Letter to Editor | McVeigh owes an apology if not withdrawal

||| FROM JOHN NANCE |||

It appears that Kari McVeigh’s “camp” is panicking, and embracing dirty tricks to suppress, deflect, dismiss, or attempt to discredit a verifiable legal decision concerning not only her record as the Superintendent of the Beverly Hills School District more than a decade ago, but also her personal conduct in a very disturbing incident at Roche Harbor a few weeks back.  When all else failed yesterday, someone operating clearly on her behalf simply resorted to erasing (deleting) commentaries they didn’t like from Facebook.  That, in essence, is conduct unbecoming a candidate for public office if, in fact, it traces back to the candidate herself.

Several of those purposefully erased commentaries were mine, and to say the least, I am not appreciative of such Trumpian actions to suppress.  Therefore, I intend to re-write my commentaries as closely as I can recall them and post (and re-post, if necessary) until they stand unmolested and can be read for the responsible and verifiable points that were inherent the first time around.

First, McVeigh’s “camp” had, as their original target, the well-researched and carefully presented piece by Lisa DesJardins outlining the actions and inactions of Ms. McVeigh when she took over as Superintendent of the Beverly Hills School District in California through her departure from that position in 2008.  The crystal clear intent was to hold her official acts and omissions up to public scrutiny in order to help answer the question:

Does this person demonstrate the qualities and tendencies we want in a member of the County Council?  The narrative focused primarily on the words of the California Court of Appeals which reversed a lower court decision that DID involve
decisions and acts of McVeigh.  The response from McVeigh and company wrongly characterizing Lisa’s carefully written commentary as a “hit piece,” sought to discredit not just the content of that piece, but denigrate and belittle Lisa’s very
right to present the information, as well as your right, as a concerned citizen, to receive such information. 

Let’s chronicle the beginning of this outrageous example of suppression.

Yesterday afternoon (October 7th) a member of Kari’s team posted a defensive screed that without evidence accused Stephanie O’Day of “…issuing another hit piece, through John Nance and Lisa DesJardins to attempt to damage Kari’s good name.  They have gathered a bunch of disparate facts to create a perfectly false narrative.”

Not true.  Facts are facts, but perhaps they’re taking another page from the Kelly Ann Conway/Trump playbook and seeking to create “alternative facts” when the real ones prove inconvenient.

I responded to another post on Facebook with the following: “Interesting, isn’t it, that the facts and quotes that the “team Kari” folks want to dismiss came word for word from the published opinion of a court of appeals.  There are no misstatements here, just…” which is all that remains in a screenshot showing just this portion of that post.

I also made the point that it was ironic at best that McVeigh and her people, having been the ones who initiated broad scale attacks on Stephanie O’Day at the outset of this campaign, now have the unmitigated temerity to whine about the O’Day campaign benefiting from revelations about McVeigh’s conduct.

What I was in the process of saying, when so rudely deleted, encompassed two major points.

One, the actions and inactions of Kari McVeigh as an Administrator were chronicled by a three judge panel in a published decision, and thereby have more weight than the average newspaper or magazine article.  Second, the reason for presenting the court’s narrative was not to accuse McVeigh of any wrongdoing, but to highlight the level of and effectiveness of her oversight performance.  Most telling was the court’s recitation that for a while after taking office, McVeigh did not even realize that one of her key officers (a woman named Karen Christiansen, Director of Planning and Facilities) was not an employee, and that she was operating on a contract basis through her own LLC.  The history of
McVeigh’s interaction with Christensen and her contract, and McVeigh’s role in not putting the brakes on a monstrous inflation of the costs of that contract, can be read in full by going to: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1895679.html

In fact, the essence of the interactions were clearly in McVeigh’s wheelhouse as soon as she became Superintendent, and the appeals court made note of the close friendship between Christensen and McVeigh.  The entire matter spanned years and millions of dollars and it is perfectly legitimate to ask whether, if the Superintendent had been more aggressive in protecting the District’s money, could the disastrous legal battles have been avoided in whole or in part.  Again, this concerns an evaluation of McVeigh’s oversight performance, and that question is material to the pre-election questions we are raising.   

Reading the decision will clearly establish that McVeigh’s insistence through her people that the facts of that case had nothing to do with her are flatly incorrect.  And it is fair to observe that San Juan County, Washington, could never afford such a debacle. 

It is that oversight, or lack of it, that you have a right, if not a responsibility, to consider when you contemplate any potential tenancy of hers on the County Council for 4 long years.

I then turned my attention to Amanda Azous, who yesterday began yet another attack on Stephanie O’Day based on the discredited and essentially ignorant misunderstanding of American Jurisprudence.  She seems to think that it is legitimate to tar a working attorney with the primary political positions of his or her clients.  Azous’ premise is that since Stephanie O’Day, as a highly competent land use attorney, has represented many clients in actions against the County, Ms. O’Day’s
belief system must be the same as her clients.

Hogwash. 

It is never appropriate or rational to pin the attitudes of a client list on an attorney unless and until that lawyer has enunciated open support for a particular set of principles.

Finally, yesterday, Bonnie Sliger wrote and posted a deeply concerning first-hand description of an interaction with Kari McVeigh.  Ms. Sliger wrote her piece and posted it in early afternoon, but by 4:30 pm someone – not her – had erased it and all comments on it in its entirety from all platforms.  Ms. Sliger re-posted the copy of her piece with an appropriate comment.

She wrote:

Let’s try this again!  A couple of weeks ago there was an incident at McMillin’s Dining Room.  Kari McVeigh was sitting at a window table.  There was an announcement “2 minutes until colors ceremony”.  As I was working, it was my job to raise the window screens which I did. I came to Kari’s table.  She said “do not raise the screen!”  I explained about the colors ceremony. She said “I don’t care, do not raise the screen!” I told her there were tables behind her that would like to watch the ceremony.

She was adamant, “I’m sitting here and you’re not raising that screen!”  I was appalled.

I did not know who she was but the server told me later.  Is this the type of entitled person we want representing us?
Then, aware that someone had erased her first posting, Bonnie Sliger added:  “Let’s see how long it takes for this comment to be deleted!” In fact, in 12 minutes it, too, was erased by persons unknown.

Aside from the unforgivable act of attempted suppression, this incident at McMillan’s, if true and accurate, in my view is enough to disqualify anyone from public office.  There were other witnesses, of course, who may come forward and corroborate, and I am eager to hear their recollection.  But the very last thing we need on the County Council or in any public service position is an arrogant, entitled, and confrontive attitude or nature.  Whether or not McVeigh has been around these islands long enough to understand and appreciate the unique colors ceremony that so beautifully defines Roche Harbor, this type of reported staff abuse is worse than unacceptable. 

Again, if this is an accurate recitation, then after a sincere apology to the entire County, Ms. McVeigh owes us her withdrawal from the race.