Last Thursday the director of Lake County Vector Control held a meeting of the board members at a time when she was certain I would be unable to attend, so I had no chance to defend myself against the onslaught of charges they recently leveled against me in the news media.

The first claim made was that I had not asked about any of the subjects mentioned in my recently published letter at the last board meeting (which took place eight days after I joined the Vector Control board).

They failed to mention that I had discussed nearly all of these matters with the director, failed to mention that I became aware of most of these matters after that meeting and failed to mention that if I'd waited for the next meeting to voice my concerns it would be too late to get the facts out to the voters.

Instead of addressing any of the statements I had made in that letter in a meaningful way, they elected to attempt to shoot the messenger instead, and went on to point out the obvious: we have more mosquitoes when it rains a lot in the spring.

The board also claimed that I had little understanding of their budget or the business they conducted, apparently they were unaware that I have more experience doing pest control work than most of the Vector Control staff, and that I also have considerable experience analyzing governmental budgets, everything from the superior courts to school districts.

Now the board says they'll answer my questions, but you have to show up at the next board meeting to do hear their explanations because ... well, I'm not sure why they couldn't just print them for everyone to see. But now that they've finally embraced transparency I have a few more questions, like:

Why is it when Vector Control was supposedly on the ropes financially Curt Giambruno apparently didn't have any suggestions as to how to how to fix that problem, but he twice tried to get the board to vote themselves a raise?

Why did the board do nothing when they were given copies of and asked about a news report that contained some very questionable claims about Vector Control, claims so shaky that the director expressed obvious embarrassment when I asked her about them later? Could it be that it was OK with them if data was wrong if it helped their case for the assessments or were they just not paying attention?

Did the board know I had told the director if she responded publicly to a citizen's published questions about Vector Control without addressing the misstatements in the media I would do it for her? All I wanted was to give the voters an even break, something the board and director seem inclined not to do.

The truth about Vector Control is they are an example of what is poisoning our system of government at every level: they have lost sight of their primary function and spend much of their time building a larger and more entrenched, less efficient bureaucracy and act as if every budget problem can be solved by simply raising taxes.

Phil Murphy, a Vector Control board member, lives in Finley.

Editor's note: Dr. Jamie Scott, Vector Control district manager, said the district board routinely reviews and updates existing district policies. In April of 2008 the district board reviewed its policy on in lieu of expenses to ensure that the reimbursement that the trustees received was adequate for the expenses incurred. She said that, over a couple of meetings, they concluded that no changes to the in lieu of expenses policy were needed.