The boardroom on the second floor of the community services agency's aging headquarters feels smaller than usual this evening, the November wind rattling the windows that overlook the parking lot where staff vehicles sit under a thin layer of early snow. The executive director has spread a series of photographs across the conference table, images that tell an uncomfortable story: cracks running along the foundation walls of the renovated facility across town, water stains blooming across the ceiling tiles of the program space where vulnerable clients receive services, and structural engineers' notations pointing to failures that should never have occurred in a building renovated only four years ago. The volunteer board members lean forward in their chairs, some of them having served on this very board when the renovation was approved, when the general contractor was selected, when the ribbon was cut and everyone believed the facility would serve the community for decades to come. Now the executive director is explaining that the general contractor's lawyer has sent a letter that arrived this morning, a letter that shifts the entire conversation in an unexpected direction. The contractor, it seems, is not merely defending against the agency's potential claim. The contractor is pointing fingers elsewhere, specifically at the subcontractor who handled the foundation work, and the contractor's letter makes clear that if this matter proceeds to litigation, the agency should expect to see more than two parties at the table.