On the eve of Thanksgiving, the IVGID Board of Trustees approved the 18-month contract for Kent Walrack as General Manager (GM) in a narrow 3-2 vote. This contract included a 12-month severance package and a 120-day notice period for termination. Trustees Schmitz, Dent, and Tulloch pushed the decision through despite sharp criticism from the community and clear opposition from four of the five incoming Trustees, who will assume office in January.
You can watch the meeting here if you like. (Video)
This controversial hire raises serious concerns about governance, financial accountability, and the district’s future stability. Below is a summary for quick reading, followed by an in-depth examination of the meeting, public feedback, and the implications of this decision.
Key Takeaways
- Divided Vote: The outgoing board majority approved Walrack’s contract despite opposition from the incoming board majority and 75% of the community who voted them into office.
- Concerns Over Qualifications: Critics highlighted Walrack’s lack of government, financial, and public works experience. Proponents pointed to his business background and local residency.
- Severance Controversy: The original contract contained a 6-month severance clause, however, the board majority insisted on changing it to a one-year severance package, despite concerns raised during the meeting that it could place a financial burden on the District if the new board chooses to terminate him. These objections were clearly voiced during the discussion, and they were ignored by Schmitz, Dent, Tulloch, and Walrack.
- Public Discontent: 21 community members attended the meeting, with 18 expressing dissatisfaction with the decision and urging the board to reconsider. This was in addition to the “copious amount of emails” the board received prior to the meeting.
- Incoming Trustees Speak Out: Trustee-elects Homan and Jezycki criticized the process, citing fiscal irresponsibility and a disregard for incoming leadership. Trustee Noble recommended no severance as he intends to bring an item forward the first available meeting in January to terminate the contract.
Read more of the story below to better understand this contentious vote, severance concerns, public discontent, and the incoming board’s position.
A Divisive Meeting
While this meeting was dubbed “special” and scheduled the day before Thanksgiving, it was telling that none of the five Trustees attended in person, nor was legal counsel present, or even Walrack himself, despite living just a few blocks away in Crystal Bay. This was Walrack’s debut as General Manager, and it felt like a slap in the face to the community that no one felt compelled to attend in person. Yet, over 20 community members showed up, understanding the significance of the meeting. Public comments overwhelmingly opposed the decision, raising concerns about the timing and questioning Walrack’s qualifications for the role.
Former Audit Committee Chair Chris Nolet criticized the absence of Trustees and legal counsel, saying:
“I have to say it’s pretty rich that there are 20 people sitting in this room to comment on important matters for the Village and no Trustee is present. If the timeliness of this meeting was of such urgency that it had to be scheduled on a de facto holiday, you should be here to host the meeting and conduct the business. Pretty poor performance.”
Incoming Trustee-elect Mick Homan warned that the decision could lead to financial and legal repercussions, stating:
“To be clear, a move by the board majority to sign a contract that could force the new board to make a separation payment to correct your mistake shows incompetence that may well rise to the level of gross negligence or malfeasance. Our D&O insurance won’t cover you for either.”
Homan directly addressed Walrack:
“Please reconsider if accepting this role is in the best interest of you or the community. Terminating the agreement could be a financial burden for the District and, more importantly, its residents who ultimately foot the bill.”
Trustee-elect Michelle Jezycki also criticized the hire, highlighting Walrack’s lack of governance and public works experience:
“…here we are with a less qualified candidate who lacks any government, local governance, financial, or public works experience, and who didn’t even tour our public works facility during the interview process. Yet an 18-month contract with a significant severance package is on the table.”
Jezycki questioned whether the district budget accounted for the legal fees and training costs needed to bring Walrack up to speed.
Concerns were raised during public comment about the intentional scheduling of this critical “special” meeting on the eve of Thanksgiving, which many perceived as an attempt to minimize community participation. Schmitz defended the timing, claiming it was scheduled because Walrack was “so excited to get started” and they couldn’t wait an additional week. This begs the question: who is truly calling the shots here? Since when does an employee dictate the timeline for such significant decisions?
Justifications and Criticism
Trustees Schmitz, Dent, and Tulloch defended their decision, emphasizing Walrack’s business background and local residency. Schmitz described him as a “fresh perspective” for IVGID’s challenges, arguing that his local presence would allow him to “hit the ground running.”
However, Trustee Tonking pushed back against Schmitz’s assertion, pointing to widespread community disapproval:
“The community also came out to speak today and told us they were dissatisfied with the choices of the majority of this board and dissatisfied with the choice of the GM candidate. So to argue that they were asking us to find someone in the community is fine, but to say that they are happy with that is incorrect. We have received copious amounts of emails as well as had a lot of public comment.”
Tonking’s response underscored the disconnect between the board majority and public sentiment, further highlighting the contentious nature of the decision.
The Severance Debate
The contract presented in the agenda originally included a six-month severance clause. However, Trustee Noble proposed removing the severance provision entirely, citing the high probability that Walrack would be terminated soon after the new board took office. Noble argued that eliminating the severance would mitigate unnecessary financial risks to the district:
“My intention is to bring an item forward the first available meeting in January to terminate the contract if the board moves forward. ”
Even after hearing his colleague’s sentiment, Trustee Dent felt compelled to present Walrack’s request for a one-year severance package, doubling the six-month term initially proposed.
Schmitz asked Walrack why he was requesting a year-long severance instead of the six months outlined in the contract. Walrack explained that he believed it should be consistent with what had been offered to other General Managers. He also noted that IVGID had used a one-year severance package as part of its recruiting strategy, acknowledging that candidates would incur personal expenses to leave their current jobs and relocate to the District.
Trustee Tonking responded, adding:
“The six-month severance is not that uncommon. We’ve run into this problem now with Mr. Winquest and Mr. McGee using the 12 months. Before that, we had been using a six-month contract, and I think that had worked much better. I think that’s something we need to consider.”
Tonking questioned the justification behind the one-year request, noting that Walrack, a retired local resident, would not face the typical challenges of relocation or career disruption. Walrack, however, defended his position, stating:
“The severance strategy, just from a perspective of the risk of taking on the opportunity, is appropriate for the risk that’s involved here.”
Yet, Walrack’s statement seemed disingenuous, given the circumstances. He is coming out of retirement to accept a role fully aware that four of the five incoming Trustees are likely to vote for his termination shortly after they take office in January. By insisting on a $250,000 severance package for what could amount to just 30 days of work, Walrack’s actions suggest little regard for the financial strain this decision could impose on the community. To many, this seems less like a commitment to leadership and more like a calculated financial move.
What was especially ironic was the lack of pushback from Trustee Tulloch, who has prided himself on holding IVGID’s vendors accountable. He aggressively went after Waste Management, Granite Construction, and others when IVGID had no leverage. Yet, when IVGID had all the leverage, he folded and approved a 12-month severance package for an unproven GM. This further fuels the suspicion that the deal was pre-arranged before the debate even began.
Ignoring the strong objections from the incoming board majority, Trustees Schmitz, Dent, and Tulloch approved the 18-month contract, which included a 12-month severance package and a 120-day notice period for termination. This heightened community concerns about financial irresponsibility. The approval of the expanded severance package, given the likelihood of Walrack’s termination shortly after the new board assumes office, casts doubt on the motivations behind both the board’s decision and Walrack’s willingness to accept the role under such contentious circumstances.
A Troubling Dynamic
Walrack’s demeanor during the meeting also sparked concern. He seemed unfazed by pointed criticisms from four incoming trustees, remaining impassive even as two openly discussed the possibility of terminating his contract shortly after he assumes the role.
His response to community feedback added to the unease:
“And again, with all the great input that we’ve received today and the resources that I’m learning that are also out in the community, that seem more than willing to speak up to try to assist and help in solving a lot of these problems.”
This remark was interpreted by some as aligning with divisive figures like Cliff Dobler and Frank Wright. The comment left many questioning whether Walrack fully grasped the seriousness of the community’s concerns or his tenuous relationship with the incoming board. It also raised doubts about where his priorities and loyalties may ultimately lie.
Reports suggest Kent Walrack’s appointment as General Manager may be part of a broader plan to oust senior leadership—an agenda Schmitz, Dent, and Tulloch have previously pursued without cause. Such actions would destabilize IVGID, open the door to costly lawsuits, and could even place the District under state fiscal watch—a scenario Tulloch has disturbingly supported.
How is rooting for IVGID’s failure in the best interest of our community? It’s not. Trustees advocating for this reckless agenda should be ashamed and should seriously reconsider their roles as the guardians of the District.
What Lies Ahead
The decision to hire Walrack appears to have been orchestrated by Trustees Schmitz, Dent, and Tulloch. Throughout the meeting, Dent seemed largely disengaged, only showing interest when it was his turn to advocate for an expanded severance package. Tulloch appeared distracted by his day job, and Schmitz gave the impression that she would rather be tackling a home renovation than participating in a meeting with clearly predetermined outcomes.
This hire stands as one final misstep by the outgoing board majority—a decision the Incline Village and Crystal Bay community will bear the financial and operational consequences for. Moreover, Walrack’s alignment with the current majority over the incoming trustees signals a troubling lack of independence and allegiance to his future bosses.
The incoming board, set to take office in January, has already indicated plans to revisit Walrack’s contract. Should they terminate him, the District could be left with the financial burden of a costly one-year severance payout. This outcome was avoidable and represents Schmitz, Dent, and Tulloch’s reckless disregard for fiscal responsibility. Neither the current board majority nor Walrack should have proceeded with this arrangement, knowing full well it faced widespread opposition from the incoming board and the community at large. While Schmitz, Dent, and Tulloch tout Walrack’s business background as an asset, detractors point to his lack of relevant qualifications and the broken trust with incoming leadership as significant barriers to his success.
This contentious decision highlights deeper issues within IVGID’s governance, setting a troubling precedent for prioritization and accountability. It leaves the District at a crossroads, with numerous unanswered questions about its leadership, direction, and capacity to navigate these turbulent times. The incoming board faces a daunting challenge: repairing community trust, addressing the fallout of this decision, and ensuring future actions reflect the will and best interests of the community.
For Sara Schmitz, Matthew Dent, and Ray Tulloch one undeniable truth remains: the internet is forever. Schmitz and Dent seem poised to leave the District in turmoil as they pursue residency and political ambitions elsewhere, but their actions here will undoubtedly follow them. As for Tulloch, who will remain in the Village, his credibility and influence is likely to wane in the wake of this controversy—a change that could ultimately serve the community’s best interests.