While I appreciated the library board's reply to my letter to the editor regarding the presentation of information pertaining to the proposed budget and current library attorney, the response was incomplete and far too limited. For one, the answers and manner of delivery stifle debate and do not provide information in a timely expeditious manner that the public needs to make informed decisions. For another, it is inappropriate and unacceptable for an open government entity which relies on public trust and money to be smug about not providing information that is and should be made readily available, especially when a budget to be voted on is released a few weeks prior to a vote. And then to expect everyone to FOIL this same basic information or attend a meeting is ludicrous. All my projects are in west and south Jersey, by the way; unless the library board proposes to do my job and I do theirs? I have a better idea, I continue to do my job and the library board do theirs, by providing the information that could and should have been presented with the proposed budget. As the budget was published in a newsletter, instead of restricting critical information and using this newsletter solely for promotion of the budget, simple notes could have been provided. So as to explain discrepancies, such as the basis used to estimate energy which is volatile and increasing, for cost overruns, for where increases are above the cost of living and are a large percentage increase over a prior year's budget. If previously published terms have changed this is something that should be provided as well, such as payments for refurbishing the former library space. It is a matter of simple communication and very easily accomplished with notes added to the budget, as well as in a newsletter.

Once again, how much cash is on hand? We still don't know. Unlike schools, libraries do not fall under the same state guidelines covering the accumulation of extra cash, and here there actually is no set limit as to the amount of surplus that can be accumulated. It is well publicized that libraries have accumulated $700,000, $1 million, $1.4 million, comprising substantial percentages of operating budgets. More to the point, when I became a trustee our library budget was well under a million dollars; however a general surplus of $451,000 had been accumulated (about 50 percent of yearly operating expenses) that was not revealed to the public, basically because it was policy not to, and under advice of the then attorney it was to be revealed only if specifically asked for and under FOIL; there was no "LAW" requiring it to be revealed. While it is legal to accumulate such cash, I objected to its not being made public, and the reason given for withholding was it was to be used for possible new library building and related expenses. The new library has been built and it is not clear if this "general surplus" has been used up, or to what degree, because this information was not presented with the budget nor in the newsletter. While such surpluses are "legal" and included in audits by the State Education Department (which, as we know, are a little behind), this information is not made readily available unless specifically asked for, and under FOIL to the public? I don't think so. Put it out there with the budget and let the public decide how their money is best used and how much is allowed to carry over, which is how it should be. Whether to reduce and offset a proposed budget or to improve services, this should and must be outlined for the public to decide and vote on. This is the true application of open government. Nor is a FOIL the only response the board should provide as these records are by law to be made available open book.

The dissemination of information is a problem, and the library's response to my open letter is evidence to this in yet another way. The response first appeared on the library website, popping up in full on the first page opened when a link was clicked, including on the "outside databases" page which is accessed from the Memorial HS website. I'm sure non-voting students striving to complete assignments knew what was going on. So then why wasn't my open letter presented along side the library's response? This is remarkably similar to how the Russian politician, Mikhail G. Delyagin, critical of Vladimir V. Putin, was recently digitally erased from the "debate" on a Russian talk show. Which is to say, amounts to a form of misinformation, and the utilization [of] a format other than the one in which my letter had appeared (Anton newspaper), to present a slanted view. In order to be open and honest my stated open letter should have been presented side-by-side with the library response, to show a balanced issue of public import, and I would have welcomed it. Instead, we had the misuse of a publicly funded format for a private non-open unilateral presentation. For a library, supposedly a champion of education, learning, and democracy, to stifle debate and present a lopsided slanted view in this fashion is problematic, if not actionable.

On the matter of the current library attorney the particular issues and the State Comptroller's recent action have been widely reported in Newsday since March. Moreover, the attorney had reportedly forwarded an open letter to his client libraries, yet nothing has been made available by our local library and we have to find out about it in Newsday? This is inappropriate and unacceptable. I also have a problem supporting anyone with hard earned tax dollars so that any of these funds can then be used to carry a battle to sue the state, again at our expense.

As stated, it is time the board stops bellyaching and provides the public with critical information in a timely and expeditious manner, for each and every year from now on.

Stephen Cipot