Editor,

I see Sandra Kuykendall is upset with my letter concerning Island Transit. In the interest of not making this a he said/she said back and forth, I will make a quick rebuttal.

If someone writes a letter based on wildly incorrect assumptions then one’s credibility is lost. My letter was based on reading and attending meetings.

I do not interpret financial statements. I read them and ask questions when I cannot understand them. In the case of Island Transit financial statements, I asked a lot of questions.

That is what a person who would like to gain knowledge on an issue does. My comments concerning her husband’s retirement payout in 2009 is on the financial report that, since Sandra was financial manager at that time, she would have produced.

My comment concerning her husband’s ability to rake leaves after his 2009 rehire came from Martha Rose so she would have to ask her for clarification. Her response that Island Transit’s cash flow problems were due to the recession even after herculean efforts would be commendable except for the facts.

Why was an emergency session of the board called to put the levy on the ballot if it was a two-year problem? It could have been on the 2008 general election ballot instead of a standalone item in the summer of 2009.

If Island Transit reduced services to help with the cash flow why was it not public knowledge or bought up in any 2009 or 2010 board meetings? My statement concerning Martha’s comment concerning expanding Island Transit was in the Whidbey News-Times immediately after the levy results.

Last but not least, Sandra’s comment concerning my accusations of the dedication the employees does not hold water. The employees I have dealt with are dedicated.

The past and some current inner circle members are the ones I still have reservations about concerning their work compared with pay and benefits.

Jim Pace

Oak Harbor