics, and reporters caught plagiarizing typically face disciplinary measures ranging from suspension to termination of employment. Some individuals caught plagiarizing in academic or journalistic contexts claim that they plagiarized unintentionally, by failing to include quotations or give the appropriate citation. While plagiarism in scholarship and journalism has a centuries-old history, the development of the Internet, where articles appear as electronic text, has made the physical act of copying the work of others much easier.

    Plagiarism is not the same as copyright infringement. While both terms may apply to a particular act, they are different transgressions. Copyright infringement is a violation of the rights of a copyright holder, when material protected by copyright is used without consent. On the other hand, plagiarism is concerned with the unearned increment to the plagiarizing author’s reputation that is achieved through false claims of authorship.

    Thumb up 14 Thumb down 9

  74. Victoria's Accusation says:

    Yesterday I was at a bit of a disadvantage because I actually like to read a document before commenting on it. Today there are a couple of points to make.

    I raised three issues with regard to the Allen contracts and I’m pleased that Sonoma County Auditor Dole specifically stated in his report what my accusation was: that there was a plagiarized report and there were two reports that were not completed as the contract required. The report said, “we have performed a review concerning allegations that Michael Allen did not perform all of the work required under the agreements with the Agency.” And under “objectives” was “determine if the agency received all the documents and or services identified in the scope of work…” Under “background” was “The Santa Rosa resident is claiming that Mr. Allen did not perform all of the work required under the agreements. The resident also claims that a report prepared by Mr. Allen in 2006 was plagiarized, and taken from an article by another individual that was posted on the Internet.”

    And that’s exactly what the Auditor found along with a few more problems they found on their own.

    The Auditor’s Report was described in the story as fact finding. Let’s use these facts going forward.

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8

  75. Look at the numbers: says:

    Endorsements:

    Lee Pierce: 14

    Michael Wilson: Only one listed is Press Democrat

    Michael Allen: Over 600 (Including the Democratic party nomination)

    I’m sure Lee Pierce can trick 14 people into following him, and Michael Wilson only needs the Press Democrat, but do you really think Michael Allen can trick more than 600 people?

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 14

  76. Lisa says:

    Mr McHugh,
    Your attempts to slander Michael Allen by insisting he plaigerized material after not only an investigation and an audit but the author himself cleared him, shows that you have an axe to grind and are not interested in the truth.Your bias is also visible in that you blame Michael Allen for the fact that the Water Agency hired him (as if after 30 years of practicing and working in Sonoma County he concealed his expertise as a labor lawyer from the county and tried to pass himself off as something else to people he worked closely with every day) I am sure that as a close friend and supporter of Lee Pierce (which you might have disclosed in the interest of fairness)you would like very much for Mr Allen to be guilty but unfortuneately the facts say otherwise.

    Thumb up 12 Thumb down 15

  77. sandy says:

    Michael Allen has been cleared repeatedly but the attacks continue by Lee Pierce campaign. It’s this type of sour grapes and negative campaiging that turns people off to politics. I am amazed that Pierce’s campaign continues to sling mud long after the investigation they requested exonerated Mr Allen. Now they start questioning Rod Dole and the audit itself because they didn’t get the result they wanted. Funny they knew Mr Dole had endorsed Michael Allen long before but they don’t raise it as an issue until now. I bet if the audit had found something they wouldn’t care about the “scope” or the auditor. It’s obvious when people spend the whole campaign attacking the other candidate it’s because their candidate, Mr Pierce has nothing to recommend himself. He hasn’t campaigned at all and instead allows his campaign manager Ms Hogan (Derek Moore was wrong to label her volunteer as she was PAID by the Pierce campaign as filed in his political reports)to smear and attack while he hopes to benefit. Is this the kind of person we want representing us? No thanks.

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 16

  78. Council Watcher says:

    The real issue is not whether Mr. Allen cobbled together a report for the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. The issue of Mr. Allen’s ethical behavior lies in his vote to approval a new land use designation for a property his client owned. Mr. Allen was under contract to change the Water Agency’s property land use designation on West College in Santa Rosa and he voted for it as a Santa Rosa Planning commissioner

    Let me cut a paste form Derek Moore’s body of work : The auditor’s report also concluded that based on a review of monthly invoices, progress reports and talking with Water Agency officials, Allen did in fact work with the city on the “planning, research and collaboration” of the general plan amendment as he was hired by the agency to do.

    So now the County of Sonoma has pointed the finger at Mr. Allen and will not cover up the fact that Mr. Allen was hired to work on changing the Santa Rosa General Plan. Again Mr. Allen voted as a planning commissioner to amend the General Plan on a parcel owned by his client.

    Mr. Allen’s team will never be able to live these facts down and this will make great headlines again when the Fair Political Practice Commission acts later this year. Mr. Allen will claim he was confused, blame staff, say it was an honest mistake, and say as little as possible.

    We have seen others in Santa Rosa taken to woodshed by the FPPC and soon Mr. Allen will see that FPPC justice is blind. Mr. Allen will weather the storm I am sure. Hopefully some of his supporters will realize that being the majority does not put you above the law or ethical.

    Thumb up 15 Thumb down 8

  79. Geoff Johnson says:

    County Auditor Rod Dole’s review of Allen’s contracts was remarkably narrow and shallow. Only Thompson and Allen were interviewed. The audit examined only the Scope of Work in each of Allen’s three Agreements with the SCWA; and it didn’t question the Recitals.

    Thus the audit failed to consider whether Allen’s consultant work was necessary and useful to begin with, and whether Allen was qualified to perform it. Why did Thompson hire a labor leader, lawyer, and mediator, to evaluate the cost and feasibility of constructing employee housing on the Agency’s old office site; and to hire a sub-contractor to prepare a Master Plan for its development?

    The audit also ignored the standard language in the two main contracts, that Allen represented he had no financial conflict of interest, and would not acquire any. The FPPC is currently investigating whether the 2009 Amendment itself created just such a conflict, when Councilman Wysocky appointed Allen to the Santa Rosa Planning Commission.

    Thumb up 14 Thumb down 12

  80. Chris says:

    I want to know one important fact..if Michael Allen’s cronies* are colluding against Victoria Hogan..

    Is he THAT good of a candidate

    Or is she THAT terrible of a person?

    *Michael Allen’s Cronies: http://www.allenforassembly.com/endorsements.html

    • Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey
    • Pat Wiggins, Senator
    • Noreen Evans, Assemblymember
    • Senate pro Tem Darrell Steinberg
    • Assembly Speaker, Karen Bass
    • Anna Caballero, Assemblymember
    • Wes Chesbro, Assemblymember
    • Kevin De Leon, Assemblymember
    • Tony Mendoza, Assemblymember
    • V.Manuel Perez, Assemblymember
    • Alberto Torrico, Assemblymember
    • Mariko Yamada, Assemblymember
    • Keith Caldwell, Napa Board of Supervisor
    • Mike Kerns, Sonoma County Board of Supervisor
    • Barbara R Kondylis, Solano County Board of Supervisor
    • Linda Seifert, Solano County Board of Supervisor
    • Brad Wagenknecht, Napa County Board of Supervisor
    • Shirlee Zane, Sonoma County Board of Supervisor
    • Leon Garcia Mayor, American Canyon
    • Susan Gorin Mayor, City of Santa Rosa
    • Pam Torliatt Mayor, City of Petaluma
    • Sarah Glade Gurney Mayor, City of Sebastopol
    • Ken Brown Mayor, City of Sonoma
    • Larry Barnett, Sonoma City Council Member
    • Tom Bartee, Vallejo City Council Member
    • Debora Fudge, Windsor City Council Member
    • Laurie Gallian, City of Sonoma Council Member
    • Mike Harris, Petaluma City Council Member
    • Veronica Jacobi, Santa Rosa City Council Member
    • Linda Kelley, Sebastopol City Council Member
    • Tony, Madrigal, Santa Cruz City Councilmember
    • Peter Mott, Napa City Council Member
    • Mike McGuire, Healdsburg City Council Member
    • Tiffany Renee, Petaluma City Council Member
    • Larry Robinson, Sebastopol City Council Member
    • Kathleen Shaffer, Sebastopol City Council Member
    • Erik Sklar, Vice Mayor St. Helena City Council
    • Mark Van Gorder, Napa City Council Member
    • Marsha Vas Dupre, Santa Rosa City Council Member
    • Gary Wysocky, Vice Mayor, Santa Rosa City Council
    • Myrna Abramowicz, President Napa CO Park & Open Space District
    • Larry Asera, Former Solano County Board of Supervisor
    • Caroline Banuelos, Santa Rosa Planning Commissioner
    • Steve Barbose, Former City of Sonoma Council Member
    • Larry Barnett, Former Mayor, City of Sonoma
    • Ernie Carpenter, Former, Sonoma County Board of Supervisor
    • Nick Caston, Santa Rosa Planning Commissioner
    • Pamela Davis, Sonoma County Planning Commissioner
    • Rod Dole, Sonoma County Auditor/Controller
    • Gina Cuclis, Former City of Sonoma, Planning Commissioner
    • Victoria Duggan, Chair, Santa Rosa Planning Commission
    • Rue Furch, Former Sonoma County Planning Commissioner
    • Ray Gallian, City of Sonoma, Planning Commissioner
    • Laura Gonzalez, Santa Rosa School Board Member
    • Kathy Hoffman, Former Vallejo City Council Member
    • Anthony J. Intintoli Jr., Former Vallejo Mayor
    • Eric Koenigshofer, Former, Sonoma County Board of Supervisor
    • Craig Litwin, Former, Mayor City of Sebastopol
    • Tony Norris, Board Vice President, Napa CO Park & Open Space District
    • Matt Pope, Napa County Planning Commissioner
    • Steve Rabinowitsh, Former Santa Rosa City Council Member
    • Mike Reilly, Former, Sonoma County Board of Supervisor
    • Mike Smith, Former Santa Rosa Junior College Board Trustee
    • Skip Thomson, Former Solano County Board of Supervisor
    • Elee Tsai, Former, Santa Rosa Design Review Board Member
    • Rev. Dr. Tony Ubalde Jr., Former Solano Community College Board Trustee

    Thumb up 18 Thumb down 6

  81. John McHugh says:

    Lisa Maldonado

    No Ms. Maldonado. Mr. Allen had to certify that he was an expert in workforce housing in order to get the contract with the Water Agency. An expert would not need to go on the Internet copy someone’s work, and present it to the Agency as his own. Plagiarism is problematic regardless of whether or not the Agency accepts Mr. Allen’s work. It’s dishonest period; it calls into question Mr. Allen’s work at every level.

    Thumb up 17 Thumb down 12

  82. Allen supporter says:

    Go Michael Allen! THE ONLY CANDIDATE WORTH VOTING FOR!

    Thumb up 12 Thumb down 17

  83. @State Citizen says:

    Actually, State Assembly terms are 2 years. Not 6. That’s only if they get elected their alloted 3 terms (2×3).

    And you are wrong, Michael Allen took a leave of absence from his Senate work when he started campaigning, and as for the other work- his work hours didn’t fill the whole day. ALL members of the planning commission have a full time job as well. Why single Michael Allen out?

    Michael Allen has discussed at LENGTH the tough choices our state needs to make and what we all can do to save this state. He is the ONLY candidate who has been open about it. Anyone who wants to meet Michael and ask him have plenty of opportunities.

    And you’re missing an important point…all of these things you want to condemn Michael for being a part of are experiences he has int he community- experience his opponents lack!

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 16

  84. Kevin Young says:

    Beef King- heaven forbid someone read and reference academic work. You’re right, we should have our elected officials ONLY use ideas they come up with, regardless of if anyone else has more expertise.

    And the agency was satisfied with his work, meaning he met their expectations, meaning they got what they paid for (at a cheaper price, even)

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15

  85. State Citizen says:

    The issue here is honest representation. Mr Allen took two sources of funds from the tax payer at the same time, Wiggins staff and Water Agency, State and Local tax payers money. Did he produce creditable work for either? Sen Wiggins has been out of the public eye for a long time, what were his duties? He wasn’t too busy to take a big contract from the Water Agency, serve on the Planning Commission, the Accountable Development Commission, and campaign for Assembly. That’s a lot of commitments for anyone. Did he really give his best effort to all those things? How did he prioritize? Whos work came first?

    Looking forward at California in the next six years, the term limit of the Assembly, California will be adjusting to a decline in living standards. Why? Because we have declining jobs numbers, falling wages, expensive energy, and we are part of a very competitive global economy and we have a lot of debt to pay. Not to mention the remainder of the housing bust and the commercial property bust, and the State budget, which is bust.

    An honest leader would tell the truth. That we have hard work to do and it will be unpleasant. Our wages may go down and our taxes may go up to fund the promises and repay the borrowed bond monies. People are going to have to make sacrifices.

    I fear the Mr Allen will go to the legislature and try to protect public employees and labor union people from pain that should rightfully be shared by all Californians.

    Is his past behavior and indicator of his future actions?

    What do you think?

    Thumb up 14 Thumb down 9

  86. Beef King says:

    Great work by the reporter. After reading the article, it is clear that Mr. Allen used others’ work as a substitute for his own when it was assumed by those seeking his report they would receive original work.
    For Mr. Allen and his minions to maintain that this is ok is the most repulsive part of this story.
    To use another persons work as your own is bad enough. Not offering an apology to the public is worse.
    And he wants to hold public office????
    Mr. Allen, your application for employment by the taxpayers is declined.

    Thumb up 16 Thumb down 10

  87. Lindsey Quock says:

    This headline is awfully misleading. Michael Allen has been cleared of Victoria Hogan’s lies and deserves for the story to be placed prominently on the cover with an unbiased headline, to make up for the prime placement of this ridiculousness.

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 15

  88. Tracy says:

    “Conclusion: the Agency is satisfied with the work and documentation provided by Mr. Allen, and the progress that has been made with the employee housing program.” Over. Done with. What part of this does Victoria Hogan NOT understand?

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 14

  89. Lisa Maldonado says:

    Mr McHugh
    I am sorry you find the results not to your liking and it’s certainly your perogative to find room for doubt in the phrase “if we had…we may have reached other conclusions” However that points to issues regardng the behavior of the WATER AGENCY and wo they chose to hire, not to Mr Allen and his work which they stated was satisfactory and documented. By all means keep hunting but the audit states clearly that Allen did the work he was contracted to do and cited sources correctly. In fact on a four year contract for 119K he underbilled the agency for 9k.
    My “euphoria” as you characterize it is only because I am happy to see a good person who I know will be an excellent leader cleared from some really dirty smears and unfounded allegations by a less qualified and more hateful opponent.

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 18

  90. John McHugh says:

    Lisa Maldonado

    Your euphoric comments regarding the County Auditor’s report on Michael Allen’s work for the Sonoma County Water Agency would suggest that you selectively read the document. The auditor has in my judgment raised many questions about the quality of Mr. Allen’s work. In fact the report concludes with the following quote:

    “Due to the specialized and unique field of employer housing programs, we did not address the sufficiency of the services and documents provided by Mr. Allen to the Agency. If we had obtained the services of an expert in the field of employer housing programs, information may have come to our attention that could have materially changed our results and conclusion.”

    I believe that the Board of Supervisors needs to take a serious look at the results of this report. It appears to me that the Agency and ultimately the citizens who depend on the Agency to deliver a quality product were not well served.

    Thumb up 15 Thumb down 9

  91. Ben Boyce says:

    “Michael Allen Exonerated by County”

    I trust that will be the lead article top-of-the fold on page one on the Empire News section tomorrow. That would only be proper, given that’s where the original article with the accusatory headline was printed. I eagerly await my PD on the lawn tomorrow morning.

    The one good thing about this whole imbroglio, which gets weirder and weirder as the rocks are lifted up to expose the perpetrators of these spurious charges, is that they have overplayed their hand and discredited themselves in the process. The original charges were carefully timed to not likely be resolved by the FPPC prior to the primary. When that soggy log did not catch fire, the plotters came up with Plan B, which has blown up in their face. It should now be clear that these charges are a political hit job, with no redeeming social value.

    And,yes, we are using on-line forums to make our case to the public. That’s politics in the internet age!

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 17

  92. Lisa Maldonado says:

    EVERYONE is on the Michael Allen endorsement list!! (But Lee and Michael Wilson’s list lokks a little thin)

    Thumb up 14 Thumb down 16

  93. Lisa Maldonado says:

    I knew it! Pierce & Hogan must be following the Karl Rove playbook (or the Joe McCarthy playbook) Now they are attacking Rod Dole and his audit staff! Hogan lied that she didn’t work for Pierce & was caught in this lie by both the Napa register and The PD. So though she keeps claiming that’s she’s not Lee Pierce’s Campiagn Manager (er campaign volunteer) would anyone believe her? After all she is listed as being paid for campaign costs on his official political reports filed with the state. The “plausible deniability” that she tries to construct allows Lee Pierce to try to distance himself from her dirty tricks on his behalf. The whole thing (as well as the vile smears and incessant attacks on Mr Allen )is so unsavory and unethical that it’s a wonder that anyone wants to even engage in politics any more. Michael Allen has a heck of a lt of good karma coming to him for putting up with such vicious character assasination and still perservering.

    Thumb up 12 Thumb down 20

  94. Victoria says:

    I have finally received a copy of the 16 page audit. I’ll read it and let you know what I think afterward. For now, I’ll just make one note. There were only two people interviewed for the report, Michael Allen and Michael Thompson. Thompson is the individual at the SCWA who was overseeing the contracts and approved all the checks to Allen.

    The full report will be added to the website later today. Then we can discuss the details.

    http://michaelallenplagiarism.weebly.com/

    Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7

  95. Victoria says:

    Last night Assembly Candidate Michael Allen sent out an “alert” to his “team” claiming that the Sonoma County Audit Report on his work found “no plagiarism” but, that’s not exactly what the report says. Allen also says that “Lisa” (that would be Lisa Maldonado) “Stephen” (that would be Stephen Gale the Chair of the Sonoma County Democratic Party and “Ben” (that would be Ben Boyce)have a strategy to send letters and post here on the PD website. So folks…you are all just part of the plan. And as you can see Mrs. Boyce and Lisa Maldonado are doing Michael’s bidding.

    See below:
    — On Wed, 5/19/10, Michael Allen wrote:
    From: Michael Allen
    Subject: Allen Team alert 2 Audit- overall no plagiarism and Agency satisfied with the work
    To: “‘Jo Anne Cohn’” , “‘Helen Ross’” , “‘Jill Nelson’” , “‘John Whitehurst’” , “‘Sharon Macklin’” , “‘Lisa Maldonado’” , “‘Jack Buckhorn’” , “‘Nick Caston’”
    Cc: “Matt Pope”, “‘Tracy Krumpen’” , “‘kay woodson’” , “‘Stephen Gale’” , “‘Guy Conner’” , “‘David Grabill’” , “‘Dennis Rosatti’” , “Rick Meechan” , “Noreen Evans”, “‘Ben Boyce’” , “‘Gary Wysocky’”
    Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 10:05 PM
    Friends- the Press Democrat will find a way to make this positive report from the County Auditor seem negative. We need to continue walking, calling, and raising money. The Best Revenge is Victory!!!! We will continue carpet bombing with our great mail program, and out work and out smart our opposition. Just got back from Sacramento , and we continue to garner support and encouragement from every quarter….. Lisa, Stephen and Ben are encouraging our friends to send letters and post on the PD Web site…Michael

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 10

  96. Audit Conclusion says:

    Conclusion:
    Based on our discussions with Agency staff they indicated that although issues have been identified, the Agency is satisfied with the work and documentation provided by Mr. Allen, and the progress that has been made with the employee housing program.
    Based on our procedures and related results, the Agency received all documents as described in the Scope of Work for the Agreements with Mr.Allen, except three (see results I.1b, I.2b and I.2d) . A document written by Daniel Hoffman was included as Exhibit 5 of the report titled California Public Sector Employer Assisted Housing Programs, provided for task 1, it contained source information. The contract between the Agency and Mr. Allen did not prohibit Mr.Allen from using the work or ideas of others. The report on Employee Housing Program Alternatives prepared by Mr. Allen included language from Mr. Hoffman’s report which had previously been provided to the Agency, this subsequent report did not identify Mr. Hoffman’s document as the source. We identified one change in scope, which was not properly authorized by the Agency’s General Manager or Chief Engineer.”

    Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2

  97. A Message from Hoffman says:

    —– Original Message —–
    From: Dan Hoffman
    To: vlh@sonic.net
    Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:55 AM
    Subject: Re: Replacement Image

    Well the pot is certainly aboil. I still don’t fully understand the timing. But:
    1) if the 5 pager was submitted first and without any attribution to me that was wrong and pretty much plagiarism.
    2) the value of the memo is not much (I don’t quite get how much he received for this piece as opposed to others).
    3) Regarding the 92 page report, in which my article was reprinted along with a compilation of a bunch of other stuff all of which was clearly not his work product, I don’t have a problem with that. This is not to say however, that the document is worth much to anyone trying to figure out what to do with the property in question, or trying to figure out an employer-assisted housing strategy/policy either for some set of public employees or a program that also attracts private employers.

    Dan Hoffman
    EAHousing.com

    STREET ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS REDACTED BY SITE MODERATOR

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3

  98. Paul says:

    Rod Dole is on the Michael Allen endorsement list.

    http://www.allenforassembly.com/endorsements.html

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5

  99. Victoria says:

    The message below is the only smear campaign in this race. Ms. Maldonado is a member of the Allen campaign’s team. I am not affiliated with any campaign and Ms. Maldonado knows that but repeats her lies to achieve her political ends. I have documentation for every statement I make about Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen is a candidate for the Legislature. He is applying for a job and his record is an issue. If his record is slimy, then he’s responsible for that. For the record, Rod Dole the Auditor promised to send me a copy of the Audit when it was completed but didn’t. It evidently became public yesterday and he provided a copy to the Allen campaign but not to me.

    So I haven’t seen the Audit. I’ll make my independant judgments about what it says and what it means when I see it.

    Here is the email I received from Auditor Dole.

    Thursday April 8, 2010

    Hi Victoria,

    My Audit staff will be reviewing the Water Agency contracts with Michael Allen to determine that the products required by the contract were completed. By copy of this email, I will inform my staff of your request and send you a copy of the report when it becomes public.

    Rod

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6

  100. Chris says:

    That’s not true at all Lisa. Lee Pierce has GREAT ideas- because he just copies them from Michael Allen!

    (As the Press Democrat, a decidedly anti-Allen source, even mentioned regarding their Santa Rosa debate.)

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 14

  101. Sharon Boyce says:

    As a long time reader of the PD, I was surprised and frankly disappointed at the shoddy reporting by Derek Moore in his article on Michael Allen in Wednesday’s edition. When you open a story on the first page of the Empire section with an accusation of plagiarism and then only at the end, on the back page, refute it, you have in effect written a hit piece. I expect a higher level of objectivity from a primary source of local news.

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 11

  102. Lisa Maldonado says:

    Allen is cleared but Lee Pierce and Victoria Hogan will no doubt continue their smear campaign. If Mr Pierce and his campaign manager Victoria Hogan put as much effort into running his campaign as they do into spreading lies and slime about Michael Allen, he might actually get to talk to some voters and spread his campaign ideas. Oh that’s right he doesn’t have any campaign ideas!

    Thumb up 13 Thumb down 16

Leave a Reply