Wizard wrote:
>I checked this out today with MPL management and was told, first, CLIC money
is
>bricks and mortar money.� It does not cover operating expenses. The library
was
>also advised, before the referendum, to lower the amount they had decided to
ask
>for ($148million) to $140 to make it more palatable to the voters (I don't
think
>this was especially good advice.).� They were assured that the $8 to complete
>all the changes to the branches would be forthcoming.� CLIC, when this issue
was
>discussed with them, said that the library should spend the referendum money
>first and then come to them for the additional $8 million.
Correct, CLIC is bricks and mortar, but the library submits estimated future
operating
costs as part of their application. The Library was told to submit no
requests for their annual $1.6 million (bricks and mortar) for 2003-2006. The
Library responded by submitting the request for $1.6 million per year anyway
and going to the City Attorneys Office to fight the cut in their capital
budget. This is according to a letter from Mary Lawson dated April 23rd to
CLIC staff. I'm not sure how that relates to what you heard, but it is what I
have seen in the written submittals to CLIC.
I know that in the "Currents" October 2000 Citizen's Guide to the Minneapolis
Public Library Referendum mailed to every home in Minneapolis the proposed
funding was listed as $30 million from the Library Referendum that would
supplement the annual allocation from the CLIC process in the range of $1.6
million per year. That $1.6 million has been cut by the Mayor and that cut is
what Mary Lawson said the Library is fighting. Maybe they lost, maybe they
changed their mind, but as of the end of April this matter was to be
submitted to the City Attorney.
>> Ask for a new referendum?
>The voters would be rightfully honked off were this to be a solution. � I
don't
>believe they would go for this at all.
>> Level with voters that there may have been a
>> bait-and-switch?
>I don't think it's a bait and switch, but I do think it's always advisable to
>level with the voters. � No one can make decisions without having the
information
>to make a good decision.
Wizard you are correct, the voters would be rightfully honked off with a new
referendum. "Bait and Switch" I believe sums up what was done. I notice that
you added no answer as to how to cover the operating shortfall. What did
staff say when you asked them about this? As I corrected in a later post,
$1.6 million is not the operating shortfall. The correct shortfall when the
projects are all complete is estimated at $2.6 to $3.2 million per year. The
library submittals to CLIC for this year still show that the funding for this
shortfall is "To Be Determined." When I asked staff last year how this
shortfall was going to be covered I received the same answer from Mary Lawson
(Director), Jan-Feye-Stukas (Associate Director) and Amy Ryan (Chief of
Community Libraries). The answer was 1) go to the voters for additional
funding 2) go to the city for more funding (let them go to the voters) 3)
cut services.
I believe staff when they say they have made the Board aware of this
shortfall and I believe them when they say the Mayor has been made aware of
it. The problem is the public was not made aware of it and secondly they
still don't have a solution.
I feel they are in between a rock and the proverbial hard place. If they are
successful in turning the libraries around and usage goes up dramatically,
their costs will go up. As I have told them, unlike a business they don't
make more money if they are successful. So where does the money come from?
Who made the decision to mislead the public?
Bob Gustafson
13th
