I am commenting on several issues here, I think of great importance: I would like to respond very respectfully to Laura's comment a few days ago about her and Sheldon Main's desire to make "a bigger pie" in terms of library funding. It seems misleading to give folks the impression that only 2 of the 15 regular candidate participants at the recent Candidate Forum series were interested in bringing more money in the system. In fact, each and every candidate has declared that more money for library funding is the top issue in this campaign. What has distinguished one candidate from another in this series, are the kinds of suggestions that they have given, and also, what they are not willing to come out and say. Several candidates have indicated that continued reliance on Local Government Aid from the State is a mistake but I have been the only candidate to forcefully submit that the only way the Minneapolis Library system can be fully funded as an essential public service is to follow the St. Paul model and receive primarily City funds. Some have skirted around this issue, perhaps leery of coming out in public for a higher property tax, but we all know that fundraising events and grants are an essential but smaller part of the funding scenario and there is no way around demanding, and organizing for, full public funding. Our sister City across the river has had enormous success in organizing a cadre of Library lovers and users to not only assist in preparing the budget, but advocate for it to make sure it is passed. What distinguishes my position, in addition, is that I am suggesting that not all of the property tax burden be carried by individual homeowners, but that businesses and corporations pay their FAIR SHARE! This will take significant transformative political action at all levels of our City and State government, but is essential if we are to assure the public services we all value so much. I am also the only candidate to suggest a Building Impact Fee, which has been used with great success in other American cities. I also want to say that the operating model of our Library System is in need of urgent repair. It seems to be run in a top-down, corporate, hierarchical, centralized manner that squelches the ideas, brilliance, contributions and experience of library staff and users. Fact: many librarians and library staff are unhappy, unhealthy, stressed out and overworked, sometimes in less than healthy working conditions, and they have been alienated from the decision-making process. Head librarians at Community libraries are not even involved in acquiring the kinds of books and other materials that are appropriate for their communities - the decisions are made centrally (downtown) without adequate input. This is a HUGE problem. Fact: with all due respect to the individuals involved, this current Board has been less than responsive or accountable to the needs and desires of Library users. Example: the termination of the Community Participation Initiative, which harnessed the ideas and suggestions of library lovers. Example: the absolute refusal to reassess the decision made in terms of hour/staff cuts almost three years ago, despite every conceivable measure that users in my neighborhood of Nokomis employed to call for a reassessment. Fact: Almost three years have passed since the original news of LGA cuts, etc. and we still do not have a plan of action or come even close to solving the budget problems. I feel personally that several of the incumbents may well have the skills and mindset to change this situation, but the last several years of inaction from the Board as a whole are disheartening, at best.
I would add, that as much as the DFL folks hope to and try to band together as the only decent candidates, this is simply untrue and irrelevent. Party affiliation is not the litmus test for the Library Board. Even union or any other endorsement is not the litmus test. What I believe is the most important measure of a candidate is how dedicated they are to keeping each and every library open, at maximum operating capacity, with excellent programming and materials and superb accountability to staff and users. If a candidate starts out by admitting that little to none of this is even possible - why run? Contrary to what the Star Tribune reports - or does not, I am a candidate for the Minneapolis Library Board and as a Trustee, will not rest until our system is no less than fabulous. I believe that this newspaper intentionally excluded all mention of my candidacy ( either to endorse - or malign me as they did with some very fine candidates) because of some strange backscene maneuvering aimed at shutting out REAL CHANGE. In light of my brains, experience, commitment and experience all harnessed to reversing the crisis our Library system is in, there could be no other reason for this passive aggressive attack. I ask all you folks of good conscience to reject this "business-as-usual", status quo-rules-supreme, behind-closed-doors mentality and VOTE SMART! forward ever, Samantha Smart Samantha Smart [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Smart Libraries are OPEN libraries! Candidate for Minneapolis Public Library Board [EMAIL PROTECTED] Smart libraries are OPEN libraries! REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
