[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wizard wrote:I think I asked the wrong question or was not specific enough.
I'm not sure how that relates to what you heard, but it is what I
have seen in the written submittals to CLIC.
Wizard you are correct, the voters would be rightfully honked off with a newCut services is a no go from start to finish. People don't pony up $140K to get fewer services.
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? 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 thisIf the hoo-hah over porn on the internet is an example, both Mary and the board decided not to tell the public. I would suggest that the decision came from the same source(s).I'm going to have to get the straight poop on the shortfall before I can consider ways to contend with it.
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.Who made the decision to mislead the public?
WizardMarks, DFL Endorsed Library Board Candidate from Central
Bob Gustafson
13th
