Protecting Our Library’s Legacy: A Call for Transparent, Data-Driven Decisions

During the October 29 joint meeting of the Warren County Board of Supervisors and Library Trustees, I asked a critical question: “Is there some kind of value that you’re expecting from the library that you’re just not getting? Are we missing out on something that you expect?” Dr. Jamieson, Supervisor for the North River District, responded, “Not from my point of view.” He emphasized a focus on the competitive process and fiduciary responsibility, stating, “Having more performance metrics given to me isn’t really going to be meaningful.”

This response left me questioning how we can effectively measure success or identify opportunities for improvement without data. Metrics are essential tools for assessing progress, pinpointing weaknesses, and guiding evidence-based decisions. Dismissing their value undermines any effort to make informed, transparent changes.

I reminded the Board of Supervisors during the meeting that Samuels Public Library has already undergone an in-depth review to evaluate its operations—whether as a non-profit, for-profit, or municipal library. This review, conducted in 2017, required significant time, resources, and funding. Since 2018, the library has been flat-funded, with no additional resources allocated for further evaluations.

I also made it clear that if the county has concerns about how funds are being spent, it is imperative to identify specific issues immediately. Without clearly defined concerns, proposing drastic governance changes—or the urgency to implement them—seems unwarranted.

The “2023 Library Debrief & Research Report” has been cited as justification for these proposals, but my analysis reveals glaring inaccuracies in its financial conclusions. As someone with over 25 years of experience in IT and performing data analysis, I often ensure the underlying data supports claims—because failing to do so invites others to disprove conclusions. Here are two critical issues I found in the report’s financial analysis:

Budget Growth Misrepresented: The report claims that library funding growth from 2006 to 2018 outpaced population growth and inflation. However, this period includes the 2010 relocation to Criser Road, which required significant staffing and operational cost increases for a facility 2.5 times larger. The move alone accounted for a 25.7% budget growth in 2010. Additionally, county funding absorbed contributions previously made by the town, artificially inflating the growth figures.

The true period of accelerated growth occurred from 2007–2011, with an average annual increase of 14.4%. Outside of this period, funding growth stabilized at 3.9%—a reasonable figure in line with the growth of our local economy. This contradicts the report’s implication of unsustainable growth and aligns with the library’s current proposal for incremental funding increases leading to a standard 3% inflationary growth rate over five years.

Staff Costs Misunderstood: The report criticizes staff costs but fails to provide context. Year-over-year salaries for full-time staff at Samuels are comparable to those at Handley Regional Library. The higher per capita cost at Samuels is a result of economies of scale—Handley serves a population over three times larger, which naturally reduces its cost per capita. When compared to libraries serving similar-sized populations, Samuels demonstrates a high level of efficiency.

To provide a more accurate picture, I compiled detailed reports comparing Samuels’ metrics with those of Handley and other comparable libraries:

• Library Cardholders: Samuels serves a community with 28% more library cardholders per capita than Handley.
• Program Attendance: Samuels has 66% more program attendees per full-time-equivalent (FTE) than Handley.
• Visitor Numbers: Samuels sees 20% more visitors per FTE than Handley.
• Transactions Per Staff Member: Since moving to Criser Road, transactions per FTE have steadily increased, with Samuels now outperforming Handley in this area.

These metrics clearly demonstrate that Samuels is meeting the needs of the community efficiently and effectively compared to Handley.

Staffing remains the library’s largest expense, and Samuels faces fierce competition from local businesses offering higher wages for less skilled roles. Rising wages and benefits make it increasingly difficult to hire and retain qualified staff without additional county funding. This strain is further exacerbated by the library absorbing maintenance costs previously covered by the county, leaving fewer resources for staffing.

The proposal to establish a Warren County Library Board without a thorough, evidence-based evaluation is both rushed and ill-advised. During MOA negotiations, the library made several attempts to engage with the county but was consistently denied the opportunity to do so. This pattern appears to be repeating with the new board proposal. The library hasn’t formally received reports or notifications when the county plans to discuss library matters, aside from the October 29 joint session, which was announced on short notice. Decisions appear to be driven by vague concerns rather than concrete evidence or clearly defined objectives in the meetings afterwards.

If the county is genuinely committed to improving library services, it must first define what “better” means and ensure that those expectations are realistic for a library serving Warren County’s population. It is crucial that the county allocate resources for an unbiased and thorough evaluation, with all stakeholders involved in the process. Additionally, clearer communication channels between the Library and the County need to be established, as the current focus appears to be on cost rather than the impact it has on the community.

To Dr. Jamieson, my representative from the North River District, I urge you to focus on strengthening the library’s legacy through thoughtful, fact-based decisions and advocate for a joint review before moving forward. The library has the data to guide the supervisors in asking the right questions when considering alternatives, based on its deep experience with the community. Samuels Public Library is an invaluable resource with a long-standing commitment to transparency, excellence, and dedicated service to the community it serves.

By Lewis Moten
Trustee at Large, Samuels Public Library
North River District

For further details, please refer to the following reports:

Growth In Funding for Samuels Public Library

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/fncwzjxh0imeyj8vrkwrs/2024-12-05-Growth-In-Funding-for-Samuels-Public-Library.pdf?rlkey=xe71hoz4w80qvn021b0venpgj&st=sd0kv0q9&dl=0

The report addresses “Figure 4” and shows many charts of a shorter growth period, funds matching staff, increased utilities & maintenance, double-taxation in Front Royal, transfer of town funding, below average funding growth, funding gaps, and the growth of the economy in property taxes vs inflation & population growth. It also includes references, raw data, and calculated data.

Efficiency of Samuels Public Library

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/fo8xmwos19povf17zo6w2/2024-12-05-Efficiency-of-Samuels-Public-Library.pdf?rlkey=adyz7esfkkvj9fohm7so2h3pd&st=vxj98b53&dl=0

The report addresses “Figure 11” and demonstrates salary alignment, efficient leadership, low cost per capita compared to libraries serving similar populations, and the ability for FTE to serve more borrowers, transactions, books, visits, and program attendance compared to Handley.

These reports have been prepared quickly due to the urgent nature of the situation. While it aims to highlight key concerns, it has not undergone a thorough review. As such, there may be aspects that require further clarification or revision.

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 Royal Examiner has not independently verified the statements and claims presented in the letters. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.

While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish diverse 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 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.