Indian Hills concerns weren't objective

This is in response to a letter to the editor dated April 10.

I recognize and validate the definition of a trustee, and thank you for reiterating the definition, according to the World Book Dictionary. I will state that as a trustee of Indian Hills General Improvement District, I am acting with the best interest of all the residents in the district and hold no personal agenda. The numerous meetings that you say you have attended must have been sometime in the distant past. Your lack of presence at the past two workshops, on the budget and community center, are a recent example. You show up when your special interests are served.

You stated that you have been a resident of this district for the past 11 years. You failed to mention that you were a past employee of this district and you also failed to mention you're currently being utilized as an outside contract employee. Prior to leaving your post with the district, you worked directly under the current general manager, Jim Bentley, as his personal administrative assistant. Because of this past history with the district, I find your remarks far from objective, or capable of objectivity, and your presence in the district office to be the one who undermines the morale, diminishes the productivity and is therefore unnecessary and undesirable.

The constant questioning of the general manager is most necessary and very conscientious. He has not provided this board with the pertinent information and back-up data in a timely manner, to determine a reasonable and justifiable decision on many outstanding issues. Many repeated requests to him for just such information have gone unrecognized and unfulfilled. The meetings are very lengthy due to the amount of business being addressed; the past agendas have been as long as 30 items. That is our opportunity to discuss and decide on the issues put forward, regardless of how long it takes us to do so, which is part of our fiducial responsibility to this district.

I have never publicly nor privately "attacked" any staff members. My questions and concerns have always been addressed to the general manager, and any criticisms are directly related to his abilities to effectively and efficiently oversee and mange the staff.

The issue of the community center is not whether to build it, but rather when, and how to pay for it. I personally will not agree to build it if we have to raise resident rates on sewer and water to do so. Perhaps this might put off construction for awhile, but I will not support any rate increases to subsidize the cost.

In closing, I feel your motives and concerns regarding the issues are self-serving and short-sighted.