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.
