You have just asked the key question that I have been asking for weeks. There was a definite breakdown of communication between the board or the board liaison to the environmental committee or the head of the committee as to what was in the reports and who got the important second report that reinforced the hunch that the first test was erroroneous. Some members of the committee did not know that the December report said that there was not a dangerous condition in that pond until very recently. That has led to allegations and rebuttals of the "conspiracy theory" depending on your particular mindset. Who got that report and when??

But it was just an unnecessary fuss. Unbelievable.