Trustee Subcommittee Charged With Developing Library Building Project ‘Plan B’
Photo: https://www.joneslibrary.org/
Jones Library News Highlights For The Week Of October 3, 2022
Buildings & Facilities Committee Will Focus On Repairs-Only Contingency Plan
Responding to terms laid out in a still unsigned Memorandum of Agreement between the Town of Amherst and the Jones Library, the Trustees have accepted the need to prepare for urgent library repairs in the event that the $50 million renovation-expansion project proves unaffordable.
The Building & Facilities Committee comprised of trustees Alex Lefebvre and Farah Ameen, with Library Director Sharon Sharry and Facilities Supervisor George Hicks-Richards serving as non-voting members, announced at the October 3 meeting of the Trustees that the group has started looking at “Plan B” or what to do if the Library Project is not able to move forward.
Trustee Treasurer Bob Pam, who has been an advocate for taking the library repair option seriously, volunteered to be part of the Plan B committee. He was rebuffed by Trustee President Austin Sarat who declared, “If we need to think about Plan B we’re going to ask the Buildings & Facilities committee to do it. … Of course all of us are able to participate as members of the public. … I assume that’s OK with the Buildings & Facilities Committee.”
Pam disagreed, pointing out that the Committee members had recently complained that working on Plan B would overburden people already involved in the expansion project, and he suggested that having additional people planning repairs would be helpful. He likened his recommendation to how the Trustees had previously established an independent Sustainability Committee.
Sarat replied, “The president of the board gets to appoint committees and subcommittees and my view is that we would go through Buildings & Facilities, but if the Board wants to do something different, I certainly would respect that. So Bob, do you want to make a motion?”
Pam moved that “a special committee be created for the alternative plan of renovating the existing building within its footprint if this becomes necessary.” Silence followed a call for a second, so Sarat seconded for the purpose of discussion. Trustee Tamson Ely commented, “I think our energy should be put into trying to go forward with the project.” The Board ultimately rejected Pam’s motion 5-1.
At its October 4 meeting, the Building & Facilities Committee reported that they had been asked by the Town Manager to keep Building Inspector Rob Morra and Town Facilities Manager Jeremiah Laplante informed of maintenance needs and progress in developing Plan B.
Library Capital Campaign Begins Reporting Monthly Fundraising Results
Capital Campaign Committee Co-chair Lee Edwards updated the Trustees on fundraising results as required monthly by a Memorandum of Understanding between the Friends of the Jones Library System, Inc. and the Trustees. The report which is found on page 40 of the October 3 meeting packet states that pledges, bequests and grants have totaled $3,015,928 to date. Campaign expenses have amounted to $77,811. The fundraising goal is approximately $17 million.
Treasurer Pam asked that Gifts Received be broken down into gifts actually received and those that have been pledged. Edwards agreed to do this next month.
President Sarat asked Edwards if she could remind the Board who are the two consultants whom the Capital Campaign had retained. “No,” was her curt reply.
Edwards continued, “I don’t think it’s a question of secret or private, but if we’re going to discuss anything having to do with personnel… I’ll ponder and come back to you next month.”
Public records show that the Library Campaign has engaged Financial Development Agency, Inc. (FDA) of Amherst, and Nancy Reeves of Northampton to help with fundraising.
Pam requested that Capital Campaign reports provide more detail about the fundraising expense side. “I’m just trying to get some clarity as to what it is that we’re looking at,” he explained. “If we have signed a contract for let us say $25,000 with a cap of $50,000 that’s one kind of contract. If it is you will get two percent of everything that is raised that’s a different kind of contract.”
“I’ll consider that,” said Edwards.
“Good, because we do have an agreement with the Friends,” Pam pointed out.
Siding with Edwards, Sarat discouraged the disclosure of fundraising expense details. “In my view, but again that’s subject to the Board’s judgment, this satisfies the Memorandum of Understanding,” he said.
Eligibility For Historic Tax Credits Questioned
The Trustees reviewed a $27,850 proposal from Epsilon Associates, Inc. to assist the Capital Campaign in applying for Massachusetts Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits (MHRTC). The proposal notes that the MHRTC program may return up to 20% of qualified historic rehabilitation expenditures and is available to “income-producing buildings.”
Treasurer Pam questioned whether the Jones Library can be considered an income-producing building. “I just want to make sure that we are in fact eligible under that requirement,” he said.
“All I can say is that as far as I know we are eligible,” replied Edwards.
Sarat concurred. “We are so lucky we have one of the best consultants working with the Capital Campaign Committee and this group, FDA, has done a lot of work on libraries, and one of the things that we were advised early on was that we would be eligible for Historic Tax Credits.”
“If we are not eligible, I would like to know that sooner rather than later,” countered Pam.
“Let’s request the Library Director again make sure that we are eligible for Historic Tax Credits,” Sarat agreed, “but let’s not wait to vote on this until we hear.”
The motion to hire Epsilon passed unanimously.
An interesting report on so many fronts. As they say, “Enquiring minds want to know.” My enquiring mind is certainly curious about the following matters: Why the apparent secrecy over who is doing fundraising for this project? For the amount that has been raised, what period of time does it cover, meaning when did this fundraising start, and how long has it taken to raise what is still under 20% of the adjusted amount that is now needed? The same question applies to the “personnel” costs for this amount: What is the period of time that these costs cover, and what is it that these individuals do? In terms of the CPA grant — a full one-third of the funds that have been raised — what was the role of paid fundraisers in the approval of this grant? For the Epsilon Associates, Inc., proposal, what is the expected return in actual dollars, and what kind of “assistance” will this entity provide? In the event that the library is actually NOT an income-producing building, will this contract be null and void? And finally, after having read the thoughtful and necessary questions asked by Robert Pam, and having read the responses from trustees, a chilling question: Is this trustee being punished and silenced — as much as one can dare to do in a public forum — for asking questions that supporters of this project do not want to answer?
How much farther must the Jones Library demolition/expansion saga unfold before it earns its own Wikipedia page?
Thanks, Denise, for your enquiring mind and keyboard!
I’ve a question, too. The Jones Library Trustees are a public body. They are subject to the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law (OML). They must post their meetings and meeting agendas publicly in advance. With very stringent exceptions, their meetings must be open to the public. They must timely make their minutes available to the public.
The Friends of the Library are a private 501 (c)(3) charitable organization. They do wonderful work. I don’t know what the North Amherst, Munson Memorial, and Jones Libraries would do without them.
Friends’ meetings are not open to the public. They need not post their meetings or agendas, or make their minutes public. Yet fundraising for the Trustees’ demolition/expansion project is clearly a public purpose. It appears that the Trustees are using the cover of the Friends’ private status to cloak what they do in pursuit of this public purpose.
How, if at all, does this square with the OML? That is a very good question
Has the Attorney General OKd this skirting of the OML? If not, on what provision(s) of it do the Trustees rely as authority for their arrangement? Simply wanting to keep fundraising confidential is not one of the OML’s enumerated, legally-permitted reasons for excluding the public. Even for any part of a meeting that qualifies, moreover, this must ordinarily be posted publicly in the agenda; minutes must be kept; and they must be made available to the public eventually. That is obviously not what the Trustees are up to here.
So disappointing, yet predictable, that Trustee President Austin Sarat and the majority of the Trustees want to limit different points of view in developing a Plan B repair option should increased funding for the demolition/expansion project not become available.
It’s clear from the over 100 Jones’ meetings that I attended between 2016 and 2022 that the Trustees and Director have never wanted to study this option seriously. There has never been a formal evaluation of the existing library space utilization before the grant application was developed, and the subsequent Kuhn-Riddle Accessibility and Repair study analyzed the building as it is currently configured without being asked to consider the reuse of existing space.
A whole new approach is needed. Goals for a repair and reorganization option need to be developed, and a highly experienced expert library space planner needs to be hired. The library has the money to pay for this with the Van Steenberg bequest.
Who knows what the space options are since they have never been explored? For example, who says the children’s room needs to stay in its current location? If a teen room is a priority, then perhaps it can be housed in audio visual room. With declining attendance over the last decade, the increased use of electronic resources, a culling of little read books and new more efficient shelving, there are many possibilities available if the Trustees choose to explore them. Residents have a right to demand this from their elected officials.
I’m working on fact-checking library observer Terry Johnson’s claim that “there has never been a formal evaluation of the existing library space utilization before the grant application was developed.”
At the Sept. 12 Board of Trustees meeting President Austin Sarat said “Before the start of the building project we did a space study and we did a very careful examination of what we could accommodate within the existing footprint.”
I have been unable to find any reference to such a study on the Jones Library website, so I have filed a Massachusetts Public Records Request for any documents related to the study that Austin Sarat refers to. I am due to receive the records or an explanation of why they can’t be provided by Thursday, October 20.