Author: Kristie Wells
The IVGID Board majority—Trustees Schmitz, Dent, and Tulloch—recently appointed Kent Walrack as General Manager, a decision that has raised widespread concern within the community. This choice directly opposes the preferences of four of the five incoming Board members. Notably, Trustees-elect Tonking, Homan, and Jezycki won a landslide victory in the recent election, securing the support of 75% of voters. This overwhelming mandate was a clear call for change, yet the Board majority’s actions appear to disregard the community’s directive. For additional context, see previous articles on this issue here and here.
The Debate Over Qualifications
Trustees Tonking and Noble, along with Trustees-elect Homan and Jezycki, endorsed Bob Harrison for the position. Harrison’s qualifications include:
- Proven leadership with sustained success in multiple cities.
- Expertise in financial management and Tyler Munis system conversions.
- Extensive experience with state and local regulations, public works, utilities, and parks and recreation.
- A strong background in team building and resolving organizational challenges.
Harrison’s skills and experience align directly with IVGID’s operational needs. He has directly relevant and transferable skills, experiences, and expertise in leading almost all aspects of IVGID’s operations in a similar environment.
In stark contrast, the Board majority chose Kent Walrack, whose experience lies in the food and beverage supply chain. Walrack has no government-sector expertise, no experience managing recreation facilities, water, or sewer services, and limited financial or accounting experience. This is particularly concerning given the current challenges IVGID is facing with our government agency partners, such as the Committee on Local Government Finance (CLGF), as mentioned below. According to Walrack’s own responses during his interview, he has never been directly involved in an audit, has no experience in union negotiations, and has never met with our public works staff, which is a critical responsibility for anyone in the role of General Manager.
While Walrack presented a printed 100-day plan during his interview, it lacked substantive deliverables. The tasks outlined are largely onboarding-related, with responsibilities delegated to other departments. Moreover, many of his priorities are lifted directly from the Rubin Brown report, showing little original thought. His suggestions—such as transforming the Chateau into a $4 million food and beverage operation—ignore practical limitations, financial implications, and community priorities. His other recommendation was to potentially introduce a new point-of-sale system rather than supporting the budgeted Tyler Munis system currently being implemented.
Why Was Walrack Selected?
Notably, Trustee Schmitz initially ranked Harrison as her top choice and Walrack as her third. This inconsistency, combined with the incoming Board’s overwhelming preference for Harrison, raises serious questions.
Additionally, Walrack’s demand for a 12-month severance provision in his contract suggests his own hesitancy about the role. This clause would guarantee him a payout of $125,000 (six months severance) to $250,000 (12 months severance), plus six months of medical premiums, if terminated without cause—an enormous financial risk for a candidate without relevant qualifications.
Walrack’s short tenure in the community and disregard for the incoming Board’s preferences, may not only quickly alienate him from the tight-knit community he’s meant to serve – it may permanently associate him with the current board majority that the electorate soundly renounced at the polls a few short weeks ago.
Concerns with the Employment Agreement
The drafted contract presents several red flags:
- Severance Clause: The six-to-twelve-month severance package creates significant financial exposure. Given Walrack’s lack of government experience, such a provision appears not only unwarranted but potentially negligent. Again, Walrack requested a one-year severance package, signaling hesitancy in his own long-term commitment.
- No Probationary Period: A standard probationary period would allow the new Board to assess Walrack’s fit without financial risk.
- Conflicts of Interest: Walrack’s connection to his company, Crystal Bay Ventures, LLC, raises questions about his ability to fully divest and focus on IVGID operations.
As noted earlier, in Walrack’s interview, he presented a 100-day plan – so IVGID should provide a 100-day employment agreement. In the case he does not meet quantifiable goals agreed to by the newly seated board, there is a clear path to not issuing a longer term employment agreement.
Budgetary Implications
What we can tell for sure is that base salary, overall fringe benefits, and total compensation for the GM position has been budgeted, but severance does not appear to be included. The severance provision is particularly problematic if it has not been budgeted for as this may well be a violation of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) per the Committee on Local Government Finance (CLGF). Kelly Langley, CLGF Supervisor, has emphasized that expenditures not included in the approved budget are unauthorized.
“per NAC … if you didn’t budget for it, you can’t just say we’re going to go and spend it without having those available resources. It will be an unauthorized expenditure.” ~ Kelly Langley
Furthermore, CLGF Chair Marvin Leavitt has clarified that such contracts must resolve potential budgetary overages before approval to avoid legal and fiscal consequences.
“Whenever you have an item come to the board for approval of a contract that’s not included in the budget that you have approved, you need at that moment in time to resolve that situation before you approve the contract, not six months or a year or whatever. Afterwards that needs to be done at the time you do it later on. And if you do that, we’re not going to have this situation right now with this possible over expenditure, which is an illegal situation with expenditure of monies.” ~ Marvin Leavitt
These quotes were made during the October 23rd CLGF meeting (link) where IVGID representatives were updating the Committee on activities following the forensic due diligence audit.
Should the new Board terminate Walrack due to lack of support or performance, IVGID could face a material fiscal issue. Trustees Schmitz, Dent, and Tulloch may expose both the District and themselves to legal liability, particularly if their actions are deemed grossly negligent or intentionally malfeasant.
Timing and Transparency
The special meeting to finalize this agreement is scheduled for November 27th—the day before Thanksgiving—when public input is likely to be minimal. This timing raises additional concerns about transparency and accountability.
This decision carries significant implications, potentially jeopardizing IVGID’s governance structure and financial stability. Many are questioning the motivations of Schmitz and Dent as they push to finalize this hire in their remaining days on the Board, as well as Tulloch’s decision to act in direct opposition to the clear preferences of four of his colleagues.
What Can the Community Do?
This is a pivotal moment for Incline Village and Crystal Bay. Residents are urged to:
- Attend the meeting on November 27th to voice concerns. (Agenda)
- Contact Board members to express disapproval of this rushed process. (Sample letter available at the end of this Article)
- Stay engaged as these decisions will shape the future of our District.
Together, we must advocate for leadership that reflects the community’s values and ensures IVGID’s long-term success.