WAC strikes again

  By Gretchen Garrity

The poorly-informed author(s) of the WAC blog have written a summer screed. It has taken them awhile to work up more bosom-heaving indignation, but they managed it. Credit where credit is due. ;-) In honor of their unique writing style, a rebuttal is herein offered.

Imagine a scenario where individuals with advanced degrees but little lived experience of business or management assume they are qualified for leadership roles. When they applied to be considered for them, they were rejected. But over the past few years, we've witnessed a real-world demonstration of what happens when keyboard warriors and Marxist activists try to influence through rhetoric, accusations, character assassination, and wildly inaccurate 'reporting' on issues.

It has been, frankly, validation of why the Left is losing ground in our culture and politics.

Besides the usual name-calling (what else can they do to bolster their arguments?), they accuse not only the Board, but the Board attorney of incompetence. Whoever is counseling the WAC crew misinterprets state statute regarding how a library district would operate in the absence of an executive director. I wrote a bit about it HERE.

Apparently, the WAC folks believe that in the absence of an executive director and an interim executive director, the library should drift aimlessly, a rudderless ship that would quickly run aground. It's almost as if WAC wanted something like that to happen. It would make great publicity for their position, hein?

It would not be helpful for a new executive director, of course. Imagine the chaos of coming in to a new position with day-to-day operations unprovided for.

WAC states, "Nowhere does [Missouri Statute] authorize the board to act as the executive director." Whom does WAC propose to govern the day-to-day operations of the library district since a staff member was not designated when the interim director stepped away from her position?

The Library Board has acted appropriately by making sure the library continues to operate in service to the public, regardless of the temporary lack of an executive director. WAC states, "The board is a governing body. It is not an operational entity. Authority over day-to-day operations, including personnel decisions, is legally vested in the executive director and not the board."

Again, WAC ignores the breadth of state statute and the real-time situation--the library has been without an executive director or an interim executive director for weeks. State statute grants broad governing powers to the Library Board. The Oxford Dictionary defines "govern" as "conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people)."

In their desire to discredit the Library Board, WAC is unable to properly articulate the situation, and even hints the Board may be attempting to get compensated for executive duties. The Library Board is not compensated. The position of a Board of Trustee is purely voluntary.

Does WAC have any idea how the duties of the executive director are being carried out? Are they privy to which board members or employees are executing which duties? If so, who is sharing that information with them? In the interests of transparency, they should share with the public if they are aware of anything specifically amiss.

WAC then goes on to attack the Library Board's attorney, positing that he is either "profoundly incompetent," sees a financial benefit in "exposing the library to lawsuits," is "doubling down" on a legal error, is perhaps "engaging in retaliatory behavior," or "all of the above." It is not the current Board attorney who is being investigated for ethics violations, but the former Board attorney.

WAC even suggests a "wrongful termination" lawsuit is on the horizon. "The groundwork is being laid, and the signs are impossible to ignore," the anonymous author says. That is revealing...

WAC then makes much of an upcoming settlement agreement between Janis Hagen and the majority Library Board members she sued with former board attorney Harry Styron. Styron sued on behalf of the Library District without prior approval of the Board. At the July 22, 2025 meeting, the Library Board voted down a proposed policy for clarifying procedures regarding the Missouri Sunshine Law.

Note below that the case will be dismissed. 

WAC will not be able to creditably accuse the Library Board of violating the Sunshine Law. According to the attorney for the majority Board members:

"A settlement agreement has been drafted and signed by all parties except the District. The District is scheduled to meet in the near future to discuss and finalize their approval of the settlement agreement. Once the District has signed the agreement, a dismissal of the case will be filed promptly thereafter."

WAC then makes another attempt to accuse the Library Board members of "misusing public resources to defend themselves in a lawsuit brought against them by the very institution they claim to serve." Let's be clear: It was a former member of the Board of Trustees who, along with the former Board attorney, took it upon themselves to authorize a suit against the majority Board members. This caused thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to be spent on a lawsuit that is on the verge of being dismissed.

That WAC accuses the Library Board of misuse of public funds is malicious and defamatory. The Board members were acting in their official capacity. Missouri law allows for the Library District to pay for legal defense in such cases. The anonymous WAC is not much concerned with truth.

Meanwhile, the Library District moves forward. A new executive director arrives next week. The bylaws and policies are being revised to better reflect the new direction, and citizens are still receiving excellent service at the library. So much for WAC's story line.

Defamation: Lawfare's Comrade

 

By Gretchen Garrity

The Christian County Library Board of Trustees has been under attack for some months, ever since a majority of board members voted to oust the then president, Allyson Tuckness. Resistance from without has included local activists who have lately been joined by their partners and friends with connections to larger state and national organizations. Corporate and NGO media groups have also joined in with articles suggestive of bringing the board’s integrity into question.

Last September former board attorney, Harry Styron, filed a lawsuit on behalf of Trustee Janis Hagen, as well as the library district. Who authorized that lawsuit on behalf of the library district is unknown. It was not the board as a corporate body. The suit has given the Left fodder for accusations of criminal intent, collusion, embezzlement, intentional violations of the Sunshine Law, and so on.

Activists have published social media posts, spoken at library board meetings, and appealed to the county commissioners. However, in order to widen their impact some individuals have taken another tactic. Although all the board members were required to pass background checks, one individual went digging into board members’ lives to cast dirt on them.

 

It wasn’t long before former reporter for the Springfield Daily Citizen Susan Wade and U-turn in Education (founded by MSU professor ElizabethDudash-Buskirk) joined a campaign to defame the board members who were taking action. Statements and actions were taken out of context and misconstrued. Accusations were spread. An anonymous blog suddenly appeared that gave voice to the more outrageous attacks, conveniently allowing individuals like Wade and Professor Dudash-Buskirk’s organization to spread malicious defamatory information on social media without being directly associated with the blog. 

As a former member of the press and as a communications professor, respectively, one would think that Wade and Dudash-Buskirk would have confirmed the circumstances of the accusations by the anonymous blog. By promoting the anonymous blogger they attached themselves to the WAC blog. If they had reached out to the board members they might have learned that at least one of the 16-year-old bankruptcies they so gleefully exposed was due to medical expenses and a creditor who was later sued in a class action suit and had to pay out (even if it was a pittance) for their illegal actions.

Indeed, if Wade and Dudash-Buskirk had done their due diligence, they might not have been so eager to share that a board member’s property taxes were late. It was not because of the board member’s financial negligence but because their new mortgage company was late in paying the taxes. A rather common situation that was rectified by the mortgage company shortly after the article’s release.

And what was the purpose of promoting another anonymous article from the blog that doxxed a board member’s work history, attempting to put it in a negative light? These and other accusations are personal and malicious and defamatory.

WHO WRITES THE WAC BLOG?

Naturally, when such attacks are happening, it is of interest to find out who is writing the anonymous blog. U-turn in Education and Wade claim they have no knowledge of who is writing the blog.

The ten articles that have been published so far include accusations of power grabs, criminal intent, “loose” interpretation of state statutes, ignoring state guidelines, hiring a new board attorney (horrors), holding closed meetings illegally, holding too many meetings, embezzlement, actively campaigning for “book removal” and “labeling,” being responsible for late fees/penalties for overdue library bills, and on.

A proverbial litany of crimes that cry out for justice. Volunteers who care about their community have suddenly become cancerous tumors full of uncleanness.

Many of the anonymous blogger’s conclusions do not make much sense, unless one is determined to find fiends on the library board. The intent is not so much to get the truth out there, but to publicly shame and defame the board members. This is a very common tactic of the Left when they cannot win on the merits of their position, and we have seen it play out on the national stage as well.

So, let’s get to who might be behind the WAC blog. If you look at social media posts surrounding each published article, a pattern begins to emerge. Making a list of the dates of social media posts and the blog posts, an unmistakable pattern emerges.

Pro-tip: If one were to make a Sunshine request of those who have made Sunshine requests, even more information emerges. (Thank you, David Rice.)

The anonymous blogger seems to be promoted almost exclusively by Susan Wade, U-turn in Education, and a couple of their circle. 

In fact, Wade was the first individual to mention bankruptcies in a Facebook post on Feb. 9, 2025 (see screenshot above). On Feb. 11, 2025 Wade closes out a fundraiser she had conducted for Trustee Hagen’s lawsuit against her fellow board members, and mentions “alleged” violations and secret decisions.

On Feb. 12, 2025 Susan Wade submitted a Sunshine request for library late bills and overdue fees, for attorney fees, board emails, and the library budget. Note: This is intriguing because neither the present or previous treasurer were made aware of any late fees until it was publicized by the anonymous blogger.

 

Question: How would Wade know to request information about late fees when even board members were not made aware of them by staff? Is someone inside the library sharing information? Could information have been shared with Wade that lead to the Sunshine requests? 

On Feb. 21, 2025, Wade’s Sunshine request was returned. The very next morning on Feb. 22 at 7:52 a.m., Wade promoted an article on the anonymous blog that included information on the late fees. That article was published on Feb. 22. It stated:

“A Sunshine request shows that since Garrity and company staged their low-rent takeover in order for him to take over as treasurer (landing them in court) the library has had to pay over $250 in late and overdue fees to vendors, service providers, and basic utilities. Why are there so many late penalties Mr. Treasurer? Are you bleeding the library dry on purpose to make a point?”

Request: As a writer, I am operating with full transparency of the sources in this article, but would also ask that you consider limiting traffic to monetized sites that are financially fueling lawfare in our communities. I have PDFs of the articles that I can email to any interested parties.

Was Susan Wade aware of the circumstances of the late fees? If not, why would she either publish or share that information with the anonymous blogger without confirming the background information? If she was aware, then malicious intent is on the table. The anonymous blogger then details expenses for the board’s legal counsel against the lawsuit, which were also sought in Wade’s Sunshine request.

Over the next several days, Wade and U-turn in Education push the anonymous blogger's articles on social media. 

Request: As a writer, I am operating with full transparency of the sources in this article, but would also ask that you consider limiting traffic to monetized sites that are financially fueling lawfare in our communities. I have PDFs of the articles that I can email to any interested parties.

Then, on Feb. 22 and Feb. 24, both Wade and U-turn in Education decide they need to deny writing, formally endorsing, or knowing who is authoring the blog.

Request: As a writer, I am operating with full transparency of the sources in this article, but would also ask that you consider limiting traffic to monetized sites that are financially fueling lawfare in our communities. I have PDFs of the articles that I can email to any interested parties.

 Why did a professional journalist and communications professor decide to share an anonymous blog without knowing the author or the author’s veracity?  It’s possible Susan Wade took her Sunshine request and passed it along to the “anonymous” blogger, but then that would mean she is lying about not knowing the blogger. At best, she is being coy about the author's identity.

 

The pattern, both before and after the article in question was published, is very similar. An article is published and close on its heels, both Wade and U-turn begin pushing it out on social media. Each of the articles is designed to embarrass, accuse and defame the board members. There are ten articles so far, the latest being published March 23, 2025.

It’s classic Saul Alinsky: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”

Request: As a writer, I am operating with full transparency of the sources in this article, but would also ask that you consider limiting traffic to monetized sites that are financially fueling lawfare in our communities. I have PDFs of the articles that I can email to any interested parties.

 So who do you think is writing the WAC blog? What conclusion do you draw from the information?