LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Matthew Showalter
I recently had the above linked story emailed to me from a friend, because in reading they could tell it was attempting to reference myself and my wife. The story took information from Bill Kauck and seems to have taken it as fact. In doing so you seemed to levy some allegations, perhaps implying that the person working at the shelter who lived near his fishing boat was doing something financially wrong. This story was so far off base it was offensive and shameful.
You should know better. Nobody mentioned or referenced was spoken too, if so you might have learned that Tara doesn’t live near Bill, or even in the town of Marathon for that matter. You might have learned that the people you were discussing are officers of the county and you shouldn’t discuss the location of their personal residence anyhow. You might have learned the young lady who does live near Bill, my wife, doesn’t drive or own a Range Rover (it’s a Jeep) doesn’t own a Mini at all and never has (I take one from some nice older ladies in town and drive it while they’re away for oil changes) and nobody has some kind of sweet antique car being restored, it was $600 dodge dart in my driveway and the new boat that is behind our house is actually there because the very source of your story drunkenly crushed my classic aluminum fishing boat, and then yes, I bought a $15,000 boat, that’s real life and what really happened with photos and reports with government agencies, and regardless what the hell does that have to do with anything? What do our cars or boat have to do with this? If you want to imply me or my wife did something wrong the facts would show something so far from that. They get our time and our money every single day, the exact opposite is the truth. Is someone who works there not allowed to drive a new Jeep or have a boat? Why didn’t you call to verify anything? Are we just taking what should be a babbling letter to the editor and making it a story and putting a reporters name on it these days?
The shelter is not in the business of adopting a dog to anyone who shows up, nor should they be, and his rejection was certainly with merit, plain and simple. Nobody ever asked for his Social or his credit report, that’s pure nonsense. The shelter didn’t have financial issues because they didn’t adopt him a dog. As a matter of fact they adopt out more than they ever have and have fewer than they ever have. They are wonderful hard working people who don’t deserve to have nonsense like that written. The money from adoptions is not so horribly needed that they will give anyone a dog to try to get fifty or a hundred bucks.
I am party to the ongoing actions that resulted in the shelter changing hands, and it had nothing to do with staff taking money or not doing their job, it was the Treasurer and Chris Zeulch, the “Accountant” (in quotes because it turns out he’s not even an accountant) who misappropriated funds and paid themselves nearly one of every ten dollars in the budget, among many other issues and crimes (that words is used as fact not speculation or assumption).
If you wanted the story the real (meaning factual, not based on the ramblings of a drunk man down the road) is a good one that should be told. We have all held out because we’re waiting on the results of a State investigation, county comptrollers audit/investigation and some other little matters.
I suppose I am just writing to say it was disappointing to see you put something so absurd in your paper and see that in the process you didn’t follow any sort of editorial or journalistic standards of practice when doing so. You should be better than that. If you write an apology I would be happy to shelter with the folks who were mentioned.
Matthew Showalter
The article makes it clear that what Mr. Showalter disputes are Bill Kauck’s statements. The article states he “claims” what is then clearly in quotation marks. Even Bill in the conclusion says he is speculating about the cars. Matthew’s dispute is clearly with his neighbor, whom he calls a drunk and makes other accusations far more inflammatory and reckless than anything Bill is quoted saying.
There is no disputing that SHARK has done a terrible job after improperly wresting the contract away from the beloved and hyper-competent SUFA (remember the quarantine? Closing Big Pine?). The article accurately reports what SHARK’s leaders were doing in response to their problems. Mr. Showalter makes it all about his relation with his neighbor, while possibly slandering their accountant in passing. Matthew owes KONK Life an apology, not the other way around.