Quite a meeting at City Council last night. Most of the first two hours of the session was devoted to discussion about the Free Public Library situation. More on that in a moment.
The first matter addressed during Public Comment was the continuing difficulty that the city’s newly-appointed Municipal Judge Renee Lamarre-Sumners and Court Clerk Nate Jones seem to have in fulfilling the requirements for a city background check. At the time of her appointment this summer (which was approved by a 6-1 Council vote), assurances were given by the Administration that the check had been done. According to Police spokesman Sgt. Pedro Medina yesterday, that’s not the case: Judge Sumners received necessary paperwork 10 days ago, but had not returned it as of yesterday.
In response to questions from Council President George Muschal and other council members, “Acting” Director Andrew McCrosson could not give any firm information about the status of the Judge’s paperwork. Considering that new press reports had appeared just that afternoon, and how often this subject has come up in Council, Mr. McCrosson’s failure to anticipate the question was unfortunate. Between the BA and Council, there continues to exist a great deal of confusion about exactly what policy the City of Trenton has regarding personnel background checks.
The appointment and conformation process for senior positions in this Administration continues to be very sloppily managed and executed. We are now 118 days into the administration. City Ordinances require Acting appointments for senior positions to last no more than 90 days before permanent nominees are confirmed, or unless Council extends the temporary actions by resolution. Neither has happened yet. This is unacceptable, and responsibility for this state of affairs is shared between the Mayor and Council.
Yes, reorganization and consolidation is coming, and many Director-level positions may be eliminated. But does anyone think that the positions of, for instance, Police Director or Business Administrator will be eliminated? There are no reasons those positions should be continued to be filled by “Acting” Employees. Come on, guys: Man Up, and follow the law.
Now, the Library situation. There are a couple of published accounts today, in the Times as well as the Trentonian, which mostly describe the presentation by Library Director Kimberly Matthews who reviewed a timeline of events about the library’s budget situation; and comments and discussion from Council members with Director Matthews and BA McCrosson. This did get rather heated, and I will talk about that below. I do want to back up for a second.
Before the Library Director spoke, the floor was opened for Public Comment. A few people spoke about the Library, including me. I wanted to make the point that there is no need for any new Community Task Force for the Library, as the Mayor had called for in his screed of a Press Release Monday night. The duties of the proposed task force (oversight of day-to-day operations, and ensuring that best practices are introduced and followed) are among the main responsibilities of the Library Trustees, the others being providing strategic direction for the Library; oversight of management and operations; and Fundraising. In his release, the Mayor was venting against the Director. Although I have some problems with this Director, the Mayor’s main beef seems to really be with the Trustees.
I agree. Over the last several years, the Trustees as a body have allowed the Library system to deteriorate to the point it’s at today. Reserves were squandered; oversight of finances was haphazard; and major fundraising was almost non-existent (On questioning from Council, Ms. Matthews did talk about some grants made to the Library recently, including one from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. True enough, but grants from Gates were made to just about any library that sent a stamped, self-addressed envelope). From the outset of this most recent crisis two years ago, the Trustees have not taken any major action to provide for the future of the Library.
On that basis, I called last night for the Mayor – who appoints the non-ex officio Trustees – to ask each member of the Trustees for their resignation, and start fresh. He might decide to reappoint 1 or 2 on a case by case basis, for instance if they are so new to the Board that they have not been part of the problem; but only if they can be part of the solution. They might refuse to resign, which would be their right as independent Trustees. But in that case, they should be publicly pressured to justify their record on the Bord and to make a case for their continued service. Cleaning out this Board is overdue, and needs to be done. By the end of the discussion, a few members of Council, namely Councilwoman McBride agreed, and proposed (without calling for a resolution to do so, though) that Council write a letter to Mayor Mack requesting just that. I look forward to that.
The meat of the discussion was the presentation by Director Matthews on this year’s budget. She submitted to Council a detailed timeline and copies of emails describing how, upon direction from her Board in consultation with the current as well as the previous Administration, she and her colleagues prepared plans from this Spring onward to close the four neighborhood branches and lay off several employees. This was as the result of an appropriation in this year’s introduced budget of $2.1 Million for the Library, representing a reduction of $1 Mllion from last year. As recently as August 1, according to Ms. Matthews, all of her budget projections were based on that $2.1 Million figure, as re-confirmed by her Board and Lauren Ira on behalf of the Mayor.
With that budget figure in hand, the Director and her staff prepared plans, filed the required paperwork with State agencies, and notified personnel of the impending layoffs.
This position changed at the August Board of Trustees meeting, when the Mayor announced his plan to re-open the neighborhood branches on a part-time basis of four hours daily, Monday to Friday, claiming found funds and unnamed private benefactors. The mayor offered $350,000 for his plan.
As I see it, the main cause of the mis-communication over the months subsequent to this announcement is this: prior to breaking the news about this “plan,” the Mayor and his administration had not consulted with Library management nor his fellow Trustees. The plan was not examined for its budgetary impact prior to being announced. Where the Mayor had announced $350,000 in additional funding, Director Matthews subsequently calculated the costs of the Mayor’s plan to be $850,000. Communications between the Library and City Hall from August to October revolved around the attempt to get City Hall to confirm they understood and accepted the higher number, and could commit the additional $500,000 before the City firmed its budget.
When brought into the discussion, Mr. McCrosson defended his communications to the Library, claiming that his statement via email that the City would provide the resources necessary for the Library’s plans – without explicitly stating the actual dollar amounts – was enough of a commitment from the City. He also added that the dollar amounts in the city’s Introduced (but not yet approved) Fiscal Year 2011 Budget, plus a carryover from last year’s funds, were sufficient to pay for re-opening the branches. However, there was nothing from the Administration that pointed this out to Council, the Library or citizens. If you knew exactly where to look in the Introduced Budget, and you knew the numbers and how to interpret them without assistance, well then it would all be clear!
That doesn’t quite fly. Given the stakes involved – the jobs lost and potentially to be saved in part, the neighborhood community services threatened – I think it was absolutely appropriate for the Library to have insisted that the financial commitment be clear. They were essentially saying, “Hey, you are offering $350,000. Our plans will cost $850,000. Please let us know that you are good for the additional half million. We don’t want to be left holding the bag if you back out of the deal!”
That the Administration did not, in fact, commit to that explicit dollar amount despite numerous requests to do so, only served to confirm the Library’s skepticism about the Administration’s commitment.
Councilman Chester got into a pretty heated discussion with the BA on this point, and stated that a simple clear statement on City letterhead signed by the Mayor committing to the explicit dollar amount would have worked. Mr. McCrosson rather testily replied that he didn’t write the Mayor’s correspondence or control the Mayor’s statements.
At the end of the discussion, it sounded that the net result is that the branches are on their way to re-opening on a part-time basis, and everyone is in agreement on the resources which will be required to make this happen. This will be great news for customers of the branches. Whew!
If you’ve stayed with me this long, allow me one more point. This episode provides yet another example of how poorly this Administration is communicating with the rest of his government and with the Public. He is not being well served by his communications apparatus, and the day-to-day management of city departments and agencies leaves a lot to be desired.
I want to repeat the suggestion I made earlier this month that the Mayor immediately appoint a capable, experienced trustworthy Chief of Staff, and give him or her significant responsibility and authority to provide some direction to city business and improve responsibility and accountability.
Please!
[…] Overdue […]