Granted, it’s not exactly Fahrenheit 451. But after Montclair Town Manager Joe Hartnett identified a potential $1.6 million savings to the town if the library was funded at the state-mandated minimum, Cliff Kulwin, the president of the library’s board of trustees, couldn’t stay silent. Kulwin was referring to the so-called “horror budget,” which the council asked Hartnett to prepare, to find ways to reduce the town budget by 5 percent. (Download it here.)
“Three days ago I was stunned to read Township Manager Joseph Hartnett’s May 12 report to members of the Township Council,” Kulwin wrote last Friday. Reducing the library’s budget from $3.8 million to the state’s mandated $2.2 million was the second proposal on the list. Other proposals included deferring pension costs, selling township property and granting new liquor licenses.
“I could not believe what I read,” Kulwin added. “Mr. Hartnett believes that Council members should consider restricting the library to the state-mandated minimum. The impact on the library – and the Township – would be devastating.”
Thus far, library leadership has refrained from public comment on the budget process. After this week, that is no longer possible.
An immediate cut to the state-mandated minimum would leave only enough funding this year to cover salaries for a third of the staff. The PSE&G bill would be beyond our reach and we would be forced to close the library for weeks and perhaps months. Into the future, such cuts would permanently shut the Bellevue Avenue Branch and the third floor of the main building and would slash weekend and evening hours. Special programs would be history, new acquisitions meager.
Is this the library we want?
Hartnett’s 5 percent reduction budget considers the impact on every department. The town council will be discussing the budget at its meeting tonight.
Not the library. In this economy, people are using libraries more and more and more.
Why must we cut SERVICES and not WASTE?
I know for a FACT that there are employees who sit in town hall surfing the net half the day. They complain that there’s no cross-training, thus making it difficult for any jobs to be cut because one person can only do one job.
I have lots of friends in government office jobs. All have a lot of free time. Why not cut some of them or retire folks?
The problem is for every cut there is a “not the (fill in the blank)” constituency. It would not be a good thing if the library were cut drastically but it is not as essential service as a lot of other things. Personally I’d rather see bike lanes and “traffic calming” cut before the library, but something has to get cut. It’s not going to be pretty.
Unfortunately our level of spending can not be sustained.
oh and p.s. This library cut thing is all BS. It’s just to soften up the public for the real target of cuts.
Which is what? The schools?
Good.
Something’s got to give.
Or stop complaining about taxes.
If our money goes to a 2 library’s and all they offer and we want this, what’s the problem?
We get the Government we want.
And we have it!
MORE. TAXES. PLEASE.
MORE. FEES. PLEASE.
I’m all for “across the board” budget cuts, but hacking the library’s budget by 40% seems absurdly high.
I think a blanket 10% reduction to all services except for the Fire & Police departments would save at least as much as Joey Hairnet’s latest bizarre scheme… Especially if they told the BOE that they were part of “everyone” whether they like it or not.
Yesterday the mail brought the flyer about the new refuse collection plan for Montclair. I’m still trying to understand how twice weekly garbage pick-up–and now twice monthly bulky waste pick-up–will create a savings over once a week garbage pick-up, and once a month bulky pick-up. It has something to do with savings on overtime pay, apparently. I like getting more service, not less, but at what cost? Wouldn’t once a week garbage (year-round) and once a month bulky be cheaper? Why aren’t those cuts considered?
Why must we cut SERVICES and not WASTE?
Because a bureaucracy is an organism of sorts. Its evolutionary imperative is to grow at the expense of its host.
When its growth is threatened, it adapts. For example, it’s common in offices of government to submit artificially large budget requests up the chain so that “cutbacks” end up being mere throttles on rate of growth, not actual cuts. Another example (and local, too): creating a community liaison out of thin air to accommodate a principal who seemed to have been heading for the chopping block.
When actual cuts are looming, even minor ones (let’s say 5%), the bureaucratic organism launches all of its defenses at once — targeting the host itself — in an attempt to have the host halt the attack. An obvious historical instance of this was the supposed “shutdown” of the federal government by the Gingrich crowd: the first things to shut were national parks and monuments so that news coverage would focus on ALL THOSE UNHAPPY CHILDREN whose field trips to DC were “ruined.” Yes, it will attack the children of the host in order to influence the host’s behavior! The current example is the preposterous idea that cutting $0.05 out of every $1.00 will obliterate police protection! Funny how it’s never the office of the sub-assistant to the co-adjunct paperwork reduction coordinator that gets cut.
… or the new furniture and vehicle requisitions
… or the massively expensive new school that’s not really needed
I understand that closing a branch would save money, but how would closing the third floor save money? Are they going to lease it out?
Please read the Library P & L statement, when you do the math it costs us $80 for each and every book that is signed out
why don’t we give each resident a $25 Barnes and Noble gift card and just close the place