The next day, Neil calmly wrote back to Town Attorney Carson to say thank you for a letter he'd writen in reponse to a note Neil had sent to him. Carson had written back bluntly, "I will not be drawn into your personal or political battles."

Neil now wrote Carson, "Please do understand me when I say that your statement -- 'I will not be drawn into your personal or political battles' -- does best -- exactly -- describe my particular situation, and my inquiry. I came to Camperdene to be the curator of The Museum of the Year 1912 -- then curator of The Museum of the Year 2012 -- not to be drawn into the 'political battles' in which museum trustees have historically and traditionally been embroiled, not to be anyone's political pawn, and certainly not to be harrassed by such abusive rhetoric and deeds as Mr. Mulvane or Mr. Barrow and his people have dumped on me. You do know exactly the situation which my letter addresses. It is not in the interest of The Museum of the Year 2012, or in the interest of the Town of Camperdene, to stand this situation on its head, which your letter does. My letter was straightforward, and clear. In it I sought your skills, as Town Attorney, to address specific matters about obstructions made to my carrying out my duties and responsibilities as Director of The Museum of the Year 2012. Both I and the Library's administrative assistant have suffered greatly, and unduly, in trying to simply do our job. We have been obstructed by what you call 'politics' -- politics not of my making. Concerning what you call my 'attack' on an individual, I will again name the individual: Wallace -- 'Wheel' -- Barrow. Please understand: my words are in no wise an attack on this individual. I seek legal protection from being harassed, from being abused, from being attacked by that individual (and his people). I wish, in no wise, to attack him; I do wish that his attacks are somehow dealt with. The problem of Mr. Barrow's uninvited, degraded, and degrading harassment will not be addressed by Town Counsel? Mr. Barrow's telling me 'the Library will be better off when Ben Mulvane is dead' is perfectly acceptable operational trustee/director communications? I do have a 'question of municipal law,' which I thought was stated in my recent letter to you: I inquired whether 'the Town of Camperdene, by way of Town Counsel,' had an opinion in these matters. 'I will...hope,' I wrote, 'the law provides some mechanism for dealing with such acts.' Do I understand you to say the law provides no mechanism for dealing with such acts? Drawn into the center of Mr. Barrow's 'rhetoric and politics,' I have simply tried to spare myself from the further agony of being the victim of his 'gameplan' and his assaults. Your letter gives indication that my seeking to withdraw from 'being drawn unnecessarily into [Mr. Barrow's] personal and politcal disputes,' is hopeless. You state you will will not let yourself be 'drawn in.' I know that feeling. But 'there's nothing we can do' could not rightly be the last word in the matter."

To the editor of the Camperdene Daily Journal, Neil had this to say:

"Much in my mind in recent years have been the words in Proverbs (29: 22,23): 'An angry man stirs up dissension, and a hot-tempered one commits many sins; a man's pride brings him low, but a man of lowly spirit gains honor.' I entered this profession, curatorship, out of youthful idealism. I left it for a short time, and returned to it because I could see nothing more I cared to do than to be a helper, a facilitator, in what I call the 'cultural conversation,' which is always ongoing, from community to community, from generation to generation. Museum professionals do not dictate what is to be viewed or talked about, but bring all the information available, equally, to all the participants in the conversation. This point of view, this ideal, makes all the more painful the recognition of what one particular Camperdene Daily Journal reporter has done -- and has left undone. In purposefully mistelling the news, she has misguided readers, the conversation participants. Whatever I have done, since being appointed curator of The Museum of the Year 1912, and whether it was done well or poorly, has never been front page news. We have seen, printed as front page news, a vain 'minority' museum trustee again and again flinging his 'opinions' about 'mediocre' trustee colleagues and museum curators. We have seen his clique of people, who have regularly harassed the curator, accuse him of 'harassment.' Never could the headline have been, 'The truth be told.' We have seen this 'news' told from the same familiar, lopsided side of things, with that well-known, self-appointed demigod having obvious access to, and influence over, the local press. Such lopsidedness, the purposely leaving certain aspects of a story in while purposefully leaving other parts out, printed as viable 'news' stories is, I'm sure, 'standard procedure' in the news reporting business. But to be at the receiving end of the insult does make one want to comment on it, all the same. 'Standard procedure' or not, it is still an injury to the truth. I know there are reporters in the business solely to make money, share recipes, and keep their jobs, and that the business of the newspapers is to sell papers. But when an honest, hard working person finds himself or herself taken down not once, but regularly, by concocted, wrongheaded, one-sided 'News' purveyed at the bidding of whatever irate, 'influential,' lying local politician and his circle ("Bribe her with little presents and she'll print anything you tell her to") -- that hurts. It seems to be a comical old Camperdene tradition, this trustee unabashedly harassing curators, without consequence, 'connected' in such a way as to enable him to make them look like idiots in the press. But nothing about me is so colorful or interesting as the Daily Journal has led the community to believe. I have harassed nobody. Lord knows I have been harassed. Let's let bribery of reporters become truly old-fashioned, out-dated -- good riddance; let lying, comical, dictatorial megalomaniacs go unpublished; let them grow frustrated; let them just fade away. If a reporter can't do that, then she should at least attempt to tell the other side of the story. 'Ring out the old, ring in the new. Ring out the false, ring in the true'."

Neil wrote this to Powderkeg Cunningham:

"When, you'll recall, the Camperdene Fire Department rushed to The Museum of the Year 2012 after an anonymous caller informed them of smoke in the museum, it turned out to have been a piece of incense, which had been lit in the program room. Elsewhere in the building, you were smoking, as several people reported, your pipe. Camperdene's Fire Chief made it clear to me at that time that The Museum of the Year 2012 curator could no more tolerate any smoke of any kind in the building -- ever. This was told all Library patrons, Trustees, and staffers alike. Having come upon you smoking inside the museum, I wrote a letter to the Board Chair in which, I believe, I made it clear that the Fire Chief had ruled that smoking inside this facility is not acceptable. Just the other morning, in the aftermath of a Blizzard, in seeking out our Maintenance Superviser Hayden Brown 9:30 a.m. in order to enlist his aid in investigating leakage from the museum ceiling, I found you in the HVAC room, drinking coffee and smoking your pipe. Now, don't get me wrong. I understand your impulse to seek out a 'hiding place' in the museum in which to have a cup of hot coffee and a smoke on a cold morning. You will similarly understand that I must tell you that you can't smoke in the museum. It is no joke; it is not a laughing matter. Please don't smoke in this building again."

It was fairly evident from these writings that Neil was on the verge of going nuts. Wheel Barrow and his people had been doing everything in their power to make the museum a place where secrets, bickering, backbiting, and blockage were not only acceptable, but rewarded. He had very ably made the museum a confusing, downright scary place to work. Neil was buckling.

When he was asked, "So why didn't you just leave?" Neil answered, "I feel obliged to stay and fix what's been maligned, injured, shattered." But, in point of fact -- and Neil couldn't see this -- he was intricately and perversely captivated by, and entwined with, his captors.

The Museum of the Year 2012 should have been a place of respect, moderation, and civility. Instead there were Barrows' conflicts, duplicity, division, perplexity. Neil was not ready to accept such a low and ugly standard of personal behavior and professional performance -- beneath even mediocrity. Neil vowed he was not going to continue to lie down and take it, to be buried in an ugly morass of Mr. Barrow's political game playing. But he should have just put on his walking shoes and left that place.

Neil wanted that The Museum of the Year 2012 should be a really marvellous democratic institution, yessir, where people could have a wonderful experience and become fans and supporters and users of museums and become advocates for them -- and for democracy -- with sincerest dedication.

Next, staff sick leave policies were the avenue through which new outcry and mayhem arose. Suddenly trustee interest in museum staff sick leave policy was the rage. Neil felt it wise to share with the Board a highly unusual request that had come to him. Museum staffer Marcie Hearst, scheduled to work on a Saturday, per regular "Week One" scheduling, had asked a colleague to cover for her so that she could take a Saturday off and "work" on the following Wednesday instead. She had then formally requested of Neil that he grant her "Sick Leave" for the Wednesday -- though Wednesdays had long and consistently been her regularly scheduled "Week One" day off.

Neil had not signed off on that. If there had been a precedent for such a request, Neil was unaware of it. He was quite perplexed by the request and wanted the trustees to consider its faults or merits before he reported back to Marcie on it one way or the other. It seemed to him that approving it would have created an unwanted precedent. If a staffer could take a Sick Day on his or her regularly designated day off, then he or she could also logically call in Sick on their day off and ask for Sick Leave credit, enabling him or her to take off a different day later in the same week. Under such logic, it would not be frivolous for a staffer to demand Sick or Personal time on a Snow Day, designating a different day in the week as the individual's private Snow Day, day off.

Neil now wrote to Marcie Hearst, "You need not report yourself sick on a Sunday, a snow day, or on your day off. If there is a precedent for doing so, I am unaware of it. If you are not working this Saturday, for which you are scheduled to work, please fill out the municipal 'Record of Absence' form, noting the date/reason. If you wish, you may appeal this before the Board of The Museum of the Year 2012 Trustees at their next meeting."

To Ben Mulvane Neil wrote, "As concerns Marcie Hearst's 'Record of Absence' request for sick time on her regularly scheduled day off, which was under discusssion at the last Trustees' meeting, I have brought to her attention, 'You need not report yourself sick on a Sunday, a snow day, or on your day off."

Marcie now submitted a second "Record of Absence" form, identical to the first but dated after the fact, instead of prior to it. This raised an interesting question. It was Marcie who'd initiated the alteration of the regular schedule, so she would be "off" on her scheduled Saturday, Marcie having arranged with her reference collegue to "switch" Saturdays. Having arranged that "switch," Marcie had then requested the "Sick" time for Wednesday, January 10, her regularly scheduled day off. Had Marcie said nothing in advance, and simply submitted the form, as she did do after the Board meeting discussion and after Neil's letter to her, would that have been acceptable?

Neil's call. "No individual," he wrote, "should ask to take a formal 'Sick' day on one's day off, or to declare one's self 'Sick' on the day after the fact, without authentically having been sick -- which is demonstrably the case here."

"Dear Mr. Neil," Ben Mulvane wrote, "I think you know that Marcie Hearst and I have got a special thing going, and I don't want you prying or messing with it any further than you have. I trust you get my meaning. Ben Mulvane."

"Dear Ben," Neil wrote back, "I get it -- totally. Neil Wright."

The museum trustees, at their next meeting, voted favorably for Sick Time credit for time taken off on regularly scheduled Days off. In Executive Session, Trustee Chairman Mulvane led the Board in their discussion of what disciplinary action should be brought against Neil for his insubordination.