Page 111 of Brewing Up My Fresh Start
“My professional decisions are based on project requirements and community needs, not personal considerations.”
“But you are personally involved with Grayson Reed?”
The question hangs in the studio lighting. Answer yes, and she’ll paint me as a person who lets romance influence financial decisions. Answer no, and I’ll be lying on live television while my heart breaks all over again.
“Grayson Reed is a respected professional in sustainable development. Our collaboration has been highly successful.”
It’s a deflection that avoids the personal question while emphasizing professional credibility. Rebecca’s expression suggests she’s not satisfied with the non-answer.
“Mr. Reed isn’t here today. Some sources suggest there have been complications with your partnership recently.”
“Sources.” Of course. David has been busy planting seeds of doubt about my relationship stability, painting me as a woman whose personal drama affects professional projects.
“The Twin Waves preservation project continues exactly as planned,” I say firmly. “The funding is secure, the timeline is on track, and the community benefits will be substantial.”
“What about questions regarding compliance oversight? Federal grants require extensive documentation and reporting. Some critics worry that small business owners lack the administrative infrastructure to manage such large-scale funding appropriately.”
And there it is. David’s master stroke. He’s convinced them that I’m incompetent to manage federal funding, that my business is too small, too inexperienced, too likely to make costly mistakes that will require returning the money.
“I have extensive experience with federal grant management and have assembled a team of professionals to ensure complete compliance with all reporting requirements.”
“Can you specify who comprises this professional team?”
The question is designed to expose whether I’m managing everything alone, whether I have adequate support systems, whether the grants are as secure as I claim. It’s also designed to force me to admit that my primary professional partner—Grayson—is currently missing.
“The project team includes legal counsel, certified accountants, and construction management professionals with extensive federal contracting experience.”
True enough, though most of that team exists because Grayson insisted on building proper infrastructure around the grants. Grayson, who believed in my vision enough to surround it with the protection it needed.
Grayson, who isn’t here to defend what we built together.
“Michelle, we’ve received information suggesting there may be irregularities in your grant applications. Specifically, questions about whether all collaborative partnerships were properly disclosed during the application process.”
My blood turns to ice. David has convinced them that Grayson and I hid our relationship during the grant application process, that we committed fraud by not disclosing personal involvement that could be construed as conflict of interest.
It’s brilliant and completely false. Our collaboration was transparently documented throughout the application process. But proving that requires access to the original applications—applications David somehow obtained copies of.
“All partnerships and collaborative relationships were properly disclosed according to federal requirements. The grant applications are public record and available for review.”
“What about financial relationships between your business and Reed Development? Were all monetary exchanges properly documented?”
The question hits hard. David isn’t just questioning our professional relationship—he’s implying financial impropriety. Money changing hands without proper documentation. Kickbacks. Fraud.
“There have been no inappropriate financial relationships between Twin Waves Brewing Company and Reed Development Corporation.”
“But there have been financial relationships?”
The question is designed to force me to either lie or admit to financial exchanges that could be misrepresented as improper. Grayson’s coffee shop renovations, the shared costs of project development, the intertwined nature of our businesses as our personal relationship deepened.
All perfectly legal, properly documented, and easily twisted into evidence of financial misconduct by a predator with access to partial information and malicious intent.
“Any financial relationships have been properly documented and disclosed according to standard business practices.”
Rebecca’s smile suggests she smells blood in the water. “Michelle, Channel 7 has received copies of communications suggesting there may be undisclosed conflicts between your grant obligations and your business partners’ development interests. Would you like to respond to these allegations?”
The studio lights feel blazing, the camera lens examining every flaw and failure. David has orchestrated this perfectly—feed the reporter just enough information to raise questions without providing enough context to answer them properly. Make me look defensive, unprepared, professionally compromised.
Make me look exactly like a woman who shouldn’t be trusted with two million dollars in taxpayer money.
