Note: This article was written by ROBIN READER (612) and was originally published on her website Broken Arrow Forum on August 20, 2010, and reappears here on this blog with her permission.
A few pertinent notes regarding Ronda Vuillement-Smith, in light of her remarks to the media regarding Broken Arrow Schools. None of these facts were reported in the
stories that quoted her. She was portrayed only as a concerned taxpayer.
1) She is married to the owner of Triad Service Company, a heating and air conditioning company in Broken Arrow; a direct competitor to Air Assurance, the HVAC company that Sisney targeted with his allegations of fraud. He is also president of the Green Country chapter of the Air Conditioning Contractors of America. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
2) She was active in Stuart Jolly’s Americans For Prosperity/nobabonds.com effort to defeat the school bond vote in Broken Arrow, and is active in Restore Oklahoma Public Education. This is not to say that these groups have destructive goals or that she is wrong to be associated with them; only to show that her criticism of Broken Arrow Schools may have more to do with generating a particular impression to further the cause of her political groups than with concern as a taxpayer about actual wrongdoing.
3) She has been in contact with Mike Ritze regarding the effort to defeat Broken Arrow’s bond vote. This is significant because of Mike Ritze’s involvement supporting Sisney and
participating in the attack on the board members. Ritze spoke on Sisney’s behalf at a board meeting, despite having just met him and being unfamiliar with the circumstances, and circulated a petition that contained accusations but no proof, to remove the board members whom Sisney accused of criminal acts.
The radio clip in which she mentions contacting Mike Ritze about defeating the bond vote is here: Radio clip Vuillemont-Smith-Ritze-Jolly
4) She is associated with the group that orchestrated a campaign to assist Sisney with his PR attack on BA Schools administration: BAParentsForTruth (formerly BAParentsVSBABOE) and with the administrator of the website representing that group.
5) She wrote a blog post that sets the tone with a big – and inaccurate – assumption: that the “controversial practices” of BAPS resulted in the firing of the Superintendent and the
subsequent investigation. After framing the situation as if it’s been proven that BAPS – not Sisney – caused the problems, she makes her point that District money should not be spent on having the attorney present. However, the demand she makes has nothing to do with the cost: She demands that the public get to see the audit at the same time as the attorney. How would including the public in the meetings save money? And what has her so uptight about the District’s attorney getting to see the audit results first? What does she stand to lose in those 14 days? Vuillemont-Smith blog post – against attorney presence