In the beginning of this Report, readers learn there are 50 questions in the text. However, Part One ends with Question 47 and its answer. A reader would naturally ask, "Where are the other three questions?" My response is: You will find them within the framework of the text, listed as, for example, Q. 27 and Q. 27a. Subset numbering was my way of correcting my own errors in the most expedient manner without going to extra expense and wasting further time, during my attempt to bring my role as a boondoggler to a conclusion.

Writing this book was no easy task, and I made a few mistakes such as giving a set of questions and answers the same number more than once. Alas, the report was finished before I realized my error, so I made the choice to let it stand "as is." This was, after all, a private report with pages that were never intended to be seen by the public, so a few editorial errors seemed inconsequential. I was in less-optimum health than the writings reflect. I thought at times I was dying, a distinct possibility that might have been true.

In the event this Report should ever go into an actual reprinting, the mistakes in numbering can be fixed so the last Q. and A. in Part One actually becomes number 50. This would properly prepare the reader for the subsequent questions that follow in this Epilogue, as written by me the week webmaster Al Baker and I finalized the textual portion for online publication as a public service to all parties interested in the Public Hearing on August 20, 2009 at which Bass Pro, for the second time, presented its request to Springfield City Council for a zoning change on land discussed in this FUNGUS AMUNGUS Report.

Q.-51. In Section III., DIRECT EXAMINATION, under sub-section C of Question 16, you state you received a letter of confirmation from assistant city attorney Thomas Rykowski affirming that the city of Springfield's records indicate that an underground system exists in the Washita/South/Campbell area. Date of the letter was January 6, 2006. True?
A.-51. Yes.

Q.-51a. Mr. Rykowski states, "Our staff is currently searching for drawings or diagrams of this system." Is this system located on land involved in the area Bass Pro began seeking through public hearings in August 2009 to have rezoned for future development?
A.-51a. I believe the answer is yes.

Q.-51b. You believe, but are not sure?
A.-51b. Correct.

Q.- 51c. Why?
A.- 51c. I never received the drawings and diagrams which I promised to provide to SASS when received. Nor did Al Baker receive material he requested. I did not let the city's role in the boondoggle prevent me from turning in FUNGUS AMUNGUS to Mark Clore, my SASS successor.

Q.- 51d. Do you fear lack of proof invalidates this Report?
A.- 51d. Fear is not part of this matter. I have a great capacity for loving whatever I do and whoever I am involved in doing it with--or against. This was a very loving experience. I could not have survived it otherwise. The city bought me out, so I left town. You be the judge.

Q.- 52 Referring back to Section VII., REBUTTAL, Question 42, you state the reason you recused yourself from further service as the Springfieldians Against Stormwater/Sewage (SASS) neighborhood representative was because of this voice mail message received by you on February 6, 2005: This is Claudia with the City of Springfield. Wanda Parrott, you contacted our office in December (2004) and asked for some information and reports. We sent this to the Law Department and they said this matter is in litigation and all responses will be through the courts. Thank you. Was the matter in litigation? That is, did you actually sue city hall?
A.-52 No, the matter was not in litigation, although I did not know so at that time. Therefore, the courts had nothing to do with this report. I did it!  I made a mistake I failed to catch while proofreading. The date the phone call was made to me by Claudia at the City of Springfield should have been February 6, 2006, not 2005, and the date of my December inquiry should have been shown as (2005) instead of (2004).

Q.- 52a How could you not know whether you were or were not suing the city?
A. - 52a. I'll explain. At that time, I had legal representation, so any contact with the city had to go through my attorney. By "any contact," I mean as a complainant who plans to bring a lawsuit if settlement cannot be reached out of court. For instance, if you are represented by a lawyer, he or she is your agent--meaning legal representative--and he or she communicates on your behalf with the party you are naming as defendant. In this matter, it was Parrott v. City of Springfield, although my complaint seeking $300,000 damages had not yet been filed in court by my lawyer. I was seeking compensation for out-of-pocket medical expenses plus loss of income and property extending back to the first flood of 1988. As a private citizen, however, I do not need a lawyer in order to contact people at city hall for non-litigious matters.

Q. - 52b. You were potentially going to sue the city while also serving as representative of the neighborhood watch group you were hoping would become a partner with the city and at the same time join you in bringing a class action? Isn't that like the left hand not knowing what the right was doing?
A. - 52b. No. Each of my hands knew exactly what the other was doing. I was, on one hand, the potential litigant who offered to include neighbors on my complaint at no charge to them. No one responded, so I proceeded as a single party. On the other hand, I was a private citizen/taxpaying member of SASS who was trying to compile the FUNGUS AMUNGUS Report but needed certain documentation in order to finish it. My last name is Parrott; just think of me as the proverbial bird trying to kill two goals with one stone. I am a trained investigator/journalist and I put my professional background to work.

Q. - 52c. Did members of SASS ask you to do such a report?
A. - 52c No. My attorney, Randy Reichard, requested that I get information about the history of the floodprone land in the area around my property--land owned by Bass Pro that is now part of the property for which rezoning is being sought. Surveys or other such data were needed. I contacted Heithaus Engineering, the firm that had surveyed the land for Bass Pro, and the gentleman suggested I get the information directly from the city. He said the city would have what we needed. It would have been procured by me and given to Randy, but I never got it.

Q. - 52d. Why didn't your attorney get it himself?
A. - 52d. You would have to ask him. He asked me to get some such information, but did not specifically spell it out. The EPA in Kansas City gave me my first helping hand. Then, I found the Wade Report online, but Wade never responded to any inquiries or requests I made, and I never got all the information I needed from the city. I would have subpoenaed all the missing facts if the case had been filed in court, but it never made it that far.
I worked as an unpaid double-agent, probably as the first sewage/stormwater spy in history. I am also a poet and wrote more than one poem about this case.

Q. - 52e. What happened to your lawsuit?
A. - 52e. There never was a lawsuit. However, my belief that the case had finally been filed and the matter was in litigation inspired me to work day and night on FUNGUS AMUNGUS, turn it over to my successor as neighborhood-rep, Mark Clore, and totally divorce myself from SASS. I actually believed I was suing city hall, which I'd always heard was impossible.

Q. - 52f. How could you have believed what was not true?
A. - 52f. What would you believe if someone from city hall left a voice mail message indicating your case was in litigation? I thought Randy had finally sued the city!

Q.- 52g What was the ultimate outcome?
A.- 52g In 2007, when the matter had still not been filed in court, Randy helped me acquire another attorney. Rick J. Muenks, a fine real estate attorney, settled the matter in February 2009.

Q.- 52h How much did you get?
A.- 52h Ninety-one thousand dollars.

Q.-52i Why so little? You originally were seeking $300,000.
A.-52i. I chose to settle in order to end the boondoggle equitably enough for all parties concerned. To have sued at this late stage of my life could have added years to the wait, so what good would six figures do me as a crone? At age 74, I can still dance. Was it fair? As I said earlier, you be the judge.

Q.- 53 What happened to your attempt to get a Trail of Tears marker erected near Sunshine-Campbell intersection to commemorate the alternate Trail of Tears route?
A.- 53 Wonders of Wildlife Museum closed, so I cancelled my plan to possibly bequeath my head to the Bass Pro enterprise where I could hang as a mounted trophy. On May 7, 2009 I left Springfield as the living embodiment of the Last Indian on the Trail of Tears.

Q.-54 What happened to the "Boondoggler's Bible" you were writing under the pen name of Edgar Allan Philpott?
A.-54 The manuscript is in the stuff I moved to California, and might reappear some day.

Q.-55 Is that the last we will hear of you as The Last Indian on the Trail of Tears or under the name Edgar Allan Philpott?
A.-55 No. He has just won the title of "2009 Senior Poet Laureate of Louisiana." I predict a literary sequel, like the Cherokee sun under which the FUNGUS AMUNGUS chapter of my life recently set, is about to rise again.