Were the service cuts at the Gwinnett library really necessary?

Why has the library cut its hours? Why has the library decided to close a popular branch? Ask library officials, read its website or published news reports and you’ll believe it’s because Gwinnett County cut the library’s budget. And that budget cut is a result of taxpayer rejection of a proposed 25% millage rate increase.

When in June citizens rallied and railed against the County’s planned tax increases, they were warned by the County Commission that without a tax increase, we’d all face painful cuts in services. It didn’t take long for the threat to become a reality. To library patrons, it appeared that the schedule cuts were the first of the promised “painful” consequences of the taxpayers’ rejection of the tax increase. That at least is what we were expected to believe from news reports of a letter posted on the library’s website. In it, library system Executive Director Nancy Stanbery-Kellam explained that the cuts were a consequence of “budget reductions by Gwinnett County’s government.” But to what “budget reductions” was Ms Stanbery-Kellam referring? It couldn’t be the library’s budget.

Despite what was stated in the letter, the library’s funding from the County had not been touched. A review of the County’s Reconciliation Budget reveals that despite $54 million in cuts to the County’s operating budget necessitated by the rejection of the tax hike, the library’s appropriation was not among them. In the original March 2009 budget it’s funding from the County was $18,962,433. In the revised July budget the appropriation was still $18,962,433, not a dollar less than before.

Not only was the library’s appropriation untouched by the County’s budget ax, but its appropriation for the current year was actually $1.5 million more than in 2008. So, not only did the library not suffer any reduction in its appropriation from the County, it was getting more money than had been appropriated in the prior year. In a bit of clumsy, contradictory backpedaling, the library recently claimed that the service cuts were made because its 2009 appropriation was less than had been requested, while County Commission Chairman Charlie Bannister said the library’s service cuts were made in anticipation of future funding reductions. Which is it?

But even if it was anticipating future budgetary cuts, there are many things the library could have done instead of implementing draconian cuts and closures, but didn’t:

• Why hasn’t the library considered increasing or enhancing income sources? For example, the library incurs the full cost of inter-library book loans, rather than change patrons for any part of what is a costly and labor intensive transaction.
• Of all the days to cut from its schedule, why did it cut two that would surely inflict the most disruption to users?
• Why close a thriving branch when they could have redistributed existing resources, content and human, from among the other branches to fill its shelves and staffing?
• With inter-branch loans a common practice, would patrons really notice 15% fewer books on shelves or slightly longer waits for a particular title, or shorter lending periods.

There are many ways the library could have stretched its dollars, if its administrators wanted to. But they chose not to bother.

Citizens of Gwinnett can rightfully ask why they were they led to believe that the drastic reduction in services was because of the County’s most recent round of budget cuts. As early as March the library knew what its appropriation was for the current year. Why did the library wait four months to announce cuts in services? What happened between March and July?

The library’s funding from the County had not changed in those four months. The only thing that appears to have happened is that citizens rebelled against a tax increase, and County commissioners warned of “painful” service cuts. It didn’t take long before a really painful one was announced: the library’s operations were slashed by 28 hours per week. Coincidence?

While it’s true the library’s service cuts are painful, as promised, the implications they are a direct result of Gwinnett’s taxpayers’ rejection of a tax increase or that there were no alternatives are suspect.