The incumbent has sent out a dark-themed misleading mailer saying that none of the challengers in our race have any “verified” leadership/supervisory experience. This is patently false, and easily disproven. John and I chatted about the mailer and decided to take the unusual step of issuing a coordinated statement from opposing candidates on the topic. You can read John’s statement here: http://bit.ly/2KqHJaC
As John points out, my claims of experience are astonishingly easy to verify, a feat he achieved with just a few seconds of work. My past can be quickly verified by contacting anyone who has worked alongside me or under my supervision. In fact, the only thing easier to verify about me than my experience is the spelling of my name which… the flyer got wrong. So much for verification…
The bigger and, in my mind, more serious issue here is the incumbent’s claimed inability to verify John’s claims of leadership experience. While it’s true that it’s a bit harder for me to verify John’s claims than it is for him (or anyone else) to verify mine, since his personnel records are private. But they’re incredibly easy for the District Attorney to verify. John claims to have leadership experience in the DA’s office. The incumbent should be able to immediately verify (or refute) this claim because she’s the one who would have put him in that position. If the incumbent can’t verify (or refute, if it’s not true) this claim, it says volumes more about the mismanagement of the office under her leadership than anything else we’ve seen so far, and we’ve seen a lot. If she can verify it, then she (or her team, acting in her name) knowingly lied to the voters. Neither option is acceptable.
The same thing goes for John’s claims of experience before he joined the DA’s office – one assumes that his experience was verified during the hiring process, and proof of that verification exists in his personnel file, which the incumbent can directly access. If this information wasn’t verified, or if the District Attorney’s personnel records are unreliable, then the problems at the D.A.’s office run much deeper than anyone realizes.
The District Attorney holds one of the most important political positions in our county, and there is a clear need for a change in leadership. This last move, a misleading attack detached from reality, shows just how much things need to change. The two of us may disagree on which one would be the better choice for the office, but we can resolve those differences between June and November. For now, we’re unified in asking for a return to civility, honesty, and professionalism in this race. We’re asking for you to make your voices clear at the ballot box and vote for one of us in the primary, so that this kind of poor tactic won’t be rewarded.
It says a whole lot when two men act with integrity and do not start a shit show and act like adults for a common goal, improving a real cancer in this district atty’s office.
Well done Mr. Mayne and Mr. Kolasinski