Well, you got two camps.Originally Posted by 3skulls
There are people who support Wyatt, and by associated, Walsh. They will be asking Ken for something other than his word - and this is a reasonable request.
I would hope that Ken plays this the right way - namely lets it sink in, lets USHA deny some more and then when everything is just right, lays everything out on the table.
Otherwise this will devolve into a he said/she said type of thing. The USARK board apparently either can't or won't comment.
In the meantime there are two other things people who are leaning towards USHA should look into:
(1) USARK's 2012 financial statements - these should illustrate how much of YOUR donations went to buy Wyatt out (if any did at all). If he did - what does that say about how your donations were handled? More importantly, what does it say about Wyatt, Walsh and the circumstances under which they left?
(2) Walsh was using the title "Vice President" for a goodly part of 2012. She herself noted in her interview with Dan Krull that the Board never voted her as such and that she had not idea what her title was at the time of her leaving.
This should be looked at very closely. Not only does it jive with part of Ken's account, it is obvious at some point that the USARK B.O.D made her stop using that title. Why?
Something happened late last year which led to Wyatt and Walsh leaving....and something happened at Tinley. It is also fairly obvious that by the fact that NARBC has posted Ken's account, that they appear to be backing what happened. If these centered around what Ken Foose alleges, then wow. Unfortunately, the split is cloaked under a cloak of mystery from both USARK and USHA.
In 2007 I left a company I had been with for almost 20 years that I was a shareholder and officer of to go somewhere else. The split was due to a difference in philosophy and my dissatisfaction with where the company was headed. At the time, this was one of the top 50 heavy engineering and construction companies in the country. I was never required to sign a non-disclosure agreement - even though my reasons for leaving could have been interpreted to reflect bad on the company.
Non-disclosure agreements are utilized for a specific reason - why was one allegedly utilized here?
Something does not smell right around the this whole thing. These are items that will clarify what really happened.
Reply With Quote