Samuels Library Has Money … a Lot of Money

There should be absolutely no concern that Samuels Library, Inc. (SLI) will continue its services and operations for its full fiscal year without interruption. That is unless SLI is unwilling to use the funds it already has on hand.

There seems to be a widespread misunderstanding that the library will close if the Warren County Board of Supervisors (BOS) does not appropriate more funds for it. This is being further propagated by reporting in this publication and in the Washington Post. Mr. Barr wrote, “ … the library could be closed by September”. The Washington Post reported, “… the library had only enough money to operate through September unless it could persuade the County to release (the money)”. Both of these statements are demonstrably false, as will be shown below with SLI’s own financial documents. Is this a purposeful narrative to scare library patrons into believing the library will be closed? Rather than allow this misconception to persist, SLI leadership should be actively reassuring the public that its operations are not at risk of interruption, no matter what the BOS does with regard to library appropriations this fiscal year.

The SLI annual and quarterly Board of Trustees meetings took place Monday, July 10. While it was stated that the BOS only appropriated 25% of the requested SLI budget, SLI’s leadership and trustees failed to make a statement to the standing-room-only attendees, much less engage in any discussion, about the reasons behind that partial appropriation. It is widely known that the BOS has withheld 75% of a full appropriation of just over $1 million from SLI due to the controversy about pornographic and sexualized materials in the juvenile section of the library. Why, if the very ability of SLI to continue offering services is at stake, would that meeting not be an appropriate venue to inform the public of the circumstances behind the BOS partial appropriation and to present the financial options SLI Trustees have to ensure its patrons of uninterrupted services?

The financial report presented at the July 10^th meeting stated that SLI has $878,000 in investments. Therefore, it is a monetary fact that SLI has the financial means to support its operations with its “own” money. That is unless it refuses to use its own assets to continue its path of dogged adherence to what Cleanup Samuels Library (CSL) movement supporters and I consider the leftist-activist “woke” American Library Association (ALA). If SLI will put its money where its proverbial mouth is, it will stay open for the current fiscal year without additional taxpayer funding.

SLI financial documents (IRS Form 990-2021 and Financial Report-2022, still marked as “DRAFT”) are open to the public and retrievable from their website. As of August 1, 2023, the 2022 Form 990 and 2023 Financial Report are not on the Samuels website. Readers can and should avail themselves of this public information if they wish to be informed of the financial facts concerning SLI. I wish to highlight two items contained in these financial statements:

1. Note 3 of the 2022 Financial Report says [emphasis added]:

“The Library had a surplus of $930,904 of financial assets available within one year of the statement of financial position date on June 30, 2022, to meet cash needs for general expenditures, liabilities, and other obligations as they come due.”

The Form 990 lists financial assets as “Publicly Traded Securities” under Part X Line 11, meaning that these are liquid assets – that is, they can be sold at any time.

2. Examination of the IRS Form 990-2021 and the 2022 Financial Report reveals that SLI lost $93,649 on its investment assets in 2021 (9.5% loss) while the 3 major stock indexes gained 19-27% in 2021. Between then and the date of the verbal report given on July 10, 2023, the investment fund decreased by another $52,904.

The failure of SLI’s leadership and trustees to discuss openly and transparently what everybody knows is an unprecedented situation, both financially and operationally, speaks volumes about the ineptitude and unsuitability of its leadership to hold the public trust.

Many questions arise. Why does this non-profit have nearly $1 million dollars in surplus liquid assets on one hand while it requests $1 million in taxpayer support to be placed on the other hand? Should SLI be managing a $1 million investment fund (with poor results) rather than using its assets to provide library services? Has anyone representing SLI made any effort to counter the false narrative that “ … the library could be closed by September”, given that SLI is sitting on $1 million of liquid assets?  Where did the million dollars come from? Has money from the Warren County annual appropriation been used to purchase investment assets? Readers with financial backgrounds will recognize that fungibility is at play; how long has the county been funding SLI at higher levels than necessary to enable the accumulation of a million-dollar surplus investment fund? I don’t doubt there are more fiscal questions that will arise.

Also of fiscal notability, the SLI trustees approved two additional budget items at the July 10 meeting for Warren County taxpayers to pay for: Legal fees ($15,000), and Communications consulting ($10,000). There was no discussion about these additional budget items. However, in light of the ongoing controversy and the timing of these new budget items, I think it is reasonable to infer that SLI is using taxpayer money to pay attorneys and communications consultants to examine options for lawfare against Warren County (taxpayers), should the BOS decline to appropriate the remaining funds SLI has asked for. I believe (that is, I have heard from reliable sources but cannot ascertain as a fact) that BOS legal counsel has been informing the BOS about potential financial costs it may encounter if SLI were to litigate against Warren County (on its own, or more likely in a partnership with a leftist organization such as the ACLU) for not appropriating the funds it requested. Would the BOS appropriate the balance of requested funds to SLI under the cloud of potential litigation against the county, funded in part by taxpayer money? I think that has the feel of extortion, though it is obviously not explicit.

I previously made the contention that SLI accountability to the taxpayer was inevitable. As evidenced by its trustee vote to leave sexualized titles in the juvenile section, meaningful compromise does not seem to be on SLI’s agenda. I think the financial questions raised here, along with allowing the narrative messaging about a library closure to persist when it is manifestly untrue, cast further doubt on SLI’s suitability to hold the public trust.

The BOS should be willing to continue down the road to that inevitable taxpayer accountability. Where does that road lead? I suspect it leads to insolvency, and the only way SLI will be able to ensure future operations is to transfer its remaining assets to the county, as is contemplated in Item 10 of its Articles of Incorporation. In essence, after SLI burns through its investment funds, the assets remaining are books and a handful of computers. The building and land belong to the county. Its trustees having failed to uphold the public trust, the library will become, as are the vast majority of “public” libraries, operated by management that is responsive to direct representatives of the taxpaying public.

None of the foregoing needs involve any interruption of library services as long as uninterrupted services remain the goal of all parties.

Richard Jamieson
Warren County

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.

While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.

In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.

We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.