SCUBA gear anyone?
You know: "he's in the tank so far that..."
I was not surprised by Dale's vociferious defense of the Library budget last night; even he made light of it with the comment of concerning "church and state" (his wife is the Director of the Library). Frankly, even though he campaigned on the promise of not talking about the library budget, as soon as the election / recount was completed, he started the process of moving away from that process. Most of us on the budget committee realized that he would be quite active when that budget came up as during the organizational meeting, he declared that he would be voting on it, and that was that.
My own feelings? I made them clear at the organizational meeting - More speech is better than less speech, legally there is nothing we could do. But a more proper thing would be to have recused himself during the discussion so as, as Gus pointed out during the first meeting, to avoid any sense of impropriety in this matter.
But this? Perhaps just a tad touch of hyperbole?
Let's face it - with a budget presented to the BudComm that overall was LESS than it was last year, it's hard to find a lot to disagree with to eliminate. That's why the Town Clerk's office, the Planning, the DPW, the Police, and Parks N'Rec budgets went through unscathed. And properly noted by Dale. Yet, he is giving the impression that the BudComm changed the Library Budget.
Did changes really take place?
NO!
That's right, and I have two ways to prove it! First, the video (see this post) - any motions to change any of those line items (try "no")? And since I was the presenter of the Library Sub-Committee review, I can say with some authority that the Sub-Committee made no changes to the budget that the Selectmen presented to the Budget Committee (since I created the formal review passed out last night to the full committee, I have posted it after the jump).
In fact, I made the motion that was voted on that authorized the Library Budget the Selectmen gave to us...
It is disingenious of Dale to give people the impression that we changed the budget - it remains the same coming out as it did going in. Trying to pull a sleight of hand to say that the BudComm changed the Budget - wrong!
Look, the Selectment disagreed with the Library Trustees and Administration asking for the new phone system, the new drop box, the new video surveillence system (which his wife admitted was needed because the new building had too many places where mischief could occur), and the new 10 computers.
The Trustees asked the sub-committee to promote a new item, a $15K moving expense, that hadn't even been shown to the Selectmen at the time of the meeting. The sub-committee declined to add it during its review. And during last night's meeting, the full BudComm did receive a letter from the Selectmen saying that they did not recommend it either. Refusing to add an out-of-normal-cycle item is not changing the budget.
Upshot? No changes by the BudComm...Dale needs to update his site - point out that the Selectmen changed the Library budget, not the BudComm
And yes, I voted to support the Selectmen's decision. In fact, only Dale and Margo Weeks wanted to add the items. The rest of us, all 10 of us, voted no.
Note: both the sub-committee and the full BudComm approved adding a new full time position.
Here's the original review information that was presented to the Budget Committee:
| Gilford Budget Committee | ||||||
| FY 2008 | ||||||
| Working Group: | Library | |||||
| Members: | Skip Murphy, Sue Greene, Bob Brent | |||||
| Presenter: | Skip Murphy | |||||
| 2007 | 2008 | Delta | Percentage | |||
| Total Budget | $263,473 | $281,522 | $18,049 | 6.85% | ||
| Date | ||||||
| Dept Head Meeting | 11/08/07 | |||||
| Dept Head receives review | 11/13/07 | |||||
| Presentation to BudComm | 11/15/07 | |||||
| Non-Discretionary Spending: | Number of People | $ Fiscal Year | Financial | |||
| Personnel | 2007 | 2008 | 2007 | 2008 | Delta | Percentage |
| Full | 4 | 5 | $158,819 | $188,863 | $30,044 | 18.92% |
| Part time | 3 | 2 | $44,544 | $30,029 | -$14,515 | -32.59% |
| $203,363 | $218,892 | $15,529 | 7.64% | |||
| Note: | 2006 – 4 full time with benefits, 3 part time | |||||
| 2007 – 5 full time (3 w/benefits), 2 part time (12 additional hours / week) | ||||||
| Discretionary Spending: (Focus on top 3 issues) | ||||||
| $ Fiscal Year | Financial | |||||
| Item | Description | 2007 | 2008 | Delta | Percentage | |
| 01-4550.2-312 | 1. Library Books & Periodicals | $17,170 | $18,000 | $830.00 | 4.83% | |
| 01-4550.2-355 | 2. Computer Equip & Maint | $8,990 | $9,000 | $10.00 | 0.11% | |
| 01-4550.2-316 | 3. Childrens Books | $7,350 | $8,000 | $650.00 | 8.84% | |
| The following are items that were eliminated by the Selectmen; the Library Trustees and | ||||||
| Administration want the Budget Committee to restore: | ||||||
| Item | Cost | Notes | ||||
| New Telephone System | $4,000 | Wiring built into the new structure | ||||
| New Library Book Drop | $3,040 | |||||
| Video Surveillance System | $8,069 | Equipment only | ||||
| 10 Computers | $10,200 | |||||
| Total | $25,309.00 | $306,831.00 | 8.99% | |||
| New Item submitted by the Budget Committee only | ||||||
| Moving Expenses | $15,000 | $321,831.00 | 14.32% | |||
| Recommendation to Budget Committee from this Subcommittee | ||||||
| Priority 1 | We agree with the Selectmen in not adding back the items they deleted. | |||||
| Priority 2 | We do not recommend the late moving expense item | |||||
As one can see, no line items were recommended to be changed!
Comments
Skip,
As I mentioned in my response to your other post, you were absolutely right about the way I worded things - it did give the wrong impression. I appreciate your bringing it to my attention, and I have corrected it. In fact, any time you see anything that seems out of line with the facts on www.gilfordbudget.com, I would more than welcome your comments.
As to this post, apparently you are suggestion that I am "in the tank" for something? Or for someone? The library, perhaps? Again, some facts might be helpful here.
I've been a supporter and user of public libraries all my adult life. My company provides services to public libraries throughout the United States. And, interestingly enough, back in the early 1990's, I suggested to my wife that she consider obtaining her masters degree in library science, and choosing library work for her career.
So...if your inference is that I am supporting the Gilford library in general, and the recent library trustee budget motion in particular, because my wife is the director, that is, again, simply not accurate. I happen to believe that the Trustee's request was legitimate, for all the reasons I mentioned that evening.
Finally, I don't think it's a great idea to throw fellow Republicans under the bus because we disagree on selected Gilford budget issues.
Thanks for printing this....Dale
Posted by: Dale Dormody | November 17, 2007 12:43 PM