Public Questions, Public Answers

Mr. Walker has responded to my opinion editorial in defense of the transparency of Samuels Library Inc. (SLI) and states that I have tried “… to smear the library’s leadership with false accusations and innuendos…” in a shameful tactic. I think this is a crucial moment that highlights the difficulty our society has in dealing with confrontation. Admittedly, I have engaged in sharp criticism of SLI, but NOT unsubstantiated criticism of SLI. I have made the effort to do so in public opinion pieces (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) because I think this entire library matter should have the widest possible public exposure and discourse.

However, criticism is not a smear, and description is not an accusation. Smear entails unsubstantiated accusation, and accusation is a charge of wrongdoing. I submit that my opinion editorial contains much substantiation, and I see no accusation at all within it, much less multiple false ones. I did use unflattering terms to describe SLI leadership that I realize reflects negatively upon them for reasons clearly stated. That is not in itself out of bounds in confrontational discourse. However, the terms I used have no bearing on right or wrongdoing; it is not wrongdoing to be inept or unsuitable for a task. I understand it may sting, but I propose that the better reply, rather than indignation, is to respond publicly in kind with substantiated counterpoints and answers to questions that may help inform readers.

To be clear about what I said specifically concerning SLI financial transparency: I pointed out in my letter that the financial information for SLI is easily obtainable, so I don’t think it can be fairly stated that I was accusing the leadership of “hiding” anything or engaging in any fiscal wrongdoing. Merely publicizing that SLI has substantial resources and posing questions that naturally follow that observation invites readers to consider reasons why I propose that SLI should NOT receive additional appropriation and why I think that SLI leadership should act publicly to counter the press spreading stories that the library may close in September.

It is no secret, after five opinion editorial letters, that I do not think the insularity that the private non-profit SLI has from taxpayers is appropriate. My reason for making observations, expressing ideas and opinions, and asking questions in a public forum rather than “contacting the library” for a private meeting is to induce reflection in the community and answers/replies in the public forum. It is the closest thing to a debate available, and the more exchanges there are, the more readers have a basis for forming their own judgments. I have made very pointed criticisms and observations, with the best supporting rationale I could muster, without ad hominem name-calling.

Another point of clarification: I thought the context of my comments concerning transparency was clear, but I am happy to be explicit: I was referring to the July 10th Trustee meeting. I said, “SLI’s leadership and trustees failed to make a statement to the standing-room-only attendees…”; then, further down, I said, “The failure of SLI’s leadership and trustees to discuss openly and transparently what everybody knows is an unprecedented situation, both financially and operationally …”.  I expressed an opinion based on how the situation (which is unprecedented both financially and operationally) was not discussed openly and transparently at the meeting. The sting of my description of SLI leadership was offensive to some, no doubt, but nevertheless, it was an opinion of unsuitability to task for an important public service at taxpayer expense, not an accusation of wrongdoing. It was pointed criticism based on specific observed public events, not a smear and not ad hominem.

What I have done is ask questions publicly after consulting publicly available facts. I have presented factual information and asked what seem to me to be reasonable questions, even if uncomfortable for SLI. Not only do I want to ask the questions, but I think there are others who may also wish to ask the questions and that all should have the answers, not just those who make private appointments with the library leadership to satisfy personal curiosity. The core questions remain: why is the “the library might close by September” scare narrative not publicly countered by SLI, given the resources it has on hand, and why does SLI ask for a million dollars when it has a million dollars in its pocket?

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.