Opinion: Response to Critiques of Jones Library Contracting

I follow the stories about the Library expansion project from afar, so I don’t want to get into the details of its overall design, costs and financing.  My belief that this is no longer a feasible project is unchanged, and that the sooner it is formally ended the better off everyone – town, library, taxpayers, donors — will be.  But that doesn’t mean that I don’t follow the continuing discussions.

The library is an important civic institution in Amherst.  It needs support for its annual budget. Its staff and trustees need to hear from its patrons how they feel about it in honest and supportive or unthreatening negative ways, as appropriate.  That is what I think an engaged liberal public owes to its public officials.

It is also worth noting that the library is a hybrid institution — partly public and partly non-profit private. The staff and part of its operations are government funded, but it depends on past (endowment) and current fundraising for heat and electricity, insurance and supplies, programming and, oh yes, books, CDs and other materials. Doing these things requires purchases of goods and services, and their purchases are routine and raise no questions.  The way that one-off purchases are done may depend on whether the library is operating as a public or private entity.

As I remember it, the contracts for the alternative to the expansion project by Western Builders and Kuhn Riddle are problematic not because of how the vendors were selected, or who they were, but rather the scope of work.  The library board’s contracting goal was to show that the repair work that everyone agreed needed to be done at the library would have a cost comparable to that of the expansion project being proposed. The contracts’ purpose was to serve strictly as a defense against the criticism that no alternative to the project had been considered or costed out.  Specifically excluded was any design work that might produce an upgraded library.  No architect was initially engaged, and when KRA was later hired the scope included only cost updates, accessibility requirements, and timing options.  Investing in a full project alternative was seen by the library board as counterproductive, potentially diverting attention and support from the expansion plan, so the repair option analysis was to be done at low cost and creativity.  I am not surprised that Western Builders found itself too busy to come back to do the update. KRA was willing to do it as a favor to the library, even knowing it was not likely to be implemented.   These are not conditions under which a normal contractor selection would make sense.  There isn’t much money in estimating a job if it doesn’t produce a construction project.

The Financial Development Agency is a local firm, owned by Amherst residents.  The consulting services received by the library between 2014 and 2018 were used to support two different fund-raising efforts.  First, the library began offering Sammys events as a way to raise its visibility, involve the Friends of the Jones Library, identify and encourage potential sponsors and major fund supporters to contribute then and in the future, and link the library to fun.  FDA’s experience informed the work of planning a social event, soliciting ads, publishing a program and organizing the activities.  It became clear that the Sammys were less profitable than the library board had hoped, so FDA did not bill for two thirds of its time investment, turning it into a contribution.  Over five years it was paid under $16,000.  After all expenses the library netted over $50,000 (I no longer have those records, so I can’t be more specific). I don’t think FDA or the library board should be criticized for those actions.

FDA’s other services during that five year period related to fundraising for the expansion project.  The first question was feasibility: are there local people and institutions with the resources and interest to fund the library share, and what state and national resources could be solicited?  Having done this for other library projects in the state, FDA was a logical provider, and over five years received about $61,000. The estimate then was that roughly $5 million was needed, and the costs of contracting for this expertise did not seem high.  I won’t criticize that set of contracting decisions we made at the board — FDA identified national, federal and local funding sources that were pursued, and pledges and commitments that the library received exceeded the target then set.  The problem is that costs rose and the library’s share more than doubled while expected receipts shrank for reasons that have been described at length elsewhere.  The library’s implementation of the project deserves lots of criticism, but not for hiring FDA then.

There is plenty of legitimate criticism to be given to the library board, including of me during my time as a member.  Dismissing any alternative to the expansion was wrong.  But if the town is to recover and reconcile, please stick to the policies and practices that were wrong, and not emphasize every possible error or personalize it.  Amherst needs its libraries, and its staff have been good through the pandemic and all of the confusion relating to where and what it will be. The members of the board must stand for election every two years.   Fix what can be fixed, and move on.