Part 2
Art Johnston is a good guy. He just sent me the email he sent you. I don’t blame him for his anger. He’s been treated very badly and it was your professional duty to explain his story with care. We can debate whether Jana nailed that or not but bear in mind Art has had to read some variation of the statement: “A four month investigation of Art by an impartial attorney found that he is a scumbag.” I’ve taken some liberties with that recurring statement but this sums up what your readers have read dozens of times over the past year. For many it’s become reality through repetition.
I told Art I thought Mary Rice would conduct a fair investigation. I changed my mind the moment I was through reading her report. Talk about putting a thumb on the scales. Her paid for prejudice was subtle but it was deadly. As just one example Mary Rice was dishonest in her presentation to the board when I asked her if Art’s chief accuser was a liar. She evaded the question by saying I had told her in my interview that I couldn’t remember what had happened all those many years ago. That was bullshit. I have my own recording of that interview with Rice and while I was fuzzy about a few things I was not fuzzy about the lies Art’s accuser tried to engineer.
All through this last year and a half I’ve been prevented from talking to or seeing our attorney’s analysis, and billing except for his warning to the Board that removing Art would be iffy and expensive. I got censured for sharing * that appraisal with Jana and the public that elected me. I’m regularly criticized by the Board for my transparency. I got hammered by your editorial for this once despite your many editorials extolling the virtues of transparency.
continued >
