A Candidate’s Character Plays a Role in Irvine Mayor Campaign

Your article (May 26) on the Irvine mayor’s race may appear at first glance to be balanced, presenting each side’s charges against the other and the responses. But it ignores two key differences.

First, the charge against (Larry) Agran of coercing developers is a charge of overzealously pursuing the public purpose as mayor: They (developers) were asked to contribute toward bringing funds to build transit in Irvine. Sally Ann Sheridan, in contrast, is charged with soliciting realty business from city and Irvine Co. employees to line her own pockets, plain and simple.

Agran’s soliciting was in fact conducted in large meetings with participation by many aides and city officials, hardly the format for back-room corruption. Sheridan’s was all private, unknown and undisclosed to the public.

Second, the charges against Agran are just that--unproven claims that certain things went on at meetings. (Subsequent interviews with participants at those meetings have in fact disproved them.) The charges against Sheridan are simple, verified facts: More than 10% of her business income was from city and Irvine Co. employees, and she falsely stated her educational credentials both in campaign literature and in sworn testimony.

The article is also mistaken in portraying all these issues as charges and countercharges. Sheridan’s falsely claimed master’s degree and her business involvement with Irvine Co. employees were both uncovered by reporters, not through charges by her opponent.

KENNETH A. SMALL

Irvine