Ms. Lorraine Carey has a letter to the editor in today's Standard Times here Ms. Carey is on the Dartmouth Library Board of Trustees. I am not sure what facts, positive suggestions or constructive criticism that she is looking for. What has been asked ...
... by the Select Board and Finance Committee is that the Library Board of Trustees issue a Request For Proposal (RFP) to LSSI and any other interested parties to determine if contracting out library services could save the town money. We don't know what the result of that RFP would be, so we lack the facts needed to make a decision on whether or not contracting out the services is a viable option or not. THe Board of Trustees had apparently made the decision that it is not. I submit that they don't have enough information to determine that without issuing the RFP.
Curt Brown also had a brief article in today's paper that the Trustees met in executive session to discuss non-union contracts.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Library trustee pens opinion letter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
60 comments:
You are correct Bill. The BOT will not even gather the information needed to make a wise decision. If the information is so strong in favor of their position, what are they afraid of?
Did either Bill Trimble or Anonymous read the same Standard Times article on the Library that I read, or are they puposely trying to be oblique? Did they attend the same Library information session I attended, or were they busy with other things that evening? Have the library ask me to give them a bid to run the library. I can beat any proposal LSSI comes up with by a long shot -- $500 max, gauranteed! Of course, the Library will be run out of the trunk of my car and residents may see a slight decline in services available. But so what! Have the Trustees and staff spend untold hours putting together a request to me, have them expend legal funds examining the impact to union employees -- Bill and Anonymous have a right to know how I plan to run the town's library for 500 bucks!
Anonymous 1:44 is intentionally missing the point. We can only conduct a comparison when we get the facts on the table, which the BOT refuses to do. They instead focus on the side of the story that fits their agenda. A comparison can place side by side the current model wwith all of the services and an outsourced model with its services. BTW, I did attend the so-called "information session." It was a joke. The panel consisted only of government library advocates. Why are you afraid of a comparison?
Reading between the lines of the story in today's paper, it looks the trustees are talking about taking action related to the library budget.
Did Bill Trimble, Peter Friedman, and Frank Gracie attend the library information session? Where are they getting their information? From LSSI perhaps?
It seems to me that the Board of Trustees is elected to set policies and advocate for the public libraries. Perhaps those people ran for that particular office because they have an affinity for public libraries. Perhaps that affinity for and knowledge of the Dartmouth libraries and the library community at large is a little deeper than those who surmise that surely a company, whose sole purpose to to make a profit, will run the libraries more efficiently for less money.
Don't forget, there will be a cost for putting together an RFP which accurately defines the current level of service.
I prefer to believe that the trustees are being responsible in deciding not to allocate funds to request an RFP so that Dartmouth can be the very first to embark on the journey to privatization.
I think that we should not be anxious to be ahead of the curve on this issue.
If, as the proponents of privatization submit, this is a fabulous idea that will save libraries, surely another Massachusetts community will be only too happy to test the waters.
I saw Peter Friedman at the library information session. I don't know the other two.
I saw Peter Friedman there, too. Since everyone was quite interested in Hilary's body language during the debates, let me say that Mr. Friedman, with his arms crossed against his chest for the entire time until he left early, did not appear very open to the information coming from the panel.
He didn't ask any questions there when there was ample opportunity.
I was at a public meeting when a member of the Privatization Committee said that neither he nor his wife ever used the library. He also said that he never read a book, nothing longer than a magazine article. That, to me, says it all in a nutshell regarding Privatization Committee's recommendation.
Peter Friedman is not the issue here. In his Op-Ed last week, he said, “the libraries refused to even request proposals and instead launched a public relations campaign. It is true that outsourcing may not be the best answer; but the only way to objectively reach that conclusion is by conducting a fair comparison with an open mind. A one-sided public forum and meeting with the Standard-Times editorial board are not sufficient.” It sounds as if he is open to both sides of the debate. On the other hand, the library employees that have taken over this blog have a vested interest in preserving the current way of doing things.
I am not a Library Employee, but I seem to remember that in another blog something was mentioned about it costing money to write up an RFP.. Where is that money going to come from..The library Budget, The Tax payers… I don’t think so…. The plan would be to run the most efficient library for the money while retaining control trough the town…. Asking a private company that can go belly up at any time to run the library that my boys and visit is not something I am interested in…
Listen folks, I love the library and use it often, but can we deliver services in a more efficient way? That is my question. I'm not an advocate for privatization, but there are many other ways to change the way the library provides services. It doesn't seem like the library is open to listening to any other way except their way. In my opinion, the library is top heavy with managers. That's a start.
I am the person who asked the anonymous question at 2:30. Like anon 5:09, I am not a library employee. I wish library employees would be more assertive in this discussion.
Library employees, by nature, tend not to be assertive. I am not a library employee.
That "not assertive by nature" comment is not a knock on library employees, just an observation.
In my humble opinion, the Chair of the Privatization Committee just wanted to get his name out there for election. Let him tell me now, right here, that he really supports outsourcing, get it straight, Mr. Gracie, that LSSI should come into our beautiful seaside town, Do you want us to be the first in MA, a state reknown for its education to outsource our library?
Mr. Gracie spent his time as a volunteer to try and help this community improve services and lower cost. He did not even state that outsourcing would be best—what he said is that it should be investigated with a request for proposals. For suggesting that we should even compare the alternatives, he is under assault by what are likely well-paid library employees. Typical small town politics when somebody’s salary might be on the line.
Mr. Gracie, Thank you for your service to the community. You should know that the majority of the community appreciates your time and effort. Don’t let politics of personal destruction, to which you are being subjected, dampen your enthusiasm.
Arrogance, maybe? Entitled?
It is amazing how the volunteers who serve out of civic responsibility are the ones with their motives questioned while the paid employees who won’t work beyond their hours without overtime portray themselves as the victims.
Ray Medeiros Jr.___Preamble to the US CONSTITUTION"...insure domestic traniquilty,provide for the common defense,promote the general welfare..."
It's all right there,before our eyes,the directive that government BE government,that it provide services to the people,not that it outsource these responsibilities and in the zeal to privatize end up lining the pockets of the wealthy(SENATOR ROBERT C BYRD(D) WEST VIRGINA
6:03 contributor, please elaborate. Thanks so much
Somebody please explain the 6:39 post
Ya, O.K. Ray, you've got me convinced now. Maybe we can get Billy Bulger to come out of retirement and show us all how efficient having the government control everything with no competition is.
Library employees would not be well received by many on this blog. They would be seen as biased and self serving. Just as the privatization report done by the library department is spurned by these folks in favor of an LSSI pr piece in the form of a report. Let's admit that there is a natural bias on both sides of any argument. Visit the library website and compare the "reports" for yourselves. Whether you agree with the conclusion or not, one certainly seems much more substantive than the other.
or maybe we can see how much the government spends privatizing...when there is no competition to drive down the cost
7:10, the library, shortly after receiving the override money, was not adverse to the consideration of another override to be asked for in 2009. What makes them feel they should have this/more money over and above the next department, hence the entitlement question.
The impression I get, at least, is that we gave them money once, we'll do it again because, after all, the library is that important to us all: arrogance?
It may and is important, but not as important as public safety, BOOKS for the children in the schools, assistant animal control officer, etc. I can think of other things equally, no,more important, than the library. But it is their pet project and I can understand their fighting for it, but this goes beyond fighting. What would it be called?
Do they think we all have deep pockets?
Mr. Gracie and the Privatization Group produced a shoddy “analysis” of the privatization issue. They cherry-picked information that supports privatization while ignoring data and arguments that may cause leaders and residents to question LSSI’s claims. They then asked the BOT to request a RFP from LSSI to get “all the facts on the table.”
It is clear to me that Frank Gracie and the Privatization Group were not really interested in getting “all the facts on table.” If they really wanted to get “all the facts on the table”, why didn’t they write an analysis that addressed (at least recognized) the real and legitimate concerns surrounding outsourcing. Some of these concerns have since been brought to light by others, but the committee continues ignore them.
I found it particularly shocking that Frank Gracie and his committee did not even meet the library director or BOT when writing their report. According to Ms. Carey’s article the committee even “indicated that they knew very little about library operations and administration.” Why didn’t Mr. Gracie at least meet the library trustees or Denise Medeiros? Wouldn’t meeting with library professionals help the committee better analyze information from LSSI?
It is clear to me that the Frank Gracie and the Privatization Study Group are not interested in ALL the facts. They merely want to an RFP because they believe that they can use the numbers to promote the outsourcing our public library.
We just had another post from a library employee so clearly showing their agenda. That is to preserve the current expensive way of doing things. Mr. Gracie never portrayed his report as a complete analysis of the pros and cons. He only said that there are advantages that should be investigated so that we can see if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. The library countered with a stubborn refusal to investigate both sides of the issue. It is a protect my job at all costs attitude.
Let's give the Trustees a chance here. They have stated that they are going to be negotiating with personnel in executive session soon. If they don't come out of these sessions with some progress on these issues, then they will deserve whatever they get on these blogs.
I think we need to see some actual cost-saving "negotiations" with respect to personnel.
Do they live with blinders on, or not listen to the news? Look around: EVERYWHERE towns and cities are cutting back, AND there are tremendous numbers of layoffs. It's sad to hear that in some places firefighters and police are being laid off in staggering numbers in respect to their department's manpower to begin with. And these ladies and gentlemen continue to believe that theirs is the most important show in town and how dare we think otherwise, so open up your pockets (AGAIN,) folks. And keep them open - - we'll be back and back again, if you let us or don't stop us now.
Talk (words) is cheap, especially if it is not followed up by (significant monetary, in this case) action.
I'm sorry, I'll believe it when I see it.
I guess maybe I'll have to pop in the library more often to see just how visible these really-can't-do-without, MUST HAVE employees really are. Maybe even ask to speak to them, considering some here say they are usually invisible in the building.
Kind of like the time I saw a principal in Big Value on school time. Startling, though, of course, there well may have been a perfectly good reason for it. Startling, just the same.
P.S. It was just before Christmas.
Anonymous March 3, 2009 9:28 AM - Thanks. I sometimes wonder if anyone actually heard the presentation I gave, clearly you heard what has been said. What has been posted as our "report" is strictly the outline I used for the presentation.
I also said that I have had experience in my work life with privatization and outsourcing, and some of it was good and some of it wasn't, so we needed to be very careful how we proceed. Privatization and outsourcing are not always panaceas, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look at them for financial relief given the condition the town is in. All things need to be carefully considered.
Some people seem to think that our only task was to just look at the library situation. We had 15 other departments we had to look at and try and filter out POSSIBILITIES for further consideration. Our task was never to do an in-depth analysis of anything, just look at what was "out there" for consideration. That's what we did, and it was the 1000 foot view not a microscopic analysis of any of the 16 departments.
In the ST the other day the Lakeville Library Director said, "I'm a library advocate. I can't say it's as valuable a resource as fire, police and highway, but we are a value to the quality of life that people move to Lakeville for."
Our Library Trustees say in their report, "The Board of Library Trustees feels strongly that the public libraries are as important as the Police and DPW", so it is strictly a matter of perspective.
My group saw that the library is listed as a 3 on the priority list, and we all felt that preserving the library for the use of the library patrons was most important. We also felt that given the continuing financial pressures the library budget would continue to fall, not rise, so offering an alternative to CONSIDER would be prudent.
They clearly show that they feel they are insulated from depletion by budget cuts, and can even give out raises after the FinCom says they can't, so again it is strictly a matter of perspective. My group feels the library USER will suffer because of their perspective, and that is too bad. We never thought we would get the load of crap we have received just from offering a suggestion.
Anon 9:28:
No, I am not a library or town employee. Do you really believe that everyone who supports Dartmouth libraries is an employee of the library? Or, are you merely using the label “library employee” as a pejorative to discredit arguments opposing your point of view?
You state that “Mr. Gracie never portrayed his report as a complete analysis of the pros and cons.” The report certainly did not present any analysis of the cons. And, I’d love to hear Frank Gracie say that he didn’t weigh the pros and cons. Then we’d be getting closer to the truth. It’s one thing to read it in an anonymous post and another to hear it from Mr. Gracie himself.
You also state that "He only said that there are advantages that should be investigated so that we can see if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.” How can Mr. Gracie do this if he doesn’t know what the disadvantages are?
Mr. Gracie,
Will you admit that your group did not weigh ANY of the cons? And, will you admit that your report did not address ANY of the concerns surrounding LSSI? If you disagree with the premise of the questions, please state the cons and concerns address by your report.
Also, why when writing the report did you not speak with the library director or the BOT?
That seals it for me. I am not voting for Mr.Gracie. More underhanded politics and smear tactics.
Mr. Watson seems like an upstanding individual that will bring back some professionalism and honesty to the board. Good Luck Mike!
Yes Frank, people hear what they want to hear. Thanks for all your hard work for the town. You have my vote! I can't even think of Carney on the board again! You have the experience, talent and you're willing to compromise. Doesn't appear the library is...
Please inform us as to exactly what Mr. Watson stands for other than "can't we all just get along?". I have heard nothing of his positions or how he stands on important issues. When asked questions regarding our fiscal matters, he has been unable to answer.
Common sense, i just hope the trustees won't give anyone a raise in this economy. We simply can't afford it. The bottom line is there is no money, that is why the library needed an override, so why would they even put raises on the table? I'm not anti government, but this is wasteful of taxpayer money, raises now?
Anonymous March 3, 2009 11:50 AM - With the task that was before us I have already stated my general concerns about privatization and outsourcing, it depends on the details. We also stated the obvious con, loss of certification, but that will happen eventually anyway unless the state changes the rules.
We might have been able to dig some more but were asked by the Trustees to just leave it to them. The problem is that the details needed to dig at all the cons cannot be done without the RFP, and a public discussion with LSSI once they know what they were bidding on. They were/are perfectly willing to come in for that discussion if they had the details through the RFP. That was why we recommended it, so the rest of the story would be available for everyone to hear. We ended up in a catch-22. LSSI couldn't give all the specifics without all the details, and the Trustees didn't want to do the RFP to generate the details.
Let me also say again, our task was not to debate the pros and cons for any of the 16 departments, except for the obvious stuff that we would know as non-experts in each field. That level of discussion would come at the next step, not the first one. We were not experts on any of the 16 departments, but had to just ask enough questions to try and understand the basic service. We never portrayed ourselves as experts at any of it, hence my disclaimer about the library. Our task was simply to look for areas were it MIGHT be possible to do things differently than what we do presently. The pros and cons would have come later when all the experts could be in the same room for the discussion. In the case of the library it would have been the Trustees, the Director, and LSSI, and it could have been on DCTV for all to learn.
With regard to speaking to the Director or the Trustees, it was reported to the group by a member that they HAD spoken to the Director so we assumed that had been covered satisfactorily, but even if we knew that it wasn't a complete conversation that wouldn't have changed our recommendation for more study. From our directive, this fit the requirement of suggesting to go forward for more information by the experts. We also knew that if there was going to be any followup we would be talking to the Director and the Trustees about some of those specific things that we weren't qualified to know going in. We accomplished the task we were assigned, and held a meeting with the Trustees to discuss more details.
Another example is the mailing of the tax bills and the return of the money. We didn't have to know all the details, just the basics, and made the recommendation to Ed and the Collector that they further investigate since they are the experts. They did, and have implemented a change in what we did before. That was how the process was supposed to work, with the difference being that Ed and the Collector didn't have to issue an RFP to get all the information, it was readily available. Not so with the library because the situation is more complex and very different state to state. I tried to get LSSI to come in for a presentation without the RFP but they wanted to know the specifics about what they would be expected to talk about.
I think your argument would be better served with those that think all privatization and outsourcing should be a done deal. That certainly is not my position, BUT, I do know we need to look at anything that will save the town money, and do it thoroughly before we leap, because if we don't get creative we will lose services for the taxpayer.
Frank,
Thank you for your service to the town. You will never stop the attacks by those that will protect their current deal at all costs; but you have put forth a very reasonable and moderate position. You have my vote and I will see you at your spaghetti dinner tomorrow.
I will not be voting for Mr. Gracie. He was just getting his name out there by stirring the pot. I am not a library employee.
Frank,
You wrote a long response that failed to address any of my questions.
As you admit, the loss of certification has nothing to do with outsourcing. So it can hardly be labeled a con or concern addressed by your report.
I'll ask my questions again:
Will you admit that your group did not weigh ANY of the cons? And, will you admit that your report did not address ANY of the concerns surrounding LSSI? If you disagree with the premise of the questions, please state the cons and concerns addressed by your report.
The repeated attacks on Mr. Gracie are to be expected since he dared to state that there might be a better way of doing business. I have seen Mr. Gracie speak about outsourcing the libraries on several occasions and he ALWAYS stated that his was not a full comparison pros and cons of outsourcing. What he said is that there are advantages and there are also disadvantages and that we as a community should weigh them. He urged the library board of trustees can gather all of the information and conduct an evaluation. For this he is being attacked by a cyber-stalker that wants to make HIM the issue rather than those who should be conducting an analysis. Apparently the person that is attacking Mr. Gracie does not want the town to gather the facts. What is he/she afraid of? My guess is that it centers around his/her job! Follow the money.
It is my understanding that all library employees, except the director, are members of a union. I don't quite understand how the BOT could single out any union employee out for a raise. That's not the way it works. Perhaps Mr. Friedman misunderstood?
8:13PM, who are you talking about? I didn't hear Mr. Friedman single out a union worker...
Anon 7:15:
The questions appear pretty basic. Why can't Mr. Gracie provide a straight forward answer?
It seems to me that our town's leaders need a much more comprehensive understanding of outsourcing before they can evaluate LSSI's response to an RFP. You need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of a policy recommendation prior evaluating it. From what Frank has written, it appears that it was not his group's purpose to provide the necessary analysis. That said, it appears to me that we now find ourselves in a position unable to determine whether an RFP is warranted and unprepared to evaluate a proposal should we submit an RFP to LSSI.
To Anonymous 8:13PM. One of the positions of great interest to Mr. Friedman is indeed a union position.
To Anon 3/3-10:05PM:
I am going to type slowly so that you can follow. It is the job of the BOT and the libraries to conduct the comparison. Mr. Gracie only pointed out that a comparison was worthwhile. The libraries (perhaps you) refuse to conduct a comparison. Your unwillingness to recognize this indicates that you have a self-serving (perhaps salary-driven) bias.
Please let me know if you need me to repeat myself again. If I say it enough, I am hopeful that eventually you will be able to follow.
It is not worth arguing with these library people. Just cut their budget by 20% and let them deal with it. When the book budget is down to zero, the lights are out and their administration is the only thing left, then maybe they'll "get it."
Why is the library always under so much scrutiny? They are such a small part of our over all budget yet they come under all this fire. It is astonishing. Is there some sort of personal reason that the Select Board has made this small department such a big concern? What are they, like 1% of the total budget? Cutting 15% of 1% isn't going to save the town a lot of money.
I for one, would like to see the big ticket items as closely investigated as the library. DPW, for example has over a dozen employees who make over $60,000 a year. That's right. $60000 a year to mow grass, pick up trash and lay down roads. $60000 a year for unskilled labor. And what about the police and schools? If you compare the money we pay to the money Fairhaven pays it is a huge difference. Our officers make $10000 more a year than Fairhaven's. Our high school teachers make almost $20,000 more a year than in Fairhaven. Yet these departments that are costing us millions a year are untouchable?
Please, do the town a favor and change your focus to a department that can actually save us a decent chunk of money.
Mennino is making cuts and laying off; Providence is laying off; Woonsocket is laying off; NEW BEDFORD IS LAYING OFF; and we are talking firefighters, police, and teachers and administration (and not just the "lowly peons," here, the top dogs in some instances) in these cases. And that's just a few of the cities and towns that are biting the bullet and cutting personnel.
Get with the program, Dartmouth, and show some spine. It is NOT the LIBRARY nor any other department (or union) that runs the town, though you'd be hard-pressed to believe otherwise.
Of course, you do have to get through some of the old guard, I guess. There's always next year's election, too.
I am a library user, but I agree. Cut the library by 20%, we have to. Then the trustees will realize it has to come from top salaries or the hard working little gal/guy. To give raises and cut book budget is wrong. To fundraise for books so people can have raises an inflated sals/benefits is really wrong. Nobody will give to Bucks for Books in this climate of greed. All that workj time wasted, trying to get raises, what about focusing on services!
And how much do you want to bet it will come from the little guy or gal's salary first? And THEY are hard-working.
The rest of the crew will never budge. If they were to budge, you know it will be the (very) lower-paid employees that will suffer. If there were a spirit of TRUE cooperation, not just half-hearted attempts to give the impression that, yes, they do care for the rest of the community, we might be on our way to even a small savings.
Please let's not be suckered into their game again.
As long as they keep finding excuses and are able to delay, and we continue to let them, they have won.
Who is getting a raise? The only "raises" I see in the budget is from increasing hourly workers from 35 hours a week to 40. The professionals and the asst. director are all paid by the hour. Increase the amount of hours they work, increase their pay. Isn't it the Select Board who wanted them to work 40 hours a week?
If the trustees did decide to privatize, we might save money now and be in serious trouble a few years down the road. Even Mr. Gracie admits that LSSI is the only company currently doing this work. Mr. Gracie has said that they don't make much profit the first year or so, but what happens when that contract expires. Now they would have us over a barrel. There's no competition! And I have to agree with the person who said there's an awful lot of uproar over a department that gets around 1% of the budget. The report from the privatization committee just skimmed over over other departments that get bigger shares. I love that the schools don't want to privatize cafeteria workers because of "people impact" and that's the end of the matter. And before people start pointing their fingers at library salaries, they should really go to the Standard Times Dartmouth page and look at all Dartmouth salaries.
If this blog did not exist, how much would most of you care. It has just become a hobby like watching sports. Who can we take down next?
Cutting 20% of the library budget would be in the neighborhood of $200,000. Not exactly peanuts. At least not to most of us.
But not enough to make a significant dent in the town's budget. Other departments need to be scrutinized and cut.
Post a Comment