Susan Woolley and I have always differed on RSFA politics. In spite of this, we have maintained a civil relationship. I don’t have personal knowledge of all the matters set-forth in her June 9 “Review” Op-Ed.
However, I do have personal knowledge relating to the denial of permission to have “my candidates” stand in front of the U.S. post office. I realize that the election is over, but I think it is “Time to Set the Record Straight.”
As Mrs. Woolley knows, every year for the past three years, I have contacted her concerning candidates for the RSFA Board election standing in front of the post office. This year was no exception. I placed a call to Mrs. Woolley. Not reaching her, I left a message:
- Was she going to allow “her candidates” and “my candidates” to stand in front of the post office to campaign?
- Was she going to allow equal space in her window boxes for “her candidates” and “my candidates?”
I didn’t receive a response. So, I e-mailed Mrs. Woolley asking the same questions. Again, no response.
Mrs. Woolley indicated in her June 9 Op-Ed:
“Permission to campaign in front of the post office has been given every candidate who asked for that permission. I have not denied any of the six candidates that opportunity. Everyone just needs to ask for permission to use my private property.”
On behalf of “my candidates” I asked for permission. By failing to respond, Mrs. Woolley denied them permission.
Mrs. Woolley was at the post office on more than one occasion when “her candidates” were campaigning. She was at the post office on occasion when “my candidates” and supporters were standing out on the sidewalk because they had been denied permission to campaign in front of the post office.
If she truly meant what she said in her Op-Ed about cherishing the right to free speech and the election process, why didn’t Mrs. Woolley talk to one of “my candidates,” or contact me, to see if they would like to stand in front of the post office too?
Perhaps Mrs. Woolley should read Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins, a U.S. Supreme Court decision, upholding the California Supreme Courts’ ruling guaranteeing individuals the right to free speech in those parts of a private shopping center otherwise open to the public.
Mrs. Woolley has allowed most organizations/individuals to solicit donations (e.g. Girl Scouts); pass out literature (e.g. election flyers); register voters (e.g. Republican Women’s Group); and to circulate petitions (e.g. roundabouts/signals).
Why has Mrs. Woolley chosen to discriminate against RSFA Board candidates that are not “her candidates” and indicated she didn’t deny “my candidates” the same rights as “her candidates,” when in fact she did?
Lisa M. Bartlett