Sunday, June 2, 2013

IISD #31: Barbaric Rider

IISD Admin Lunchroom Chatter #31

Nosher #1:  Just when you thought that ex-IISD board member and pseudo-president Huffstetler had mounted Ol‘ Paint and ridden off into the sunset, you discover that she made it to the city limits sign, reined her horse and started throwing horse apples into the board of trustees fan.

Nosher #2:  Seriously, this person is as wayward as a snapping turtle with its non-releasing bite on a political vengeance.  Didn’t we already know that she was really steamed by the board election results?  I mean, look at her actions the night the new board was sworn in.  Now, to realize that she and the Super probably conspired, without approval of the entire board, to hire an outside party to ‘investigate‘ S. Jones, a fellow board member, just runs her poor dead horse into the ground of unbelievability.    

Nosher #1:  What makes her actions even more odious are all the questions that surround her continued attempts to discredit someone who can actually read, write and cipher at a high level.  Instead of ‘investigating’ S. Jones, someone needs to investigate or determine: Who on the board knew that this costly investigation was ongoing?  Was the board asked or polled to approve the investigation or the expenditure of $7,500...and still counting?  If the Super really perceived there to be any violations by S. Jones, then why didn’t he, in a posted meeting, request the full board to allow him to proceed?  Who was provided with a ‘draft copy‘ of the investigative report prior to the last meeting of the old board?  If Huffstetler was on a quest for the ‘truth’ via this investigation, then why didn’t she provide a copy of the ‘draft report‘ to the DMN, make the initial findings public...or advise S. Jones for that matter?  Where is the tax payer outrage for her spending such a large sum of tax bucks to sate her personal vendetta against a board member? 

Nosher #2:  While we know the board has been in utter turmoil during Huffstetler’s reign, it appears that she just wasn’t content with a new board being ready to advance the district in a positive manner without bending exclusively to every whim of the she usually did.  Look at her actions on the Super’s contract!  It seems that she would rather see the board waller in discontent than have the board actually achieve positive results.  Doesn’t it take a rather small mind to think on this level?

Nosher #1:  Hopefully, the Open Meetings Act complaint, that is still pending against Huffstetler and three of her former cronies, will conclude and district supporters will recognize the misuse of the public’s trust that she has demonstrated with this and other questionable actions during her tenure on the board.

A note from counsel: These “candid” lunchroom conversations have been injected with fabricated nouns, verbs, adjectives, conjunctions, adverbs, modifiers and maybe a few dangling participles.  Mark Holbrook