[gnfargbl]

Let's invert that thinking. Imagine you're the "security area director" referenced. You know that DJB's starting point is assumed bad faith on your part, and that because of that starting point DJB appears bound in all cases to assume that you're a malicious liar.

Given that starting point, you believe that anything other than complete capitulation to DJB is going to be rejected. How are you supposed to negotiate with DJB? Should you try?

[adgjlsfhk1]

To start with, you could not lie about what the results were.

[ImPostingOnHN]

Your response focuses entirely on the people involved, rather than the substance of the concerns raised by one party and upheld by 6 others. I don't care if 1 of the 7 parties regularly drives busloads of orphans off a cliff, if the concerns have merit, they must be addressed. The job of the director is to capitulate to truth, no matter who voices it.

Any personal insults one of the parties lobs at others can be addressed separately from the concerns. An official must perform their duties without bias, even concerning somebody who thinks them the worst person in the world, and makes it known.

tl;dr: sometimes the rude, loud, angry constituent at the town hall meeting is right