I'm pretty sure most people at the meeting who are not familiar with the budgets and the dollar amounts in it walked out of the meeting saying "Wow. The libraries only get $100,000 from the Town. They need more money!" (Their budget is actually a little over $1.5 Million (from the Town) to the tax levy.)
It's a gimmick "they" accuse me of doing on here - snippets - only showing what I want to show to prove my point. That's what they did with that. It IS a campaign, and in campaigns.....what happens? They slant the message to win favorable opinion, and they only tell you what they want to tell you. Think back to the political mailers you have received in the past, and the claims on them. Ok, now come back to the present and think about this campaign. Got it? Ok, let's move on.
They are only going to show you numbers that help their cause, and they aren't going to show you where the taxpayer money REALLY goes.
Another point to consider is that the Town only allocates the money to the Library - the Town does not decide how much goes to what line item - the Library does. THEY are the ones who cut the materials budget.
THIS is what I've been told by "them". THEY are master of their budgets, and THEY are the ones who decide how much goes where and the Town only gives them the money, they have no say in where it goes.....the Library is in control of their budget....so....keep this in mind as we look at the past numbers.
Here are the links to the budgets for 2009(Library, page 68), and 2010 (Library, page 67), and 2011 (Library, page 67).
I did not link to 2008, 2007, or 2006 because I couldn't find links to them - but in 2009's budget, the "actual" numbers from '06 & '07 are in there, and in 2011's budget, the "actual" '08 & '09 numbers are in there , so you can reference it at least.
Here are screen shots of the 2009 Library Budget & Number of Empolyees, PT & FT:
Remember - The Library decides where the money goes.Materials:
2006 - $235,680 (not $270,00)
2007 - cut it to $186,632.
2008 - upped it to $200,000 (Actual in 2011's budget for 2008 says $190,344).
2009 - slashed it to $100,000 (Actual in 2011's budget for 2009 says $94,644).
2010 - upped it to $165,000.
2011 - cut it to $145,000.
Services & Supplies:
2006 - $195,473
2007 - $212,279
2008 - $211,888
2009 - $193,126
2010 - $215,508
2011 - $221,281
The above two budget items are what directly impacts the patron - it's the books they check out or the computers they use, or the chair they sit in, or the table they put their elbows on. That is what the library decides to spend on the patron out of their $1.6 million dollar budget - about $366 thousand out of $1.6 million.
Here's what the Town actually gives to the Library for them to decide what to do with their budget money and what it actually costs the taxpayers after they subtract revenues (in the tax levy).
Town allocation Actual and/or Total Budget and (net cost to tax levy in parentheses):
2006 - $1,747,561 ($1,468,651).
2007 - cut it to $1,718,528 ($1,529,988).
2008 - upped it to $1,748,653 ($1,576,486).
2009 - cut it to $1,602,779 ($1,520,981).
2010 - upped it to $1,857,932 ($1,674,285).
2011 - cut it to $1,767,967 ($1,614,467).
So, the Town (taxpayers) give the Library about $1.6 million - and the materials budget is only getting $100 thousand? Where is the money going? To sum it up - just shy of a million to salaries and just shy of a half a million to employee fringe benefits. That leaves very little for everything else like equipment, materials, services & supplies, and principal & interest on debt. I'm not saying they shouldn't get paid or get bennies and raises or anything....but....let's be realistic on where the money is going. You won't see this on any graph at a library presentation.
Salaries - Actual and/or Total and number of FT & PT Employees (except for '06 & '07):
2006 - $956,356 (N/A)
2007 - $983,662 (N/A)
2008 - $980,661 (19 FT, 36 PT)
2009 - $952,387 (19 FT, 33 PT) - less 3 PT employees, salaries dropped $28 thou.
2010 - $993,277 (19 FT, 33 PT) - same # of employees, salaries increased $41 thou.
2011 - $929,603 (19 FT, 29 PT) - less 4 PT employees, salaries dropped $64 thou.
Employee Fringe Benefits Actual and/or Total:
2006 - $330,822
2007 - $305.314
2008 - $336.522
2009 - $334.161
2010 - $448,873
2011 - $459.423
Here are screen shots of the 2010 Library Budget & Number of Employees, FT & PT:
Here are the screen shots of the 2011 Library Budget & Number of Employees, FT & PT:
While they cry "poverty" and tell you that they are losing patrons (because they had to reduce hours).....but the usage loss isn't going to other towns with more/better services and better libraries (but they tell us the IPL is in need of these better services and extras to draw patrons) .......why does it still say at the top of every Library budget page that "The Library is an active member of the Monroe County Library System (MCLS)which recognizes it as one of the busiest public libraries in Monroe County."
I thought you had "usage loss"?
If it's busy (and Libby Post said that the parking lots are packed in her presentation), then there is no need for the campaign to prove that the Library is an essential service......right? People already know that......that's why "you're the busiest" and the "parking lot is packed".....right?
For the $1.6 million in budget money you are allocated by the Town (taxpayers), I'm sure you can crunch some numbers and add to your materials budget.....right? I mean, it IS important.....and you guys are masters of your own budget, so you have the power to increase or decrease the materials portion, correct?
Just want to make sure I'm understanding all the numbers and everything. I don't want to be accused of only providing partial information to suit my evil "anti-library" plan.
I have a question: For every $1.6 million dollars in taxpayer money that you receive, do we get $6.21 million in services?
Libby talked about transparency - said they weren't "filtering anything" - they were laying it all out there....well....what they want to lay out that is.
I believe Mr. Barone asked about how much of a raise did they get (or something to that effect), and Mr. Buford responded that there were 3% raises for a couple years, and one year was 0% increase....but then for this year he was advised not to speak about anything because it dealt with (apparently) negotiations on their contracts.
Mr. Golan sent a letter to the LB about transparency, and information that should be available to the public about collective bargaining/employee contracts etc. - but I don't think that will happen anytime soon.
Library Transparency
Keep in mind....as Libby talks about how the library becoming it's own legislative taxing district is "true democracy" - because you'll be able to vote on the budget, and elect the board members - you still won't be able to sit in on the negotiations which directly create the biggest expenses of the budget (Salaries & Fringe Benefits). If you vote against the budget, what do you think will be cut? Salaries & benefits? No.....materials and services & supplies. So, whether the Town cuts their budget, or the voters reject their budget if they are a legislative district......if their contract says they get a raise, they get a raise. Regardless of how financially strapped the Town is.
So....food for thought......om nom nom nom nom.
Here's a website by Libby Post called Stop Trashing My Library and it says:
Welcome to Stop Trashing My Library.org
"We’ve started this blog to give voice to Library Advocates, Supporters, Staff, Trustees and all around protectors of the last great bastion of democracy–libraries–who are sick and tired of some uninformed rantings about libraries that we’re seeing on blogs throughout New York.
We’ll be featuring libraries who are facing tough ballot initiatives in order to give voice to their supporters. We’ll be posting links to articles and some of the actual comments people make and provide an opportunity for supporters to get the messaging they need to confront and correct the misconceptions.
Please come back often. Subscribe to our RSS feed. Access us on your mobile phone (we’re just so technologically with it—just like the libraries we support). Share us on Facebook and Twitter. Join the community that says—STOP TRASHING MY LIBRARY!"
A voice to everyone (except....taxpayer isn't listed) - to protect the last great bastion of democracy! If you don't give the libraries more money - it will be the end of democracy as we know it.
There's also a Stop Trashing My Library Facebook page.
I was looking at Penfield's 2011 budget for their library.....here is the link to Penfield's 2011 budget if you want to take a peek. On pages 131 & 132 are Library expenses - and it looks like they have a budget of about $1.3 million. If I'm reading it correctly.
Webster - here's the link to their budget (pages 21 & 22) and it looks like they get about $1.8 million. If the link doesn't take you to the budget, then search 2011 adopted budget and click "detailed budget"....or copy and paste this url into your browser http://www.ci.webster.ny.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=74
Greece - here's the link to their budget (pages 11 & 12) and they get about $3 million for their 2 branches (about 2 million goes for salaries and benefits).
11 comments:
Those are some pretty crunchy numbers Jax.
Wow, you gave a TON of information. We have Libby Post's perspective, that we paid for and then we have the whole story on FOILS. Libby is in politics and paid to spin.
Looking over all of the numbers and factual budget information really makes me not feel very sorry for the library. Actually, kind of makes me feel taken advantage of and lied to. Kind of like the Seniors First Committe that didn't exist but pretended to before the King's Park vote.
Now who was the head of that? Irena, that's right, library board member and co-chair of the IDC.
So sick of these groups pretending like they are going to be open and honest. Then when they are asked what the raises were during a meeting? Shhhh, sorry can't divulge that etc.
Well, looks like the library board with Libby as ring leader, are still playing games.
ps-I think somebody needs to buy Libby a calculator. Just saying...
The Library Board presented the letter to its Lawyer.
It would seem a formality as the Department of State is clear in its legal opinion that the documents are not protected and are subject to "sunshine".
New library policy of openness is to:
"Bring Transparency in Decision Making to Light"
&
"Rebuild Trust with Community"
are clear indications of a new Board.
Tradition suggests librarians reject censorship as a matter of principle.
Allowing the public to comment before signing contracts that affect taxpayers is a duty. The Board is not working for the 52 friends and employees. The Board is the body of respected representatives which serve the 49,000 town residents.
Cheri - take a look at some of the other towns I linked to and their library budgets.
For instance - Greece has two branches - more budget money (3 million and 2 million is salary)- but 10 less employees than Irondequoit. Greece has 14 FT and 24 PT. Irondequoit has 19 FT and 29 PT.
How is that and why is that? Both have two branches. Why does Irondequoit need 5 more FT and 5 more PT employees? Especially since there are reduced hours and (according to them) usage loss.
Penfield - I don't know how many employees they have, but I do know that the IPL is jealous of their swank - and want some swank themselves. Fine - Penfield does their swank for $1.3 million. Irondequoit can't swank for $1.6 million? Why not? Penfield does it.
Webster - Their budget is about $200,000 more than Irondequoit's - and IPL is jealous of them too. Swank. So - how come they have just about the same in budget money, but can't do what Webster and Penfield are doing?
Is it because of the two branches?
Greece has two branches and 10 less employees. Penfield and Webster are about the same as Irondequoit budget wise, but have better services than IPL?
Maybe we can look at other town libraries to get ideas on how to do it better with the same amount of budget money.
They claim it is "Free Access For All". That is false. It is not free, as I pay taxes for it. It is a service that I may or may not use - but I have no problem with my taxes paying for library services. But, don't tell me that it's "free". That is ridiculous.
I made a comment on the other blog about the choices the residents have, and oh irondequoit brought up another choice that I didn't think of.......privatization.
So, the revised list is 4:
1. Pay more taxes through the town to the libraries for their budget.
2. Pay more taxes through a special legislative district (if voters approve it).
3. If you don't pay more money to the library, close one of the branches.
4. Privatization.
WOW- Irondequoit has 5 Full Time and 5 Part Time employees MORE than Greece!
Why?
10 more employees, seems like a lot. Irondequoit did decrease hours of operation why wouldn't there be less employee's?
Looking at all the factual information minus the Libby SPIN really puts the whole library issue in perspective for me. :)
I started reading this but stopped because I believe you are making a significant error here right from the start and who knows how many more? The numbers you cite from the budget are not budget numbers. I'm pretty darn sure they are the amounts actually (you see the word actual?) spent in that budget year, useful info for people preparing subsequent budgets. So I believe the budget line really was 270,000 in 2006 just as Libby Post said and you are incorrect about this. They just didn't or couldn't spend it all and ended up spending only 235,000+ of the original 270 instead. Big difference, no deceptions. Plenty of reasonable, responsible and legitimate reasons why that might be. Perhaps you could ask them about it instead of being so quick to question their integrity. After all why would they lie about something so easily verified? Doesn't make sense. So quite naturally I stopped reading at this point since you didn't seem to grasp what you were looking at. I reserve judgement on the library, the consultant, the rest of this post and on you. At this point I'm assuming you are just making a mistake out of a lack of familiarity with that type of document not out of a lack of integrity. I suppose I could be wrong and you lack integrity. I'll just have to wait and see. Wouldn't political discourse including blogs in this town be more civil if we all checked our facts before jumping in? A simple call to the library might have prevented this. After all, giving out information and helping people understand how to use information tools such as budget documents is what they do. Pointing out and correcting your own error here would help quite a bit and would get me to read more of your questionable information that you seem to think represents the library's aim to deceive people. BTW if you wish to see the actual budget numbers from previous years you could visit the library and find many years of budgets right out on the shelves and verify which of us is correct. That is what I do. That is one of the many ways the library is valuable to citizens. Thank you.
Perhaps you didn't see where I wrote "I did not link to 2008, 2007, or 2006 because I couldn't find links to them - but in 2009's budget, the "actual" numbers from '06 & '07 are in there, and in 2011's budget, the "actual" '08 & '09 numbers are in there , so you can reference it at least."
I know they are the "actual" numbers and not what they asked for.
They "asked" for $270,000 and they "actually" used $235,680 - I think they should go by what they "actually" used.
How am I not being civil? I said she was incorrect about the number for 2006.....and she was.
If they asked for and received $270,000 for materials....but only used $235,680......what happened to the $34,320? Did they use it for something else?
That would be nice to know.
Since you didn't read the whole thing and stopped after the "error right from the start"....you probably didn't see the "Actual" budget documents that are there for anyone to read.
So - where did that extra $34,320 from materials go?
"Wouldn't political discourse including blogs in this town be more civil if we all checked our facts before jumping in?"
Where was I not civil? Did I call her names? Did I tell her that she has no integrity?
I did check my facts....all verifiable by the budget documents that are on the blog.
I don't understand. You said this in the first paragraph: "Libby says that in 2006 the materials budget was $270,000 and in 2009 it was $100,000. She's got one of the numbers right. (Hint: It isn't the 2006 number.)"
Town budget documents say you are wrong. 2006 materials budget = $270,000. Right there in black and white. Mistake or purposeful deception on your part? Why would I keep reading after finding something like that at the start?
I suggested there are plenty of possible legitimate explanations for not using all $270,000 in the budget for materials that year. Do I really need to list some of them for you or are you so bent on nailing the library consultant that you aren't willing to speculate upon them in a positive way. I know it is much more fun to assign an underhanded motive to things but I believe a reasonable and responsible or positive explanation is much more likely. Don't you? You could just ask them. I promise i'll read the rest of your post now.
I'm being deceptive by taking an "actual" budget amount from 2006?
Is this what you want?
I (Jax, evil anti-library hater) am a deceptive person with no integrity because I listed the actual number from the 2006 budget when I should have listed the $270,000 dollars as the amount budgeted to the Library from the town.
There. Is that better?
I'm just listing what they actually used, because I think that is relevant. It's in the budget. I pointed out that I listed "actual" in there, so....I don't know how I was being deceptive when I said it was "actual". But...if you want to say I'm deceptive and have no integrity....that's fine with me.
Is there anything else I can do for you today?
I just love the Anonymous blogger's that pop in here to tell us what negative liars we are.
The whole problem is that you are shining way to much light on the whole library issue Jax.
Posting all of the budgets. Shame on you. Actual library budgets oh, the horror! It's all there for everyone to read.
Gotta love the "positive anonymous blogger's" that pretend they are so upbeat and rosy about every situation, when all along they are jabbing and negative about any questioning that takes place.
I'd love for Anonymous to show me where Jax has been uncivil and deceptive.
Just because you don't like what she is shining light on doesn't mean she's being uncivil. Sorry it doesn't work that way.
Cheri -
I see what anonymous is saying - she's saying that the Library had a line item of $270,000 as a request in their budget, so Libby was right, and I'm trying to be deceptive by using the "actual" number, instead of what Libby said.
At the Library presentation, I was led to believe that the Library used to "get" $270,000 for materials, and then in 2009 it was reduced to $100,000.
The "Town" (taxpayers) have been pretty consistent in their budget to the Library. Except for 2009 (and because of the Comptroller's Audit...we know why the funding was reduced a little more than usual.) the funding from the Town has been around $1.7 million.
The amounts have increased and decreased between 2006 and 2011 budgets - but no massive cuts - it probably works out to about a cup of coffee a week on someone's property tax bill every year.
If the materials budget has not kept up with the rate of inflation - it's the LIBRARY who decides how much the materials line in the budget gets.
To make it seem like the "Town" (taxpayers) aren't giving enough to the Library to cover materials is deceptive in my opinion.
The "Town" (taxpayers) aren't giving enough to cover salaries and benefits and they've reduced the materials budget to enable S&B to increase.
The Library may have intended to use $270,000 for materials - but they didn't.
They actually used $235,682 - which is available to view on the budget page on the blog.
In 2009 they spent about $100k if you look at the "actual" number ($94,644) and round it up.
The "actual" numbers for 2010 will be on 2012's budget, and the "actual" numbers for 2011 will be on 2013's budget, so I can't use "actual" numbers for them.
But, if I have the "actual" numbers available to me for 2006, why wouldn't I use the "actual" numbers?
It's like when NHL hockey teams estimate that they'll make a 10 million profit....but they only make a 5 million profit....and they list it as a loss. Huh? They still made 5 million, how is that a loss?
I'd like to see a graph comparing salaries and benefits to the rate of inflation. I wonder if it would be as bleak as the materials budget?
Question: Does anyone know if Irondequoit has the option of becoming an Association Library?
According to Libby, it is a DISADVANTAGE for Association libraries to become municipal, SD, or SLD libraries because they'd have to become Civil Service and that "bumps things up" a bit.
So - if I were to "reverse" that thought.....it would be an ADVANTAGE for a municipal, SD, or SLD to go from from civil service to a "stand alone not-for-profit non civil service" library, that would "bump things down" a bit....right? There would be more money for materials and services & supplies then, correct?
That would be another way to get the libraries more money for materials.....if that is an option for Irondequoit. It is one of the 4 types of public libraries, and according to this map of Association Libraries in NYS they seem to spread pretty evenly across the state - except for the Adirondacks and Allegany State Park areas etc. - they are all over.
So - if this is an advantage, then we should consider it if it will truly help the libraries get more funding.....right? IF Irondequoit can do that, of course. I know Irondequoit can't become a SD library - I was told that at the presentation....I wasn't told whether Association Library is a choice for Irondequoit or if they can or cannot become an Association Library.
Interesting Jax! Why no discussion about Association Libraries? Hmmmm.
You'd think for $24,000 the 4 options would be discussed by the consultant.
You'd think....
Campaigns are about manipulation and in my opinion, that is a reasonable and responsible explanation. :)
Post a Comment