Author: Kristie Wells
The IVGID Board’s rushed decision to hire a new General Manager (GM) is deeply troubling. With less than six weeks until a newly elected board takes over—one that our community overwhelmingly voted for—the outgoing board majority is forcing through one of the most significant decisions they can make. Schmitz, Dent, and Tulloch named Kent Walrack as GM even though he was not the top choice of four of the five members of the board being seated in January.
This move blatantly disregards the incoming board’s preference for a more qualified candidate and undermines the community’s voice. A decision as critical as selecting a GM should be guided by transparency, professional insight, and community input. Instead, Schmitz, Dent, and Tulloch seem focused on advancing personal agendas over the community’s best interests.
If you value fairness and accountability, now is the time to act. Write to the trustees today and demand they either delay the appointment or limit the contract to six months, allowing the new board to make a decision that truly reflects the will of the community.
Email the trustees now:
- Sara Schmitz: schmitz_trustee@ivgid.org
- Ray Tulloch: tulloch_trustee@ivgid.org
- Matthew Dent: dent_trustee@ivgid.org
- Dave Noble: noble_trustee@ivgid.org
- Michaela Tonking: tonking_trustee@ivgid.org
Let them know our community deserves better. A sample letter is provided at the bottom of this article and you are welcome to use this if you so choose.
If you want to know more of the story, please read below.
To fully grasp the significance of this decision, we need to look at recent events.
After the October 30th interviews, Robert Harrison emerged as the top candidate, followed by Ana Cortez and then Kent Walrack. Harrison received the majority of support from Trustees Tonking, Noble, and Schmitz.
Just one week ago, the IV/CB community delivered a landslide victory to Homan, Jezycki, and Tonking, signaling a clear rejection of the current board majority’s direction. This election was a resounding call for change, echoing the same frustrations that drove recent recall efforts—efforts that would likely have succeeded if allowed to proceed.
Despite this, Schmitz, Dent, and Tulloch are pushing ahead with their agenda, disregarding both the election results and the voices of incoming Trustees Homan and Jezycki. Neither Homan nor Jezycki was included in the interview process or consulted for feedback—an unacceptable exclusion for such a pivotal decision.
Harrison and Cortez, traveled twice from Washington at their own expense. Walrack lives locally. All three candidates were encouraged to meet with senior staff and tour the facilities. Harrison and Cortez confirmed they had done so, but Walrack only cited familiarity with the facilities, excluding Public Works. Surprisingly, despite living nearby, he hadn’t arranged a visit to that department in the past two weeks.
Moreover, Harrison and Cortez proactively reached out to Trustees-elect Homan and Jezycki to discuss their qualifications and vision for the role—an effort Walrack chose not to make. The pattern here is hard to ignore. It raises the question: did Walrack know, even before the second interview, that he could count on at least three votes in his favor?
At the November 13th board meeting, Trustees-elect Homan and Jezycki used their opening public comments to endorse Harrison for the position, highlighting his experience as an ideal match for the District’s needs. Harrison’s government background and readiness to address financial and operational challenges stood out as key qualifications. You can hear their comments at the 9:59 and 31:03 marks in the video below.
https://livestream.com/ivgid/events/11202657
Trustee Schmitz responded to public comments about “fast-tracking” the process by saying, “We’ve been very thoughtful about the process… It’s critical [to have] a leader running this organization.” Missing from Schmitz’s response was an acknowledgment that she had not sought input from Trustees-elect Homan and Jezycki, despite the fact that they will soon work directly with the new GM. This exclusion was hardly thoughtful. Trustee Schmitz also omitted that, despite months of discussion, the Board is rushing through this hire with only six weeks remaining in her and Trustee Dent’s terms, a timing that undermines the interests of the incoming board and residents.
The final vote was telling:
- Trustees Tonking and Noble voted for Harrison.
- Trustees Tulloch, Dent, and Schmitz voted for Walrack.
Although Homan and Jezycki’s preferences were not included, as noted, they indicated support for Harrison, which would have yielded a 4-1 preference in Harrison’s favor had the vote reflected the future composition of the Board.
Trustee Noble stated:
“I think this community has spoken loud and clear with this recent election. It was a landslide, and four of the five members of the board starting in January, wanted Mr. Harrison, and unfortunately, this current board has gone a different way … while Mr. Walrack was a solid finalist, he right now does not have the support of 80% of the incoming board, and that’s going to be extremely difficult position. I know he said about putting his head down and going forward. I don’t know how you do that when four out of the five board members starting January 1st have said that they want a different GM.“
Tonking added:
“I will not be voting for Mr. Walrack. I believe that he would actually be a very good candidate had we not had all of the governmental issues we have, especially having to work with following NRS, GFOA, and things he does not have the experience doing.“
Ignoring Noble and Tonking’s comments, Schmitz lauded Trustee Dent’s experience and justified relying on his perspective over the voices of the four Trustees who will be seated on the board in January. She stated that Dent’s “knowledge and understanding…surpasses all of us sitting trustees and those to be seated in January, his input is valued and appreciated and should not be silenced.” Schmitz looked like she was reading from a written statement that implies Schmitz, Dent, and Tulloch had likely predetermined their choice long before the second round of interviews, rendering Harrison and Cortez participants in a process we will call a “dog and pony show.” The cost of their travel and time to attend now seems a token gesture in a process that felt, from the start, to be a forgone conclusion.
When the current board cemented Walrack’s appointment with a 3-2 vote, attention turned to the terms of his contract. Trustees Tonking and Noble advocated for a six-month term to allow the incoming board to evaluate his performance and fit. However, the majority—Schmitz, Dent, and Tulloch—overruled this reasonable proposal, insisting on an 18-month contract.
Schmitz and Dent may soon be departing, but Tulloch, who will remain on the board in 2025, seemed to ignore requests for a flexible “opt-out” clause—a standard safeguard to protect the community’s interests. He seems intent on continuing this divisive path rather than collaborating to build a stronger future for IVGID. This is a moment that demands accountability and respect for the community’s voice.
In her closing public comment, Trustee-elect Jezycki captured the frustration felt by many:
“Congratulations to the board for succeeding in following the same ill-fated path of making poor hiring choices. Have we not learned from the hiring track record this majority board has set? You have just entered us into another ‘set to fail’ scenario with the most important position in our Village, just as you succeeded in doing earlier this year.“
This role is not just any position. Our GM oversees essential operations and serves as our representative with multi-tiered government agencies that handle the regulatory and tax policies crucial to our community’s financial future. Yet, with minimal community input, a truncated interview process, and scant regard for staff feedback, the Board finalized its choice for a $300k role in what felt like a show of predetermined support rather than objective decision-making.
Jezycki continued with a critical reminder:
“You claim the General Manager doesn’t need government experience, yet we are established and bound by the legislature, have serious issues with our state government tax agency… and a county government we have fractured relations with. We are a governmental agency, not a collection of for-profit businesses!”
Why would Walrack even want this position, knowing that four out of five Trustees he’ll be reporting to did not view him as the most qualified candidate? Perhaps the allure lies in the guaranteed 18-month salary, or even a potential severance if the new board chooses to end his tenure.
In an even more pointed critique, Trustee-elect Homan noted the inconsistency:
“I would point out the hypocrisy of making a special motion in the middle of the meeting to seek the input of another community member (Chris Nolet, former Chair of the Audit Committee). He is in a position to offer good advice – but it confuses me how you can ignore the views of experts who were elected by residents (Homan and Jezycki) – but seek the views of others who were not chosen by the community (Nolet).”
Homan also expressed disbelief at the Board’s neglect of its duty to serve its constituents:
“It is simply unfathomable to me how you can think you’re fulfilling your responsibilities as a Trustee and at the same time ignoring the community you are charged with serving.”
The community, along with existing and incoming board members, have voiced concerns about the timing, lack of transparency, and implications of this appointment. In the closing days of their tenure, Schmitz and Dent have taken a decision that effectively sidelines the voices and preferences of their successors. This is a disservice to Mr. Walrack, who now assumes a role for which another candidate may have been better suited in alignment with the incoming Board’s vision.
Our community deserves better. We require leadership committed to transparent, fair, and inclusive governance. It is clear that this Board’s actions will resonate—and likely reinforce why the community voted as it did. As new leaders join the Board, we expect they will prioritize decisions that align with residents’ expectations, build trust, and serve all of Incline Village and Crystal Bay.
If you value fairness and accountability, now is the time to act. Write to the trustees today and demand they either delay the appointment or limit the contract to six months, allowing the new board to make a decision that truly reflects the will of the community.
Email the trustees now:
- Sara Schmitz: schmitz_trustee@ivgid.org
- Ray Tulloch: tulloch_trustee@ivgid.org
- Matthew Dent: dent_trustee@ivgid.org
- Dave Noble: noble_trustee@ivgid.org
- Michaela Tonking: tonking_trustee@ivgid.org
Let them know our community deserves better. A sample letter is provided below and you are welcome to use this if you so choose.
——-
Sample letter to the IVGID Board of Trustees
[Your Address or Email Header]
[Date]
Incline Village General Improvement District Board of Trustees
Sent via Email: schmitz_trustee@ivgid.org, tulloch_trustee@ivgid.org, dent_trustee@ivgid.org, noble_trustee@ivgid.org, tonking_trustee@ivgid.org
Dear Members of the IVGID Board of Trustees,
I am writing as a deeply concerned member of the Incline Village community regarding the recent decision to select Kent Walrack as the new General Manager (GM), a choice that contradicts the clear preferences of both the newly elected Trustees and the broader community. This decision raises serious questions about the ethics and intentions of Trustees Schmitz, Dent, and Tulloch, whose actions appear to prioritize personal agendas over the best interests of our District.
The General Manager is a critical role that requires a leader with both the qualifications and the trust of the entire community. Trustees-elect Homan and Jezycki, representing a fresh and community-supported vision for IVGID, have publicly voiced their strong preference for Robert Harrison, the candidate who received a majority of support during the initial interview process. Yet, the outgoing majority has pushed forward with a decision that undermines this majority sentiment, disregarding both the incoming board and the electorate’s clear message.
This lack of collaboration and transparency in the decision-making process is troubling. Trustees-elect Homan and Jezycki were excluded from providing meaningful input into the GM selection, despite the critical importance of their perspectives as incoming stewards of our District. By ignoring their voices and rushing to lock in an 18-month contract with a less-preferred candidate, Schmitz, Dent, and Tulloch have not only dismissed the community’s mandate but also shown an apparent disregard for good governance.
Such behavior undermines trust in our local government and raises a pressing question: Why is this outgoing majority so determined to finalize this decision before the newly elected board is seated? The lack of an opt-out clause in the contract further compounds this concern, tying the hands of the incoming board and limiting their ability to course-correct should this selection prove to be a poor fit for our District.
I urge the Board to reconsider this decision. If the current majority is unwilling to delay the appointment process until the new board takes over, the least they can do is adjust the contract to a six-month term, allowing the incoming Trustees to reassess the situation. This would be a fair compromise that respects the will of the voters and upholds the integrity of IVGID’s governance.
I respectfully request that you address these concerns promptly and transparently. The community deserves nothing less than an ethical, thoughtful approach to decisions of this magnitude.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]