During a special meeting addressing the termination of General Manager Kent Walrack, Trustee Tulloch expressed strong opposition to the proceedings, calling them a “kangaroo court.” He dismissed the suggestion of offering Walrack an alternative position within the District, stating that, in his opinion, Walrack should not engage in negotiations with IVGID.
Tulloch remarked (Watch video at the 2:13:30 mark)
“I think it’s pretty insulting to say to Mr. Walrack, well, we’ve loved it. We’d, we’d love, love to have you, have you come back and do our food and beverage and do golf, because we could do a really good job. Who in the right mind would trust Board members like that that came out with something like that? They wanted to renege on a legally binding contract and then wanted to offer him a job at a lesser level. Who in their right mind, from the private world or government, would actually take an offer like that? I certainly wouldn’t. I don’t believe Mr. Walrack would either. I think it’s insulting to make that offer. I think this board has demonstrated their colors. I don’t think Mr. Walrack would be prepared to trust them, but I’ll leave that decision to him. I can only give my view.”
Tulloch’s statements reflect his personal perspective on the termination process and potential negotiations with Walrack. However, his remarks and conduct during the meeting have raised concerns about his ability to effectively serve the District’s best interests. Tulloch was one of three trustees—alongside former Trustees Schmitz and Dent—who supported Walrack’s hiring despite significant opposition. He also advocated for a 12-month severance package for Walrack, even after a fellow trustee had expressed intentions to terminate Walrack once the new board was seated.
A Clear Violation of the Board’s Code of Conduct
Tulloch’s behavior during the meeting violated the Board’s Code of Conduct. He repeatedly crossed the line but went overboard when he openly disregarded II.A.1: Practice civility and decorum in discussions and debate. The Code explicitly states, “Trustees and Members should be aware of their body language and facial expression and shall avoid ‘eye rolling,’ ‘smirks,’ or similar actions which demonstrate a lack of respect for the speaker.”
Not only was Tulloch’s demeanor unprofessional, with his facial expressions openly conveying contempt, but he also threw up his hands and laughed out loud when his colleagues attempted to discuss reallocating Walrack’s severance into a consulting agreement. This proposal aimed to mitigate the financial strain on the District while leveraging Walrack’s expertise in the Food and Beverage Department—the area where he could provide the most value. Tulloch’s dismissive attitude and open mockery of a good-faith effort to find a practical solution further underscored his lack of respect for the Board’s process and responsibilities. You can watch this portion of the meeting here: https://youtu.be/kEJ6LLSibdg.
The financial impact of Walrack’s termination includes a severance payout exceeding $250,000 after just 6.5 weeks of employment. While renegotiating the severance remains an option, Tulloch appeared to encourage Walrack to take the full payout—a stance some view as a dereliction of his duty to act in the District’s best interest. Such advocacy, coupled with his inability to maintain composure during these proceedings, has led to growing concerns about his role as a trustee.
A Disruptive Departure: Tulloch Leaves the Meeting Early
Following the vote to terminate Walrack, Tulloch stood up and announced he was leaving the meeting, claiming the outcome had been predetermined. Trustees Homan and Tonking refuted this assertion, emphasizing their commitment to transparency and adherence to the Open Meeting Law. Each board member, they stated, had reached their conclusions independently.
Tulloch’s decision to leave the meeting speaks volumes. Over the past three years, the board has often been divided, with numerous 3-2 votes where Trustees Schmitz, Dent, and Tulloch opposed Trustees Noble and Tonking. However, Noble and Tonking never once walked out; they consistently conducted themselves professionally and remained present, fulfilling their duties as Trustees.
Ongoing Concerns About Tulloch’s Priorities
This is not the first time Tulloch’s actions have raised questions. In October, during a Committee on Local Government Finance (CLGF) meeting, Tulloch raised the issue of whether IVGID’s operations were too extensive for a GID structure. His comment fueled speculation that he may not fully support the District’s governance model, with some interpreting it as aligning with views to dismantle IVGID.
Given his role in shaping Walrack’s contract and the resulting severance obligations, as well as his behavior during recent meetings, Tulloch should carefully consider whether he can effectively fulfill his responsibilities to the District. Encouraging actions that may further strain IVGID’s financial resources, coupled with his inability to maintain professionalism, raise serious questions about his commitment to the community.
Related Posts: