Dishonest Political Candidates?
I recently received an email from an ex-client, a candidate for State Assembly, excerpted below, in response to my demand for “payment after working [for her for] two months without compensation” and that she “obviously have had no intention of paying me at all.”
I am sorry you feel that way. You can be angry, or you can try to work with me, as I have requested for several months now, to come up with an agreement that works for both of us. In August, I provided you with a contract which you changed without telling me you had changed, and expected me to sign it. You canceled our meetings, and have never called to reschedule. I can spend valuable time putting together another contract (since you never returned the original one I gave you), or we can work together as adults and come up with one. Your choice.
Sounds almost reasonable to the uninitiated or uninvolved. But when someone repeatedly tells you AFTER you have resigned that they will not pay you for work you’ve already performed until you agree to do additional and completely different work, posing the possibility that there may not be ANY pay anyway — that’s the end of being “reasonable” in my book. I’ve responded with what I consider to be a last-chance letter before I begin legal proceedings in small claims court — which I hope will coincide with the March 2, 2004 election:
[Candidate's first name], I am disappointed that you haven’t responded to my requests for payment.
I am also disappointed in your condescending tone and deceptive tactics used within your previous emails, including the most recent one copied below. You indicated that you have “requested for several months” to work with you, yet you’ve done nothing of the kind. You indicated that you want “an agreement that works for both of us”, yet we had already one which YOU decided to break, and have not proffered another.
In August, a month after I began working for you, you offered a contract that you signed that I did not accept because it was not in agreement with the terms that were set during our July 22 meeting. I countered with a similar contract with the correct terms, inadvertently using an incorrect version of your standard contract templates — which you already know. I placed the updated version into your mail in-box with a yellow Post-It Note indicating that your signature was required, yet you seem to be taking the ludicrous tack that I somehow tried to sneak the changes in without you knowing. You’re still an attorney, aren’t you? Don’t attorney’s read contracts before adding their signature to them? I thought it blatantly obvious that the replacement contract was different than the original, the most notable differences being the inclusion of the correct contract terms and the lack of your signature in the second version. It seems common sense that if you give someone a contract that is previously signed, and it comes back WITHOUT a signature, then it is obviously a different contract — especially when you knew that the original mutually agreed-upon terms were not in the version you provided anyway!
You lied by stating that I “canceled our meetings”, knowing full well that that only meeting that we scheduled after I sent you the “resignation” email was one we had for Tuesday, September 23, at 10:00 a.m. That same morning at 9:52 a.m., you called my home and canceled, stating that you had to leave for another appointment. We talked of possibly setting up another appointment, but never did. I fail to understand how your canceling of the only appointment we actually had after my “resignation” becomes my responsibility.
You want to work together to come up with the terms of the now-unnecessary contract? Fine. The original agreed-upon terms were that you would pay me the paltry sum of [none of your business] per week for up to 20 hours per week for acting in the position of campaign manager, which I performed to the best of my abilities and available resources for the nine-week period ending September 22, 2003. As you well now, I worked far in excess of the total 180 hours required for that same nine-week period, and there can therefore not be any question as to time and amount of work already performed. There is also no question that I performed the duties of campaign manager, as there are multiple press releases that you authorized that show my name and contact information as your appointed campaign manager. You owe me [also none of your business], plain and simple.
Of course I will continue to be angry. That tends to happen when I believe someone is cheating me. I will also continue to act like an adult (I am assuming that you are implying that I am acting childish by repeatedly demanding payment?!) and will continue attempts at collecting the past due debts you owe.
At this time, I do not plan to correspond with you by phone or in person. I obviously have reason not to trust your spoken word, and will rely solely on written communication — either by fax, email, or mail. I can understand (but do not accept) your reluctance to discuss your behavior and apparent shortcomings in written form, but I do expect that you will deliver the contract you unnecessarily require by fax, email, or mail, followed promptly by full payment of the amount due.
Your most recent press release quotes [a mayor of a neighboring city] saying that you will serve your “constituency with passion, honor and integrity.”
Live up to her endorsement. Prove it. You have until January 17 to pay the full amount due.
My advice is simple: never trust attorneys, especially those unfathomably bent towards running for political office…
