So it stands to reason, that a study to determine what people of the region really want in their library system would be a good move.. right?  Certainly, a well thought out strategy that takes into consideration the distances people travel, the materials they use from the libraries, and new and marvelous technologies would be a GOOD thing.

Perhaps..  Unless the study comes at a cost of $30,000.00 to the library system (TADL) that serves the same purpose as a suggestion box which could be installed at about $20.

How can we justify at the same time these studies are being funded, TADL’s persistent and disturbing desire to reduce the operating capitol to the community libraries such as the Peninsula Community Library?  Why would the TADL system start up expensive new studies that propose to spend more of the finite resources that are provided through a millage that expires in only six years from now?  And how can they ignore a millage that generates for the Traverse Area District Library from Peninsula township residents roughly three times the amount of operating cash the PCL board requests?

Perhaps somebody doesn’t get it.

Here are the facts:

1. The Peninsula Community Library has provided peninsula residents with quality library service for nearly 53 years.  It is managed by an elected board which is accountable to the people.
2. The TADL system needed the PCL to be on board for the passage of the Millage that CREATED TADL in 1996
3. In 2016 the contract is up, the millage expires and member libraries can determine if they wish to partner with TADL for future operating agreements.
4. The millage from Peninsula Township provides TADL with over $500,000.
5. PCL requested $164,000 of cash for its operating and service budget for their upcoming fiscal year (about the same as they’ve received annually from TADL, until now)
6. TADL offered $150,000 of cash for PCL’s operating and service budget and also assessed PCL for $20,000 in IT services that have not yet been itemized.
7. The PCL board counter offered $158,00 as a reasonable compromise or “middle ground” arrangement for this year and that offer was rejected.

The problem?

TADL would explain the difference in funding as a result of PCL having a surplus of nearly $14,000 in the last year.  The PCL explains that if the school building it shares were to be closed and sold off, it would find itself homeless.  They reason that a capital fund is a proper use of the surplus, and frankly do not understand why their library should be punished by TADL for being efficient, and fiscally prudent.  As PCL sees it, the minor surpluses are insurance for eventualities that always seem to plague community interests from disasters, economic troubles etc.

Careful planning is essential to provide necessary services with a level of efficiency that provides maximum “bang for the buck.”

In my opinion, the Peninsula Community Library is being unfairly targeted by the TADL director and a rubber stamping TADL board in a way that makes the PCL more “subservient” to the centralizing wishes of the director.  How else would one explain an amount so easily consumed with a study on how better to spend MORE money, yet demonstrating an unwillingness to even negotiate with the PCL board on the funding it has requested.

The director of TADL may well be punishing users of the library services system-wide. However, if she does not exercise a little forethought and consideration for the Old Mission Peninsula residents, they may well throw up their hands in disgust and decide to oppose renewal of TADL’s millage (currently about 1 mil, of which PCL only asks for 30% to operate on), when it expires in 2016. Such a scenario could lead to a 2016 dissolution of any operating agreements that PCL previously has had with TADL. Defeat of that millage would deprive TADL of about 80% of its operating revenues.

And they would be right to do so, as it is THEIR community library , whether an agreement with the TADL system is in place or not. By its apparent “take it or leave it” offer , TADL may be unwisely burning bridges with PCL and its loyal community patrons. Why “fight to the death” over such small differences in funding (about $15,000 per year, which represent only 3% of the more-than-$500,000 millage that TADL receives from Peninsula Township residents each year) ?

Why punish PCL for efficiently running a financial surplus, instead of red ink (as so many state & local governmental units are doing currently)? Why not instead reward PCL for the admirable job its locally-elected, independent Board and PCL Library Director Vicki Shurly has been unquestionably been doing, for nearly 2 decades ?

Perhaps instead of punishing PCL for being responsible and accountable to its patrons, TADL could use them as an example of how best to serve the community.

I support the PCL and would do so as 1st District Commissioner. This serves Peninsula Township residents as well as ALL county residents in the best manner.