Public Questions, Public Answers – OK with Samuels Library!

Samuel’s Public Library is a valuable asset to our community. It provides critical services to the residents/taxpayers of Warren County. It is structured as a private, not-for-profit corporation that receives a substantial portion of its operating budget from government agencies, primarily Warren County. Samuels Library also supplements its budget by holding fundraising events and receiving gifts, donations, and bequests from its patrons. Yes, in the universe of public libraries, this structure is somewhat unique. Mr. Jamieson says, “… I do not think the insularity that the private non-profit SLI has from taxpayers is appropriate.” While he is entitled to his opinion, it is clear from his questions that he says this without an understanding of the history or purpose of this structure.

The Warren County BOS has done a comprehensive study of the financial effectiveness of this structure and has determined: 1) that this structure is financially efficient, 2) that the library is worthy of being funded, and 3) that the library is well managed. In short, Warren County residents/taxpayers get a “big bang for the buck.”

Mr. Jamieson has charged that Samuels Library leadership is inept and unworthy of the public’s trust. He says his criticism is substantiated, but I see no “substantiation.” I see false accusations and innuendos in the form of questions designed merely to be inflammatory. Mr. Jamieson says: “I think the financial questions raised here … cast further doubt on SLI’s suitability to hold public trust.”

NO, Mr. Jamieson, merely asking questions doesn’t cast doubt, especially lacking an honest effort to get answers. Had Mr. Jamieson made the effort to get answers to these questions (he did not), and had the answers supported his criticism (they do not), I would feel his criticism was substantiated, as opposed to merely being an attempt to smear Samuels Library leadership. Agreed, this is “a critical moment that highlights the difficulty our society has dealing with confrontation.”

Mr. Jamieson imagines, without any evidence, that there is some pent-up groundswell of unaddressed public questions concerning Samuels Library’s finances for which he has to be the champion (i.e. “my reason … is to induce reflection in the community. … I think there are others who may also wish to ask questions”). Samuels Library has not received any questions (written or verbal) concerning our finances; there have been no questions at our board meetings (always open to the public) about our finances and, with the exception of Mr. Jamieson, there have been no other letters to the editor that I am aware of questioning the library’s finances. I am aware that I have not offered answers to Mr. Jamieson’s questions. A complete answer to several of his questions would be quite lengthy; I don’t believe this is the venue for such lengthy explanations.

However, Samuels Library is happy to arrange a meeting with Mr. Jamieson to conduct a civil dialogue and to answer any questions he has regarding the Library’s finances. And, to address his concern that the public has a pent-up groundswell of questions about the Library’s finances, with his consent, we will publicize the meeting and open it to the public so that anyone can attend and ask any question that they may have about the library’s finances. We will also record such a meeting, should Mr. Jamieson be truly interested enough in answers to follow through, so there will be a permanent, public record of the questions and answers. Truly a public forum, as he says he desires!

Your readers will decide for themselves if Mr. Jamieson is, as a champion for the public interests, making substantiated criticism of the library’s leadership or is trying to smear them with false accusations due to his other grievance with the library concerning materials in the youth collection.

Pete Walker, Treasurer
Samuels Public Library

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.