Akron library trustee was “bloody stunned” last week when the Akron-Summit County Public Library’s proposed six year 1.4-mill temporary operating levy failed. The library system, which had not seen a levy fail since 1961, must now cut 5 million dollars from it’s 21 million dollar operating budget next year.
“I’m so bloody stunned,” said board President James Switzer. “I didn’t expect this. We’re still going around saying, `What happened?’ ”
Akron library trustee was “bloody stunned” last week when the Akron-Summit County Public Library’s proposed six year 1.4-mill temporary operating levy failed. The library system, which had not seen a levy fail since 1961, must now cut 5 million dollars from it’s 21 million dollar operating budget next year.
“I’m so bloody stunned,” said board President James Switzer. “I didn’t expect this. We’re still going around saying, `What happened?’ ”The previous .89 mil levy expires at the end of this year, which leaves the library operating without levy monies for the next year, even if a 1.4-mill levy proposed for March 2004 passes.
Voters in Akron had passed a bond issue in 1997 which has lead to the remodeling or reconstruction of 15 branches and the new flagship main library. That tax is to run until 2021. A news article from March 2003 details the director’s comments about why this operating levy was needed. The library sustained a 8% funding cut from the state and money is needed to staff and operate the three new branches opened this year. They are renovating the main library.
Akron-Summit County Public Library made LIS News last year when the Board of Trustees renewed Director Steven Hawk’s contract with a 5% raise to take him to $138,000 a year and awarded him a $72,000 retirement bonus. Akron Beacon Journal had ran a commentary on the hefty raise for the director in light of the absence of raises for staff.
Sometimes you need to say “no”
Sometimes the voters need to say “No” to tax increases. The library needs to look if there are area where money is being wasted or where efficiences can be created. If the taxpayers give the library an increase every year there is no incentive to ever look for waste in the system. Libraries should get increases but not everytime.
Re:Sometimes you need to say “no”
Absolutely. The same argument goes for schools. Every politician uses the line that we need more money for schools. I’m all for well-funded schools, but show me where the money is going to already. Cut waste, then ask for more (if necessary).
sometimes you need to say “no”
The two previous comments, though undoubtedly thoughtful and sincere, remind me of the following advice for parents — “Feed your children twice a week or so, and allow them an occasional good night’s sleep.”
Re:sometimes you need to say “no”
They sound like the usual right-wing talking points that spew forth daily across our airwaves from the likes of OxyRush or Sean Hannity.
Folks, libraries always function at the bare-bone level. Most libraries I have worked in had to not run the A/C in the Summer to save money, even though the same cities and counties were using money originally earmarked for libraries to help rich people build sports stadiums that could provide “new jobs”. That these jobs were minimum wage, non-bennies jobs, did not matter. That the average citizen could not afford tickets or the $10 hotdogs, did not matter either.
Libraries usually hear “No”. Not sometimes, usually always. Americans can either say yes sometimes to libraries, or do without them.
Re:sometimes you need to say “no”
I take some offense at labeling a cautious view towards more taxes as “usual right-wing talking points”. First, libraries are the same as any other public service. They get tax money to function, and sometimes (whether usually or rarely) they are told by the voters to function on lower budgets. Second, it’s the attitude that funding for these services is somehow politically motivated. ‘OxyRush or Sean Hannity’, as you phrase it, didn’t vote or campaign against this, the public did. The same public that goes to those libraries. Keep the politics out of the reason this happened. Leave the ad hominem attacks at home too.
> Folks, libraries always function at the bare-bone level.
Most public services do the same thing. You don’t see firemen, policemen, child social services, any of those people running on anything other than bare-bones budgets. Why do you think the public chose to underfund the library in this (or any ther) situation? Possibly the voters didn’t see the benefit of the services that would be funded by the levy? Who know…but don’t give me the argument that the taxpaying public does not have the right to vote where the money is spent. The fact that ‘most’ libraries function at bare-bones is a hasty generalization based on your experiences. I hold to the belief of “No taxation without representation” by Jefferson, The opposition to being taxed by an authority that does not represent the collective will of the people. The people spoke in this case in a very democratic process.
Libraries hurt themselves
I think libraries hurt themselves when they work from the attitude that anytime you deny money to the library you are doing something bad.
A smart library would tell why the increase is needed and if they really wanted to score points they would show how they are watching for waste.
I am not saying that Akron did not need an increase but if I was a voter in Akron and the library tax increase had gone through for 42 years I would want to know what was being done to watch for waste and inefficences.
Re:sometimes you need to say “no”
>>Folks, libraries always function at the bare-bone level
Not true. Trust me. I am both a public library board member and academic library director.
It is true that some libraries are hurting, but the bigger question is why. Are the stakeholders aka taxpayers happy?
If not, why? As I continue to say, the days of libraries enjoying public support are over.
Would ALA’s PR be any cause of this????
Re:sometimes you need to say “no”
Well said!