Embezzlement?!

By Gretchen Garrity

A lawsuit filed last September by former library board attorney Harry Styron was referenced at the Feb. 25, 2025 Christian County Library Board of Trustees meeting.

It was voted to table the preceding agenda item pertaining to removing the library district as a plaintiff from the lawsuit. This passed without any conflict. It was the next agenda item, “Fees from John Spurlock in Defense of the Lawsuit from Janis Hagen” that caused a stir. The exchange begins at around the 1:18:50 minute mark:

Remember, the issue that precipitated the Sept. 23, 2024 lawsuit was the vote of officer elections that happened at the Aug. 27, 2024 library meeting. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs (!) are claiming a violation of the Sunshine Law, as well as a violation of the the library board’s own bylaws. Background HERE.

The lawsuit Mr. Styron filed, naming both the library district and Janis Hagen as plaintiffs against the majority board members who voted to remove Allyson Tuckness as president, was authorized without board deliberation or vote. However, only one board member is named as a plaintiff—Janis Hagen, and she indicated that her lawsuit is a “personal issue” between herself and the defendants that “has nothing to do with the library.” 

 

From: Styron and Shilling

 

 EMBEZZLEMENT ACCUSATIONS

Hagen also claims the lawsuit has nothing to do with the use of library funds “and [it] would be considered embezzlement and breaking the law” to pay the board members' legal fees incurred by the lawsuit.

Hagen tries to make the argument that the defendants are being sued as individuals and not as board members. Trustee Brazeale (an attorney) countered that the three board members were sued in their capacity as board members and not as individuals.

It appears that Hagen (and perhaps Interim Director Dana Roberts who chimes in) have been coached to suggest the possible embezzlement charges. They most likely would not have come up with this type of argument on their own. Would it be too far fetched to think that another lawsuit is being planned?

This type of potential lawfare dovetails with the public doxxing that is going on against the three board members. Interesting. File lawsuits that have shock value in the public's view to drive a narrative. These things are done to defame and ruin reputations and are easily recognized as a widely used tactic of the Left.

In the video of the meeting, you can see that Hagen claims she never spoke individually about the lawsuit to attorney Styron until he had left his position as board attorney (Nov. 21, 2024). She stated, “I individually talked to Harry after he had resigned as the representative for the library.” If not individually, did she speak together with Mr. Styron and trustee Allyson Tuckness in August/September and agree to be the plaintiff in the lawsuit?

It seems strange that she did not individually consult with Attorney Styron from late August to late November when Mr. Styron ceased to work for the library district. If that is the case, how did the lawsuit come about on Sept. 23, 2024 with Hagen as a plaintiff if she was not consulting with him during that time? It doesn’t make sense.

But maybe the only sense that needs to be made is the public ruination of the three defendants’ reputations via lawsuits and doxxing.

Open Letter to Prof. Elizabeth Dudash-Buskirk

 

Dear Prof. Dudash-Buskirk,

I am writing in response to your Facebook comments following the Feb. 25, 2025 meeting of the Christian County Library Board of Trustees. You incorrectly ascribed the comments of a member of the public to the library board. I attempted to correct your statement above.

 

 Instead of acknowledging the error and correcting it, you doubled down:

 

 First, since you mentioned the First Amendment, I will quote it here:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Nowhere does the Constitution limit speech to "good" or "ethical." Indeed, to suggest that "Free speech is intended to protect speech of goodwill for the betterment of community" is to insert a censorship point of view into the equation.

Frankly, this is the type of teaching that encourages censorship of individuals, groups and ideas. Who shall determine what is "good" or "ethical" or "speech of goodwill?" Is it you? Is it me? Is it the government?

The library board's agenda always includes a public comment portion, which incidentally has been expanded by the new board in order to allow the public more opportunity to speak.

Second, you aver that the library board--an arm of our representative government--should take control of the public's speech. Indeed, you go so far as to blame the board for a citizen's words because they did not censor the content.

No one "screamed we are going to hell." The reference to USAID's transgender expenditures was used to correlate spending taxpayer dollars in our own library district. The public comment portion of the meeting is distasteful to you because speech can be uncomfortable and insulting when you do not agree with the content. 

Elizabeth, I understand perfectly.

Being doxxed, called a bigot, a Nazi, a book banner and so on is par for the course in our free speech society when one stands for something. But I would never attempt to censor your right to speak things that make me uncomfortable or angry.

I vehemently disagree with the American Library Association's stance that minor children should have access to all materials in the library. I have written extensively on that very subject. I have not seen you engage with the actual argument: Do children have the right to access ALL materials in the library?

You do not engage because you cannot. There are many books in the library that are not suitable for minors. Minors do not enjoy full rights as citizens until they reach the age of majority. You refuse to engage with the materials that are right now in our library's children and teen sections. You fail to reference the vile pictures, the early sexualization, the stories of incest and rape, the how-to scenarios and so on. And, you refuse to address the fact that parents have a right to curate--in taxpayer-funded schools and libraries--what materials are accessible to their children. It doesn't mean other parents are denied the right of access; it means the materials are restricted from the hands of children unless and until their parent agrees to provide them access.

It is ironic that you think nothing of publishing scurrilous articles on your website in the name of free speech, but would not grant your opposition the same right to speech with which you disagree. I have to conclude that you are falling back on pseudo-intellectual arguments about "ethical" and "good" speech because you have lost the high ground.

Third, you mention the separation of church and state. The library board, rightfully executing its constitutional duty not to censor speech, listened to a citizen speak of the eternal consequences of the decisions we make in this world. Every citizen, of whatever religion, has a right to speak about their faith in public spaces. The government has no business regulating such speech. What few restrictions there are on speech--such as threatening the life of others--is most certainly in place to protect the community from harm--but not offense.

It apparently bothers you greatly to hear fervent religious speech. I would suggest it discomforts you because your conscience has been pricked. And that is a very good thing. Whenever my conscience troubles me I see it as an indication I need to reflect on my thoughts and actions.

Fourth, to call for the suppression of free speech by our representative library board is antithetical to the rights of citizens and the lawful execution of the board's duties. Surely you see how ironic it is that you and your friends are insisting vulgar, age-inappropriate books be made available to children, yet in the next breath call for the censoring of adult citizens who disagree. This smacks of an indoctrination agenda because it is specifically aimed at vulnerable children.

Every single citizen who spoke at the library meeting was talking about the library. In the end, it was a certain type of speech with which you disagreed. No amount of couching the argument in terms of ethics or the common good can church up your intention to shut down speech you don't like. I urge you to rethink your position. The library board is not responsible for the speech of citizens during public comment, nor are they responsible for suppressing that speech.

Respectfully,

Gretchen Garrity