Dayton Library board approved budget

DAYTON—The Board of Trustees held its regular meeting on Monday, November 28, 2022, which included a public meeting on the proposed budget. All Trustees were present for the meeting. Approximately 30 people attended in person, with another ten or more on zoom.

Before the public meeting on the budget began, Todd Vandenbark, Director of Library Services, presented his director’s report.

The Director said he would soon hire an independent contractor to provide cleaning services for the library. No one answered the job posting until after the library raised the rate from $22.50 to $35 on advice from the Dayton Chamber of Commerce.

Vandenbark addressed the recent requests to reconsider certain materials from the collection. Under library policy, the books in question were reviewed by the Director and returned to the collection; some have already been checked out. He and the staff have relocated some books to locations to serve age-appropriate readers better. The lower floor of the library has been rearranged to separate age groups and the parenting shelf more effectively.

He read a statement issued by the American Library Association on censorship, including their belief that “all ages, all individuals have the freedom to speak, the freedom to publish, and the freedom to read as promised in the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The unfettered exchange of ideas is essential to the preservation of a free and democratic society.”

Vanenbark presented a line-item summary of the proposed budget. Under revenue, he discussed the request for the annually allowed 1% increase to the levy, which the library has taken in past years.

The library lost about $44,000 of revenue from the Columbia Pulp Mill. Vandenbark said he would not fill the Public Services Coordinator position until those funds are replaced.

There were some increases in revenue from various library services, including copying and faxing. Non-resident fees were also up.

Expenditures saw increases over last year. Wages and benefits were raised to address inflation.

Cost for professional services increased due to outsourcing accounting duties and a lawsuit brought by a former employee. Vanenbark clarified that the costs associated with the suit are being covered by insurance, including legal representation. The library would incur a cost only if there is a judgment made against the library in the case.

There were capital improvements to the facility, including two new heat pumps to replace the furnace which are more efficient and cost-effective.

Outside of the Library’s control is an increase in the cost of the state audit. Last year, it was $7,500, and to prepare for the next audit, the estimated cost is being taken over the next three budgets.

After the summary, the Chair, Jay Ball, opened the meeting to public comment on the budget only. Most were complimentary of the Director and the trustees’ work on the budget.

The Board approved the budget unanimously and moved on to New Business.

Vandenbark again discussed the policy for requests to reconsider collection materials. He proposed two changes to the policy, asking the board to change the days he must respond to a request from 60 days to 30 days.

The second adjustment requires anyone who submits a request to have first read or watched the material in full. The Director gave an example of complaints received from people who had not read the books in question but were responding to information printed in the Dayton Chronicle.

Vandenbark wanted to make sure patrons were aware that should they disagree with his review results, they have the option to present their case directly to the Board.

Beleny asked why the policy says only one complaint and review can be attached to a single piece of material. He felt there should be a way for the Board to hear all the complaints concerning material. Other Trustees agreed that they would like to be given all the complaints, though once a decision had been made, it should not be revisited. Beleny agreed it should have an end but wanted the opportunity for all the complaints to be heard.

Ball opened the meeting to public comment, first to the visitors on Zoom.

One commenter, reacting to several Zoom participants who were not using their true names, said, “We need to stand up and say who we are and be respectful of each other. “

Attendees on Zoom can participate in real-time chat during meetings. These can be open to everyone or specific people logged in. One participant using the name of Phoebe’s alter ego on the sitcom “Friends” was the only attendee, in person or online, who used explicit descriptions to attack the Director, disparaged others at the forum, and tried to engage others with insults.

The Chair asked that commenters remember to identify themselves as he opened comments to the audience in the Delaney Room. Several commenters were concerned that not enough has been done to minimize underage readers’ contact with inappropriate material.

Vandenbark asked anyone with concerns to come in and see for themselves. Appointments can be made with him during library hours or after hours if needed.

One commenter suggested the Director give a brief description of the library’s layout at the meeting instead of meeting with people separately. The Chair said the Director could describe the layout of the lower level, which houses early readers, youth readers, and young reader sections after comments.

Vandenbark explained that at least one of the books reviewed had been on the parenting shelf on the lower level. That section has books for parents and for parents to read with their kids. That shelf has been relocated.

One person wanted to make it clear that she was not talking about censorship. She did not have a problem with politically correct or books on racism. What she did not like was sexually explicit books in the same room as young readers.

The meeting ended after the Director gave a detailed description of the lower floor’s layout. He explained the reasoning behind the new arrangement of the sections. One suggestion he had received was to put up tall dividers to separate the age groups. Vandenbark said this would not work since it would inhibit the sightline needed by library staff and parents with multiple children.