RESPONSES TO ALTERNATIVE REQUEST
The following are responses from Monroe County Public Library Board President Stephen Moberly to questions submitted by The Bloomington Alternative on July 13. The questions are posted on the Alternative Web site.
1. Stipends at MCPL
Stipends were first used at MCPL in 2006 as a pay increase, based on longevity. They were used due to the fact that they did not add to the baseline salaries and that helped to maintain the personnel line in the Operating Budget.
Stipends have since been used, in a limited fashion, to provide incentives for special project work (transitioning the book sale to a book store), to give staff experience and opportunities beyond their normal day-to-day responsibilities (Intern proposal or teaching Spanish language classes), or to accomplish some tasks that have been placed aside because there is not enough manpower to get them done (coordination of public services issues and concerns). The amounts given have been per task and calculated on an estimate of time the project would take to accomplish – above and beyond one’s normal work time.
While the issuance of stipends was thought to be a procedural matter rather than a Policy, Section 3 of the MCPL Personnel Manual was revised and approved by the Board of Trustees in December 2006 to help clarify how and when stipends might be used at MCPL:
3.11 COMPENSATION
The MCPL Board of Trustees sets the minimum and maximum pay rates for all positions annually. These annual pay increases are authorized by the MCPL Board of Trustees as funding is available.
Pay increases may take any form chosen by the MCPL Board of Trustees. Possible types of pay increases include, but are not limited to:
Stipends may also be granted by the Library Director for work above and beyond the employee’s regular job responsibilities and scheduled work time, such as special projects/assignments—i.e., strategic planning process, drafting policies and/or procedures, etc.
No funds are being allocated for stipends in the 2008 proposed Budget.
2. Reclassifications at MCPL
Reclassification is a typical management tool used to realign staff and the organization in a solid foundation, providing clear lines of supervision and equity among workers when it comes to responsibilities and job descriptions. While this has been done at MCPL in the past, it had not been done for several years. The director had waited two years before implementing changes she felt were appropriate. The process used was consistent with previous procedures, except that a form was never found and managers were asked to provide their requests in writing to the director. These were not new positions.
Reclassifications are considered each time a position becomes vacant and before the job is posted. They are also considered annually as part of the yearend review and department/system planning for the coming year. The reclassifications which went into affect in January 2006 were two years in the making as this director purposely wanted time to review staff allocations, departmental organization, work flows, services and the overarching needs before making any.
Pursuant to Section 3 of the MCPL Personnel Manual:
3.9 JOB DESCRIPTIONS/CLASSIFICATIONS
MCPL installed and adopted a job classification system for all MCPL jobs. It is regularly monitored and revised to reflect changes in job duties as they occur.
All MCPL positions have been described in job descriptions and systematically grouped into job classes based on their fundamental similarities.
New job descriptions or any modifications to existing job descriptions shall be approved by the Library Director.
3.10 JOB CLASSIFICATION/PAY SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
Any change in job classification or pay rates must be approved by the Library Director. The Library Director is established to oversee maintenance of the job classification and pay plan. In the event that a department manager wishes to create a new position not currently classified or reorganize jobs within a department, review seniority, abolish a position, or if an employee desires to have a job classification review made of his/her position, MCPL has established the following procedures:
Based on staff input and the need for clarity, the attached revisions were suggested but have not been acted on by the Board of Trustees.
All reclassifications which occurred in January 2007 were based on changing job responsibilities to existing positions and to create consistency among pay grade levels in departments. Rationale for each position reclassified has been provided.
3. Collection Services – Temporary Manager
When the manager of the Collection Services Department retired in August of 2006, the library was in the midst of planning the implementation of a new Polaris system. An efficiency study had just been completed related to staffing, improving work flows, etc. for the department.
A decision was made to hold off posting/hiring a new manager until a.) the staff had an opportunity to discuss and put in place some of the changes recommended in the study and b) make the necessary changes required as a part of the new system. After the Collection Services manager retired, the department reported to the associate director, who was in charge of the day-to-day operations with assistance from the highest ranking staff member there. If anyone served as the temporary manager for the department, it was the associate director.
The consultant, Cynthia Cooper, CWC Advisors, Austin, Texas, who conducted the efficiency study had interviewed each staff member regarding their job, developed the most current knowledge of this department, and had become familiar with MCPL in general. As a result of this valuable background information, she was then asked to spend a few weeks each month – October 2006 through January 2007 at MCPL – to assist with the department’s transition to the new system, work alongside staff, and assist with planning the implementation, representing the needs and interests of the department in the process.
This person continues to work with MCPL today on a recataloging project for materials in the genealogy/local history collection at a rate of $40 per hour with a DNE amount of 70 hours per month. This project has been on the back burner for several years that regular staff hasn’t been able to accomplish with their normal work load. Her work is done on-line via her office in Austin, Texas. It does not require her to be in Bloomington but it does require her to communicate regularly with the new manager of the department who facilitates the project from our end.
We have never paid for travel expenses for her visits to Bloomington. These were included in the costs of the efficiency study that was done and were her responsibility for the project work as well.
Knowledge and expertise in this specific area of the library environment – and an understanding of the current technology needed to accomplish the tasks here – are not easy to find today. In fact, when we posted and interviewed for the position of Collection Services Manager a few months back, we ended up hiring someone internally who we thought could manage people first and then learn the skills needed to develop a broad understanding of this department’s function within a library setting – because we couldn’t find anyone that was a perfect fit for both functions.
4. Teen Programming
All funds for programming are provided by the Friends/Foundation and those specific to Teen Programming at MCPL are managed by the Teen Programming Coordinator. In 2007 the resignation of the Teen Programming Coordinator, due to relocation, occurred as well as a request on the part of the Adult Programming Coordinator to be reassigned duties. Other adult services staff have been filling in while the newly created Adult/Teem Programmer position was posted, interviewed and hired. The new person starts July 16.
Documentation for 2005, 2006, and 2007 provided.
5. Employee Morale
My assessment of the state of the work environment at MCPL is this: there is some anxiety because changes have been made. As was the case with previous library directors, some people like changes, some do not, and some are indifferent.
My assessment of the state of staff morale at MCPL is this: Our staff come to work everyday and do an excellent job of assisting and serving the users of the library and the taxpayers of Monroe County. The staff gets the job done, day in and day out, and for that I am very pleased.
6. Friends of the Library – Discretionary Funds
The Director’s contingency fund line in the annual allocation approved by the Friends of the Library Board is used as the catch all for items not specific in the annual request. (There was no line item for this in 2005. The total amount expended in 2006 was $2,537.45 and YTD in 2007 is $1,284.18.)It is typically used for ALA membership, Rotary and Altrusa dues, retirement gatherings for staff ($100 each), MCPL gifts for retirees, working lunches or lunches when candidates are brought in for interviewing, just to name a few. In recent years it has also been used as a way to adjust actual expenditures verses budgeted amounts. (An example would be when the Friends wished to add additional funding for puppet shows. This increase was pulled out of the contingency line rather than submitting another request through the Friends Board.)
Total amount paid to Mary Ellen McCann for training workshops for staff and consulting services – coming from the library’s operating budget as well as the Friends allocation - at MCPL since 2006 is $7,315.
7. Director’s Personal Loan
Pursuant to Indiana Code 5-14-3-4-(b) 8: “The Library can not release information, other than to acknowledge the Library was made aware of the loan by a formal complaint, the Library investigated the complaint, and there was no violation of the Libraries’ policies.”
8. 2007 Budget Planning – Staff Benefits Issue
Personnel costs are constricting the MCPL Budget at a time when more flexibility is needed to be able to better respond to the needs of the public we serve. Nearing 70% of the Library’s operating expenses, the director presented several ideas for consideration in the planning sessions for the 2007 Budget.
While several of them did not have a direct monetary impact to the Library’s budget, over the long-term they could potentially reduce the financial burden created by high payouts due to retiring staff and health insurance obligations associated with them. (Reducing this obligation seemed less painful than laying off personnel.)
The other thought was to provide some incentive to those staff who had enough years of service in to retire but which might be kept from making that decision to the policies currently in place. The initial thought was to actually increase the Library’s obligation to pay health insurance for those 55 and older who were eligible to retire rather than ultimately reducing it. This would have provided those eligible an opportunity to do so and still have their health benefits paid for until they reached the age for Medicare. This would then take their higher salaries off the books, allow the Library to bring in some new people at the entry level – as well as new ideas, energy and enthusiasm - and provide the security of health benefits to the retirees for five additional years.
The issue of the number of sick days one can be paid for upon retiring was also viewed as a financial liability and a change would ultimately help the Library’s financial status long-term. Many – if not most libraries – ended this practice long ago due to the liability it held. Again, the initial proposal was to cut the number of days to 30 (for all staff – full and part-time), rather than the 60 in place. The Board, ultimately vote to keep this benefit for full-time only staff but to reduce it to 30 days.
Finally, the reduction in the number of sick days one can accrue was viewed as a correction of the existing policy. Sick leave accrual was established to help staff transition from sick leave to disability. Eligibility for that occurs in 130 days – not working days. The Library’s policy allowed for an additional 50 days to be accrued which is not necessary – and, again, another financial liability.
Documentation provided.
9. Director’s Moving Expenses
Initial Board approval was for paying half of the director’s moving expenses – up to $9,000 (MCPL - $9,000), as interpreted by the library’s legal counsel.
Moving expenses were paid for on the Library credit card - as many staff travel expenditures are. It was viewed as the most expeditious way to handle the situation given the distance and multiple expenses that were incurred throughout the 1.5 year process:
Phase 1 – Initial move with limited items to begin work.
Phase 2 – Packing and move to storage once the house in Texas was sold.
Phase 3 – Move from Texas to Indiana once a house was purchased in Indiana.
The director thought payroll deductions were initiated after Phase 2 of her move in March. Once the final phase was completed and the discovery was made that they had not transpired, approval was sought for an extended payback plan.
Legal counsel and the State Board of Accounts recommended that the remaining funds should be paid back by year’s end. That communication was transmitted through then Board President, Pat Steele, and the director paid back the remaining total due on December 22, 2006.
In the director’s opinion, and that of the library’s legal counsel, there was no amount to be reconciled as the total library expenditure for her move was $4,959.10 and up to $9,000 was originally authorized by the Board of Trustees.
10. MCPL Communication
Prior to 2007, the Board of Trustees followed the guidelines in their resource In the Public Trust, which recommended a chain of command philosophy for staff to communicate from the director to the Board. At the Board’s request, staff were funneled through to an administrative staff person (not the director) and then onto the Board. All correspondence from the public that came through the library was handled in a similar manner. The Library Director has always maintained an “open door” policy for employees as well as the public.
In April, the current Board decided to post their personal email address and contact information on the Library’s website. At the same time a Personnel Committee was formed by Board President, Steve Moberly, and these two individuals are to attend the monthly Employee Forums to hear staff concerns and help to develop solutions for them.
The Board of Trustees have met privately with a number of staff members in the last several months. These changes have been well-received and many have thanked us for them.
Comments
Staff Person Did Relocate
The message gets muddied when false information is included.
The Teen Coordinator did leave because she relocated when her husband took a job in another state.
teen coordinator departure
Indeed you are correct; the staff person "did" relocate. However you are incorrect in asserting that her exit was merely for reasons of geographic re-location. The director harassed her as well as several others. That incident was noted in a hostile work environment claim to the board in '06. The board however, never heard the complaint. It was kept covered-up between the board chair and the lawyers.
People leave their jobs for lots of reasons. Unfortunately, in this case, a huge contributing factor was mistreatment and marginalizing of this individual by director Gray.
Ludwig
teen coordinator departure
So, are you saying that they would have stayed in Bloomington if not for director Gray? The teen coordinator's husband wouldn't have taken the job, and they wouldn't have moved?
The past and future
As a member of the MCPL Board of Trustees, I share many of the concerns expressed here. I have made my position quite clear, I think Cindy should resign, for the good of the library. I simply believe that Cindy's past mistakes were out of arrogance,
and lacking a moral compass. I expressed my views in public, and in private meetings with Cindy. I also do not agree with the Board of Trustees refusal to act in a decisive manner when given the opportunity.
With that said, what do we do
ow?
I think we start with an agreement that we will try to move on for the good of the library, and our patrons. What's done is done, and we are not going to change that, (with one major exception, the '06 benefit cuts, which I will address in a bit.) We have no choice
but to try and make this work. Perhaps we can use the strategic planning process to remind us of the important role we play in the community. I urge us all to look toward the future, and find ways to pull us together, and not
dwell on past mistakes that divide us.
At MCPL, positive change will come from the grass roots (that's us), not from the top.
While I strongly believe in leaving past mistakes in the past, there are exceptions. If there is a mistake that can be corrected, then you should not move on until that correction is made.
The mistake I am referring to is the vote in July '06 that cut retirement health insurance benefits. The cut was made in '06, but will not go into effect until January 2008, so we have time to correct this.
This cut should be reversed due to the motive behind the cuts. Cindy used health insurance benefits to target "those people" who did not agree with her, and force them into early retirement. If the employees would not retire early, then they would lose their health insurance benefits in the future.
There is an email, now posted on this blog, that clearly exposes her motive in taking this proposal to the board for action (this email is truly a smoking gun.)This
decision to cut benefits, was not a financial one, it was a management tool used by Cindy to intimidate targeted staff, the cost argument (We can no longer afford to provide this coverage)came later in order to cover up Cindy's true intentions. Don't believe me? Think that no person could do such a thing? READ THE EMAIL, it's chilling, it's mean, and it should be exposed to the public. That email alone should have forced Cindy to resign, and now it is going to become policy in '08....UNLESS WE STOP IT. This cut puts people's health at risk. People have become disabled, and some even die, because they are unable to pay the rising health care costs. and thus denied critical medical care. Are we willing to
risk the health and lives of our most loyal staff, just so Cindy can improve the" culture" at MCPL?
I brought this topic up at the work session last week, and was told by the President, and Vice President of the Board ,that they would not even look at any proposal to reinstate this coverage. It is clear I will not have the votes to change this, and these health care cuts will go into effect in January.
However, if this is going to happen, then at least the public should know the REAL reason for the cuts. It was never the numbers, it was a cold and heartless measure by Cindy to clean house.
I once read a statement that said "Don't tell me about your values, show me your budget." I think those words have merit. What values will be shown in our budget? I'm almost afraid to find out.
Join me at the budget meeting scheduled Aug. 1st at 5:45. If you agree that this is a flawed, cold and heartless plan, then come and speak out. We need public input at the meeting! You really do make a difference!
I think if the benefit cuts in '06 are restored, it would truly set the stage for all of us to move on, to begin the healing process. Let's continue to provide the best service to our patrons that we can.
Randy G. Paul
Trustee MCPL
The Board Knew All Along
To Randy and others on the MCPL Board:
The Staff of MCPL was so happy to be able to e-mail the Board members directly, beause it gave us some hope of being heard without fear of retribution. Many of us truly BELIEVED if the Board was informed of the Director's motives and actions, something would be done. Well, the e-mail that has appeared in these comments is as damning of the Board as it is of the Director. It shows us that (at least some of the current Board members) not only KNEW of the Director's attitudes, but chose to go along with them. This choice was repeated last week by the current Board in Executive Session. The Staff of MCPL will continue to try to uphold the ideals and service that has made the Library great. But it will be even harder now, knowing that the Board doesn't support us either.
As for your call for Director Gray to resign - I'm sure that's a scary proposition. Since she arrived, the Library has "lost" both Associate Directors and the two department managers with the longest terms of service to the Library. Interim leadership of the Library will be very hard to come by as this continues. A coincidence???...I think not!
One of the things Cindy
One of the things Cindy mentioned in her response (the board's response?) was that the teen services coordinator had "relocated". When I spoke on several occasions with the Coordinator, she always mentioned how much she “loved" this job and this library. She left specifically because of Cindy's intimidation, hence the now infamous hostile work environment charge involving the staff association, ignored by two board presidents. Then there are also he recent departures of senior staff members; childrens manager Patty Callison and associate director Cass Owens, who also resigned apparently as a result of intimidation by Cindy Gray.
A prime example of Cindy Gray's modus operandi of intimidation was her meeting with the staff, prior to the library removal of early retirement health care: As she spoke to staff, her manner was gruff, confrontational and generally insulting. I remember even seeing tears on the faces of some older staff members. She demanded resignations "in writing" in five days, from any staff member who wished to retire early and receive medical benefits. Five days? Do you know what that's like after working for an institution for nearly twenty years? Five days to resign in writing, to receive something you've been promised since the day you were hired. Five days to make up your mind; to leave your job, to figure out how to feed your kids, to pay winter heating bills, to cover the car and the mortgage? Five days! The effect of "her offer" was like a gun to the head. Staff members left that meeting in stunned silence.
Here is the unedited memo that establishes the “real” reason for cutting staff benefits:
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 12:42:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: cgray@monroe.lib.in.us
To: trustees@monroe.lib.in.us
Cc: cgray@monroe.lib.in.us, ssater@monroe.lib.in.us
Subject: Re: Staff Benefits - Adjustments? Incentives?
Because of the nature of the resolutions, there are some senior staff who are contemplating retirement now as an option in lieu of loosing the sick time payout and health benefits.
Part of me wants to be benevolent, but on the otherhand these same folks are the very ones who didn't bat an eye at accepting 5-7% pay increases in recent years, which is why they're topped out in their salaries now, and is at least part of the reason MCPL is currently in this position - because we didn't stop giving - or taking as the case may be. To be blunt, loosing some of these folks could indeed be healthy for the organizational culture.
We just need to make a decision on the resolutions - who should/shouldn't be affected and when - and I'll deal with the fallout.
If you want to make them all affective immediately, we know that will keep those on the cusp of retirement on staff longer. Is that more detrimental tht paying health benefits for a 6-9 year period? Again, if you look at the chart, even if all eligible were to take the offer, we come out ahead - financially and culturally in my book.
Meanwhile, I had a fax awaiting me when I arrived today and all it said was, in large letters, "CUT THE HOUSE." I cant only assume they meant not to purchas a home here?
Cindy
The staff benefits memo establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Cindy Gray was using intimidation to "loose" the senior members of the staff; to specifically intimidate and threaten staff members over forty, who, because of their loyalty and years of service, happened to be near the top of the pay scale. This was a clear example of intimidation and age discrimination, as well as the shredding of a decades old promise to the staff.
Then of course there's the $20,000 loan from a staff member she was supervising, and a subsequent kickback bonus of money and preferential work assignments to that employee. Then hiring her "favorites", giving huge raises and preferential stipends, all without meaningful oversight by the MCPL board.
The question is, does all of this represent merely a conflict of interest, or more disturbingly, an abandonment of ethical management practices, a misuse and coercion of her high public office? To truthfully answer that question, leaves but one course of action for a responsible, "awake", public board.
Ludwig
Let's get to it!
To My Fellow MCPL Staff Members and interested Monroe County residents:
As the saying goes “If you’re not OUTRAGED, you’re not paying attention!” What we are reading in the Bloomington Alternative questions, the Board’s answers, and the subsequent comments are still just the tip of the iceberg re: the damage Cindy Gray has brought to MCPL. The Board has completed its Executive Sessions and has decided to “stand behind” the Director (or more accurately, cower behind her!). I urge all staff members and citizens to think about what they’re learning.
The Director’s memo condemns senior staff members for taking an honestly-earned raise and blames them in part for MCPL’s financial trouble. At the same time, she makes a healthy salary, certainly didn’t mind using the Library’s money for her moving expenses, and STILL had to borrow money from a subordinate. What hypocrisy! She certainly didn’t “bat an eye” at paying her colleague Cynthia Cooper $40 an hour while long-standing staff members were scrambling to figure out how to save the benefits they thought they’d EARNED.
And consider those stipends – two of them were given to exempt employees, department managers in fact, who are near the top of the salary level system at MCPL. The amounts may be insignificant, but the message is not. The message is a slap in the face to other exempt employees who have worked on their days off, done library work at home on their own time, or found it difficult to take their EARNED personal time because of library demands. How many staff members have worked extra hours to cover a desk or a program, or to keep up with the ever-increasing demands of the job? How many have pulled double-duty, trying to cover some of the tasks of resigning staff members? How many of these staff members have even been offered a word of appreciation from our Director – let alone a stipend?
But the most chilling statement in the memo is the belief that losing veteran, dedicated, and experienced staff members would be “healthy for organizational culture”. Staff members who are paying attention know that this is a large part of the Director’s plan – to alter the culture of MCPL (which was one of the most respected and successful libraries in the country when she came) and replace it with the Director’s vision of what the culture should be…. NOT the staff’s vision or the community’s vision – HER vision. MCPL employees who have been a part of MCPL’s culture KNOW they are threatened – they are being passed over for advancement, they are being forced into leaving, they are subjected to sarcasm, intimidation, inconsistent expectations, and all manner of internal stress.
Did you notice how the Board didn’t answer the question re: staff morale? It was merely noted that the staff comes to work and does the job. One thing that has affected MY morale is the consistent insinuation that staff dissatisfaction is a result of the staff’s resistance to change. This is just a worn-out excuse for avoiding looking at the real ISSUES. It’s a classic case of “blaming the victims”. I urge the staff of MCPL to stop being victims. Many of you care about what is happening at the Library and many of you have issues that need to be communicated. And many of you have ideas for solutions – it’s not enough just to complain, share your ideas! I encourage you to e-mail the Board members or continue to make online comments. I admit that I’m a bit discouraged that the Board hasn’t listened enough to what has been said. But they still believe the Director’s brainwashing that the staff is resistant to change. They also believe that the dissatisfaction comes from a small group of “troublemakers” on the staff. Let your voices be heard. And let them know the staff at MCPL would, in fact, WELCOME some changes – respect for the culture of Bloomington and MCPL, job security, reduced stress, fairness, consistency, the end of intimidation – these are changes MANY of us would welcome. As an earlier comment mentioned, “We have work to do.” Let’s get to it.
cowed board
Unfortunately, it seems that our board is anything but awake. That the current board can so easily ignore the seriousness of the issues speaks volumes.
What now?
To my fellow staff at MCPL,
I am reluctant to participate in this public banter and airing of dirty laundry, but these “anonymous” musings seem to be written primarily by library staff, and I suspect the majority of the audience is again library staff, former staff, family of staff etc. I apologize for the vehicle- but you are exactly the people I want to reach.
Though I have opinions about the specific controversies above, I would like to redirect all this heated energy to a different purpose.
When I look at your faces I see strain and stress. In meetings, and casual conversation too often our responses are quick to be defensive and suspicious, angry and hurtful. I feel trapped between squabbles and worse as people I care about turn against each other. But I understand. I have also felt under attack and lost faith in trust, have been ever vigilant monitoring what can or should not be said to this person or that person, forced to consider what rumors or suspected allegiances will be constructed if I am seen talking about a legitimate work task with so and so.
Enough.
I work with many wonderful people who find joy in librarianship and service to our community, who value learning and freedom of information. I chose to work at the library because I feel it is a “good thing,” an honorable job, and MCPL gives me the opportunity contribute to a whole that is greater than it’s individual parts. We can only be these things because of our community’s strong financial and other support borne of respect for these same values.
I do not discount the seriousness of our problems. Nor do I in any way want to prevent a potentially healthy dialog about the mutual priorities and obligations of workers and administration. I’m not naive enough to think we can flip a switch, solve our differences with simple whitewash, or save the family farm by “putting on a play.” Clearly, sweeping issues under the rug has not proven to be a success.
Though I am a peace-keeper by nature, I find I “cannot not” fight this fight for our library. Once trust is lost, it is five times as difficult to recover to even a neutral state. Loss of respect is the same.
We have a lot of work to do.
swinba03
leading by example
I am all for repairing the damage, and I work hard for the library and want nothing but the best for it and our patrons. But nothing is going to change until we have a director who leads by example. As 'free speech advocate' points out clearly and succinctly, this director has done an enormous amount of harm to the library's reputation in creating the current situation and is also largely to blame for discord amongst staff. To expect staff to suck it up while this director continues to play favorites, fails to publicly apologize for past mistakes, refuses to seek sensitivity training, hampers real communication, bullies staff, and misspends money is a bit unrealistic. And the board is equally to blame for failing to act and allowing this situation to deteriorate to its current state. The library needs a leader whom staff and the public can trust, who can set an example. Right now we don't have that person, nor do I believe that the current director can magically become that person.
thank you, Alternative, for investigating
The first two postings are right on target: if you read the long responses carefully, a lot is revealed and it’s not pretty. As a person subjected to this library administration, I would like to add a few points:
1. Stipends were never used until this director. Some of the Alternative's questions were ignored: 1) the basis for calculating the stipends; 2) a list of how much was awarded and to whom. At least one of stipend is ongoing.
2. In answer to an earlier question, favoritism seems to play a part of many decisions. If our staff made a list of the director “favorites”, most of the stipends went to those people. In addition, most of the reclassifications went to those people.
3. The extensive policies quoted on stipends and reclassifications were not written and approved until after the director came under criticism for having done those things.
4. It was not consistent with MCPL practice to implement large reclassifications without an opportunity for other employees to apply.
5. If the Collection Services manager job had been advertised when the person gave notice, the position could have been filled before the new computer system, and the person could have participated in all the training.
6. The consultant knew her stuff, but she was here 2 weeks/month. The associate director only handled personnel issues—everything else went to the consultant. The consultant was paid more than any employee except the director, and continues to earn that rate even now.
7. There used to be 2 program people—one adult and one teen. Now there is one. Also the program statistics are terrible because nothing has been done.
8. Morale is bad. If morale was good, do you think staff would be considering forming a union? The most encouragement has been the public reaction and support. Also, the media coverage is starting to offer hope for a change.
9. There were no discretionary funds from the Friends in 2005 because the interim person didn’t ask for that. The money was used to take people to lunch. Is that why people give money to the friends group? Do they give it to pay the director’s membership in Altrusa or Rotary or ALA?
10. The answer on the employee loan admits that there was such a loan. Even if there was no written policy against it, it is highly unethical. It is widely known among the staff that the library director borrowed $20,000 from a subordinate employee and that employee later received a stipend.
11. The director’s interest in the benefits changes stemmed more from trying to get people to retire and leave rather than saving money. She even offered more expensive alternatives--just to entice people to leave--but the board did not vote for that.
12. There seems to be some question about what the board authorized for the moving expenses—the director quotes “interpretation by legal counsel.”
13. Staff travel charged to the library credit card is travel paid by the library. The director simply used the credit card to make herself a personal loan for her own financial obligation. She paid it back, eventually, but lots of employees would like that perk.
14. Originally all communication to the board went through an administrative person, and when it was forwarded it was copied to the director. That had a chilling effect. The staff was elated when the board agreed to hear from them directly. In fact, increasing board awareness is probably what started this whole investigation.
How much longer?
I agree. It's time for the board to step up and put an end to this. And to those who say that it's unfortunate that the library's dirty laundry is being aired on the Bloomington Alternative website, I say that it's a damn shame that the library has dirty laundry--especially when it's of this magnitude and it's occuring in the director's office and seemingly sanctioned by the board.
Spin, spin, spin...
I hoping anyone reading the above realizes first and foremost that the board's response to the questions submitted is an attempt to put these statements in the best light possible. But the reality is that anyone willing to read into these answers will see that while no laws have been broken, there are serious ethical issues at play here.
I, for one, hope that the MCPL board realizes that because something is legal does not mean that it's ethical, and what I'm seeing in the responses above is a consistent pattern of unethical behavior and blatant abuse of power.
Of special note are the credit card loan used to pay for moving expenses and the personal loan. With regard to the credit card loan, the director basically gave herself an interest-free loan using public funds. I'm sure we all wish we could do that. And it doesn't matter that it's not illegal, it's unethical. The director and the board at that time (including former board president Pat Steele) should be held accountable. This is a gross abuse of power, public funds, and the public trust.
With regard to the personal loan (about which the board has conveniently refused to provide details), the director basically borrowed $20,000 from an employee and then rewarded that individual with the first individual stipend and preferential work duties. Maybe this isn't illegal, but, again, it's highly unethical. The citizens of Monroe County should be outraged.
These are but two examples of intolerable behavior. Favoritism via promotions for employees with close personal relationships with the director, the outsourcing of work to a Texas friend of the director's at the rate of $40 an hour, bullying and intimidation of staff, and attempts to coerce long-time employees into non-voluntary early retirement are unacceptable behavior. And the sad thing is that the behavior is ongoing. That the board is covering this up and/or attempting to put a positive spin on it is patently absurd. Again, this is gross abuse of power, public funds, and the public trust.
It's time for the board to step up and do the right thing and stop hiding behind spin and an inability to admit to past mistakes.
Why Anonymity?
I am disturbed by the appearance of posts on this forum written by people who make accusations, suggest ethical lapses or worse, and present only one side of a many-faceted issue. I suspect that some of these posters have an agenda of their own that we cannot know because we don't know who they are. I also object to the Bloomington Alternative's "investigative reporting" that relies heavily on unnamed sources. This is hardly fair and balanced, to coin a phrase.
The HT requires that the name of the author of each letter to the editor appear in print along with the letter. Why is the Alternative unable or unwilling to do this? Let everyone who posts to this forum be identified by name, and let them take responsibility for their words instead of hiding behind an evocative pen name. And let the Alternative identify the unnamed sources for their investigation so we can assess for ourselves how much credence we want to place in their statements.
Let's be fair about this.
Steve Harter
HT online is anonymous
Mr. Harter,
The anonymous banter in the HT online borders on slander and I would not participate in that. People who work for the library director cannot include in their names because of the atmosphere of fear. And much of the conversation here is simply commenting on the responses of the board, which are not "accusations" but supposedly factual board responses; I think this does represent a conversation on the issues. Thank you for adding your own viewpoint.
you're wrong
Readers post anonymous comments on the H-T site all the time. You only have to submit a name if you want your letter to appear in the print edition. But the real issue is that staff are reluctant to sign their names for fear of retribution. That's really a no-brainer.
Reply
I didn't realize that the HT online allows anonymous postings. I stand corrected, and of course I oppose that as well. That fact doesn't address my main point though, does it?
I understand that fear of retribution is given as a reason for anonymity. I don't buy it, especially given the current state of affairs, in which the anonymous posters appear to have the upper hand. I think it is cowardice.
Steve Harter
anonymous posting
Dear Mr. Harter,
I also dislike anonymous postings. But we're talking about about a director who will tell people to line up and support her and make veiled threats about what will happen to them if they do not show support. Staff members have been cursed and yelled at. Reclassification is arbitrary in both directions. And the Board, with one member excepted, has supported her. There is no way our staff can sign their names, unless it's on a letter of support.
Steve, not sure this actually makes sense?
I think the upper hand is the hand, which controls the purse strings? I'd like to see more non-anonymous postings but when you are an employee working in a situation where the administration likes to tell their employees that they work 'at will' I think you can understand emotional and economic reasons for anonymity. Anonymous postings have a long history throughout American history:
"Common Sense, Paine's pro-independence monograph published anonymously on 10 January 1776, spread quickly among literate colonists"
--Thom, no relation to Tom Paine unfortunately. 8-)
All religions are the same: religion is basically guilt, with different
holidays. -Cathy Ladman, comedian, writer, actress (1955- )
reply
Dear Thom and Mr/Ms free speech advocate --
Both of you make very strong statements about the atmosphere in the library and its administration. I do not know whether these statements are absolutely true, somewhat true according to one's interpretation, or completely false. Perhaps you do. If you do, and if you have supporting evidence that you obtained in person (rather than via second- or third-hand hearsay from someone else), I would urge you to present yourselves to the Board personally and present your statements to that body.
Thom -- innuendo, libel and slander have also been around a long time in American history, not to mention slavery, lynchings and discrimination. Having a long history is not necessarily a good thing.
Steve Harter