Here is a little bit from Noticing New Yorks new article that include the priceless Linda Johnson reaction below when she is praised by New York Times correspondent Sam Roberts for `instinctual openness at the same time a system-wide library real estate plan is concealed with the public almost entirely in the dark.- Minutes Document Intended Secrecy About Sales. . . And Identify Pitfall of Such Practice The next meeting (May 17, 2011) would be just one month later, as would be the one after that. Its minutes explicitly document the BPLs decision to keep information about the libraries sales secret, even from the citys Office of Management and Budget (though probably not from the mayor having so many appointments, nor his senior staff). OMB points out a fatal flaw with such secrecy (emphasis supplied): Ms. Johnson stated that, per the Board’s recommendation, BPL presented the real estate plan to OMB, removing the names of the affected branches. She said the meeting went well but that OMB was reluctant to give funds to any branch in the future as, from the presentation, they were unsure if the branch would be used as it was currently. She asked the Board for their goahead to present the names of the affected branches to OMB to help them understand the plan further and to build good will. She stated the information would be shared in strict confidence. The Board voiced no opposition to this proposal. Sharing such information about branches to be sold in strict confidence exclusively with the citys Office of Management and Budget does not solve the problem of telling all the funding decision makers what they need to know to make an appropriately informed decision: The New York City Council also reviews and approves the city budget and would be left in the dark. Similarly, other library funders like the state and federal governments would be left in the dark. So would private funders. The NYS Education Department regulating and requiring annual reports for state aid plus submission of a five year plan of service would be uninformed. The general public being regularly appealed to for donations and supplying tax money would be too. And obviously, as was intended by this secrecy, every library-using constituent and intended beneficiary of the librarys services with inalienable political rights, no matter whether they were rich or poor, would be denied the ability to protest or complain about such plans or appeal to their elected representatives. Its perhaps all the more deceptive because this kind of secrecy is the opposite of what we expect from those who run libraries, Not so long after confirming that information about the sales should be kept in strict confidence, Ms. Johnson on a Municipal Art Society forum panel on libraries . . . . READ MORE at NOTICING NEW YORK
Posted on: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 17:09:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015