I was correctly quoted ("Why Do People Hate Kirk Girard?" Nov. 3) as saying that Mr. Girard was guilty of "either callous disregard of the truth or malicious lying."

I stand by my earlier statements and presented the Board of Supervisors with the needed information to allow them the opportunity to review the recorded court transcripts to verify the accuracy of my above statement.

I was not at all embarrassed by the content of my statement to our supervisors or the fact it appeared in print in your paper.

However, I was very embarrassed that the use of my name and my statement was included in an article which might lead people to believe that I was a person who "hated Kirk Girard."

The person who wrote that article obviously does not know either me or my wife Linda at all. Linda and I do not have the desire, time or energy to even think about mustering up the intense hostility required to "hate" anyone.

With that being said, I want Mr. Girard to fully realize and be able to relax with the full knowledge that I truly do not hate him or even dislike him at all. I want him to be able to feel perfectly safe and comfortable at any time or place he finds himself in my company.

Your article writer should fully understand that to disagree with the manner a person acts and carries out the duties of his office does not in any manner come close to any accepted definition of that terrible word "hate."

Ken Bareilles, Eureka



Ryan Burns' article on Kirk said volumes between the lines. When Burns refers to Lovelace as "the only supervisor willing to speak," it points to others who aren't pleased. In stating "you could honestly say I was stone-cold naïve," regarding taking the job, does Girard think we'd believe that as a planning official in bordering Arcata for a decade, he was unaware of the contentiousness of the position he was applying for? In the survey an average of 113 people responded yearly. But how many people were actually served? The few speakers at the October County Supervisors meeting supporting Girard only said that if he left, it would be dire for the woefully overdue general plan. That only serves to underscore Girard's responsibility for failed deadlines. Burns' observation "supportive voices tend to be drowned out by haters" is belied because out of the four points of public criticism Burns raised, Girard admitted to three and spun the fourth. He can't even support himself! It is dismayingly amazing to me that against all the testimony from the public and former employees, risk management and court claims and Grand Jury findings, that Girard's contract was still renewed.

Regarding my involvement with Girard, I never, as Burns stated, "fought Girard ... over permits for a daycare center." When I was informed that a permit was necessary, I complied, without complaint or appeal, although I once said that paying a penalty was unfair since it was Girard's office that told me I didn't need a permit. So Girard's statement, "When we find somebody we've ... harm[ed] ... we bend over backwards to ... eliminate the harm" is hogwash -- the fox guarding the hen house. Disappointingly, Burns never got Girard to defend his slanderous public statement; "We told her what zones she could open her preschool in, but she chose not to." Girard can't because under regulation 177.3 there were no zones  where Family Day Care Centers were permitted.

Hilary Mosher, McKinleyville


Comments (3)

Showing 1-3 of 3

Add a comment

Add a comment