Warren County Responds to Samuels Library Claims, Defends Oversight Measures

The Warren County Board of Supervisors and the newly established Warren County Library Board remain committed to providing excellent library services through proper governance structures that align funding with representation while keeping taxes as low as possible. We (with the exception of Supervisor Cullens) regret that Samuels Library Inc. (SLI), the vendor who is currently under agreement with the county to provide public library services to the county, has chosen litigation and public relations campaigns rather than participating in standard procurement processes that would demonstrate their claimed efficiency.

Warren County funded SLI with $1,024,000 this fiscal year, and has funded SLI with nearly $17,000,000.00 since 2007. SLI’s recent IRS 990 reporting shows that 94% of their funding is from public support of some kind, whether county, state, or direct patron fees. The majority of the Warren County Board of Supervisors (with the exception of Supervisor Cullers), along with the Warren County Library Board, wish to correct several mischaracterizations in the recent SLI statement:

1.  Cost Efficiency Concerns: SLI overlooks documented evidence that their per capita staffing costs are over 50% higher than the most efficient libraries in our region. Their refusal to participate in a competitive process to transparently demonstrate how their service levels per unit cost compare to the marketplace reveals that they are not willing to put their claims of cost efficiency to any real test.

2. Historical Entitlement: SLI continues to cite historical relationships as determinative of a permanent future entitlement to a private monopoly on providing public library services. While history is important, it does not override proper governance principles or exempt any contractor from demonstrating ongoing cost efficiency.

3. Asset Ownership Claims: Under established nonprofit law, a nonprofit organization cannot unilaterally “restrict” unrestricted funds they have already received. Both state and county funding sources provided SLI unrestricted operational support, and both ultimately derive from taxpayers. Assets purchased with public funds (whether County or State) for a public purpose (library services) are assets held in public trust.

4. Anticompetitive: The assertion that SLI owns assets acquired with unrestricted public funds for public purposes can be claimed as exclusive private property to create a monopolistic barrier to competition is anti-competitive and appears inconsistent with both nonprofit law and public interest principles.  SLI improperly altered its dissolution clause with specific intent to deprive taxpayers of assets for which they paid the vast majority over the years.

5. Contractor vs. Partner: SLI is legally a private contractor that receives, as stated before,  94% of their funding from public support of some kind, of which the $1,024,000.00 from the county represents a substantial portion. The distinction between “vendor” and “partner” is semantics – they are a private entity providing services under contract using primarily public funds.

6. Lease Agreement: The 2008 lease permits SLI to use the building for $1 a year for library purposes, but does not guarantee they would be the exclusive service provider. Were that the case there would not have been successive operating agreements since that time. No Board of Supervisors can bind future boards to perpetual contracting decisions – this is a fundamental principle of governance that SLI repeatedly ignores.

7. False Assumptions: SLI’s statement falsely implies that for-profit status automatically means less efficient or lower quality services, while non-profit status guarantees better value. This is fundamentally incorrect. What matters is the services delivered per dollar, regardless of organizational structure. Many efficiently operated for-profit contractors provide excellent public services nationwide, just as some non-profits operate inefficiently. The legal designation has no inherent bearing on cost efficiency or service quality – only demonstrated performance does.

Again, we regret that SLI has chosen litigation and public relations campaigns rather than participating in standard procurement processes that would demonstrate their claimed efficiency. The Warren County Library Board will continue its work to ensure our community receives high-quality library services under proper governance and fiscal oversight.

Samuels Library Stands By Community Partnership in Response to County RFP