Fact-Checking the BOS/Library MOA Negotiation

There is some misinformation going around regarding the Board of Supervisors’s proposed Memorandum Of Agreement (MOA) with Samuels Public Library. I have read both proposed MOA documents as well as the Library Board of Trustees bylaws.

These documents are publicly available, and it’s shocking how little primary research the Clean Up Samuels speakers did before confidently demanding in Tuesday evening’s public comment session that the Library accept the BOS’s original proposed draft “with no changes” — while making demands for things like immediate appointment of all seven county Trustees (not in the current draft). But I suppose that’s what happens when you all copy your talking points from the same cheat sheet.

A few other points that I believe are being misrepresented:

MYTH #1 – Samuels Public Library currently receives public funding with zero public oversight

FALSE. The County and the Town of Front Royal each have a seat on the Board of Trustees, and Vicky Cook is the current county rep. This means that she, as well as the town appointee, would have input into Trustee appointments, as well as other decisions. Citizens are also able to attend the Trustee meetings and speak during the “Citizens’ Time” portion.

The current Board is elected according to Library by-laws (with the exception of the two government seats) and is supposed to be representative of the community, but the candidate selection is designed to reflect a wide range of expertise and background. The BOS MOA would require instead that five trustees be appointed by the magisterial district as though they are government officials.

MYTH #2 – There is no increase in state control in the proposed MOA

FALSE. There are currently two seats set aside for government representation. Instead of the one county seat, if the Library agrees to their MOA, the BOS and School Board between them would take over appointments for 7 of the Library Board of Trustee seats, which — unless there is a full board of 15 (not always the case, the range at any given time is 9-15) — will mean the government appointed trustees are the majority votes on the Board of Trustees. They would also require that at least 2 of their trustees sit on the executive committee, giving them even more control over decision-making. When the town rep is also included in that number, there would always be a government-appointed majority regardless of how many “elected” Board seats are filled. And the Library cannot add more seats without BOS approval.

Additionally, the BOS MOA requires that all book purchases must be made with county money, meaning that the majority of government-appointed trustees could deny collection requests that they don’t agree with – a donor would not be able to donate a book that the library didn’t want to buy, or earmark a donation for LGBTQ books, for instance.

MYTH #3 – This isn’t costing taxpayers more money – in fact, the Library’s proposed MOA is the one asking for more money and more tax dollars

MISLEADING. The funding remains the same in the BOS MOA because they are proposing to have more control without taking on additional financial or legal liability.

The Library’s proposal does request additional funding: +1% in FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25, +2% in FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27, and +3% in FY 2027-28 and FY 2028-29. Presumably, this is to reflect increased costs due to inflation (although these modest increases actually seem to be tracking well below actual inflation at the moment). It also requests additional funds to cover annual increases in employee healthcare premiums, and that if County employees receive across-the-board comp increases due to substantive increase in County revenue, that an additional appropriation *may be considered* to match that compensation increase.

The BOS proposal would give the 5 members of the Board of Supervisors all of the upside of the library still remaining a nonprofit but with all the control over decision-making. Their current MOA is not proposing that the library no longer be a nonprofit structure, despite what the CUS people claim. Additional costs to taxpayers, however, would still come – in the form of discrimination lawsuits.

Otherwise, if the library does not agree to these extortionate terms, it will close due to lack of funds. The county may still take it over, which would conservatively increase operating costs by +50%-100% more than is currently contributed by the county. Plus, the cost of any lawsuits if they choose to remove books.

MYTH #4 – The library has always had to have an MOA to receive funding, that’s how it works when you receive county funding

FALSE. The library has NOT always had to have an MOA with the BOS. It is not a requirement, it is a tool used when specific stipulations are needed. The last time it happened was in 2017 when research was done into whether the county should take over the running of the library, and it was concluded that that would cost way more money and not be as efficient as the current model.

That MOA was created for a specific purpose (you can read a bit about the history in the Library’s MOA draft on their website). It expired in 2021 with no need to create a new one until this controversy provided an excuse for the County to try and take more control over governance, which is an outcome that many of their constituents have spoken out strongly against.

Bridget Randolph
Brooklyn, NY
(longtime WC resident, age 5-22, and CC graduate)

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.