A CASE STUDY: My role in the 2008 failed Downtown Library’s renovation and expansion project

(AUTHORS NOTE: The below is prepared as a chapter in memoirs I hope to write for my children and grandchildren.)

By Robert Field

Sitting with the Board of Directors of the Lancaster Public Library, my wife Karen president, I was faced with a difficult personal decision and one with great implications for the general Lancaster community. In order to save the hundreds of thousands of dollars expended to date along with the countless contribution of time and talent by so many, should we pledge to take make up any funding short fall for the renovation portion of what we hoped to yet include an expansion the downtown library?

I cannot recall working any longer or harder on any of The Manor Group’s score of major real estate developments than I with the generous help of others did on the plans to thoroughly renovate and the downtown Lancaster Public Library (LPL). There is a full file drawer and boxes filled with exhibits as testimony to the efforts extended.

It is relatively easy to design a new structure from bottom up. It is many times more challenging to retain and make wises future use of the old portion while successfully integrating it with the new. It is by necessity a process in informed and judicious compromise.

An all new structure would have cost half again as much although it could have been ‘excellent’. Retaining the existing stately building and skillfully integrating the old with the new would achieve a project that was ‘very good’. It was a classic case of ‘not allowing the desire for perfection to prevent the achieving of the good.’

When Shaarai Shamoyim Synagogue, of which I have been member over several decades, renovated and expanded its facilities a few years earlier, the duties were carried out by an ad hoc committee of us ‘heavy hitters’ from the congregation. Although active in their younger years with the synagogue, many, like me, had not been involved with board membership and as officers for many years.

However, the very moment a fateful decision was made by this group for the temple to remain at its downtown location, on the way out the door three of us committed the funds to purchase an essential adjoining building and to donate it to the synagogue so the project could move ahead.

From time to time there were disagreements among the half dozen of us spearheading the undertaking, perhaps some momentary bruised feelings, but there was never any question that we would get the project done.

Thanks to the encouragement and positive influence of Rabbi Jack Paskoff and the active engagement of the current and at least one other past president who were part of our ad hoc group, when the time came the Board of Trustees readily gave final approval for the project.

Though I played an important role, I remained behind the scene, declining to attend and speak at the congregation’s ratification meeting. When we visited the completed facilities, everyone felt very proud of our joint efforts.

At one point Rabbi Paskoff inquired if it would be possible to further widen the opening in a structural wall that restricted the site lines of the enlarged lower level banquet hall. Julie Goldfarb, our general contractor, and I were respectful of how little we understood of the structural design of the 200 year old structure, and we decided that there would be too much risk involved of the two-hunded year old building collapsing if we further removed support without extensive counter measures. Rabbi Paskoff had to be satisfied with the ‘good’ rather than undertake the high cost to achieve the ‘excellent.’

Board members for charitable organizations, be they religious or public charities such as the downtown Lancaster Public Library (Duke Street) usually are well meaning volunteers who are capable with the guidance of management to oversee day to day operations, but they seldom have experience and talent for undertaking non-routine large projects.

Having led the aborted exploration of upgrading the library a few years earlier, before wife Karen had become president, I now was asked to serve as Project Manager to explore its renovation and expansion.

Just as congregants at Shaarai Shamoyim had shown enthusiasm for improvements to the facilities and members with expertise came gladly responded to help, a similar phenomenon occurred as a group of successful professionals and business people with fond memories of the library contributed their services and made up what amounted to an ‘ad hoc’ building committee.

A feasibility study of local financial support was commissioned by the library board and it gave every indication that the project was popular, welcomed, and would be adequately funded. Just about everyone contacted said they had fond memories of using the library and / or bringing their children and grandchildren to the library.

But what we didn’t have, and I failed to appreciate at the time, was active participation by board members except for Karen as President and a local architect who seldom showed up for planning meetings, raised few objections to the evolving plans, but frequently complained about the fee charged by the architecture firm that specialize in library planning and design.

Another member of the board from a ‘distinguished’ Lancaster family reportedly aspired to be president and was only to become active, and in a negative way, days before the pivotal board meeting I was attending.

While the library director made very valuable contributions to the planning, she displayed little enthusiasm to oversee the tumult that would exist during a year of construction and dislocation. At the same time she was giving invaluable advice, she was finding times to proffer her resignation and, did leave, within a year.

We had been most fortunate to enlist as chair of the development (fund raising) committee a professional who performed such duties for a regional college. However, just months before our pivotal meet he had suffered a life threatening ailment and, unknown to all of us at the time, soon was to relocate to a new position in the Philadelphia area. As much of an advocate as he had been previously, he now was understandably hesitant to provide category assurance that sufficient funding would be available. (This came as a shock to Karen and me.)

A few weeks earlier, Mayor Rick Gray had delivered the news that the $3 million in previously promised discretionary state funds that had been promised would no longer be available. It was instead used to complete the Convention Center Project.

Also, in the background, the Great Recession was threatening the livelihoods of board members, most of whom earned a moderate income, undermining their confidence that necessary funds could be raised.

So from the vantage point of many board members who were earning a typical middle class and who feared the potential impact of the Recession on them, there was concern about moving forward although they had continued to authorized large panning expenditures and ‘green light’ the project, in recent weeks.

The library had almost $3 million in its endowment fund, the Feasibility Study indicated that we would be able to raise several million from the community, Karen and I had pledged a significant amount and indicated privately to the fund raising chair that we would increase it by half if necessary. The feasibility study identified good support from the wealthiest members of the community. And through spectacular ‘daring due’, Karen had salvaged a pledge of $500,000 from the state library fund strictly for renovation of the existing building.

The catch from the state was the deadline for the library to commit to the project was for three days hence. So this was the moment for the board to make a ‘go’ or ‘no go’ decision.

We were looking at less than $5 million dollars in renovation expenditures; as much as a total of $10 million if the expansion also took place. The renovation alone would have much improved the aging facility and could have been done in a manner that would have anticipated a later expansion. We were seeking approval from the board to move ahead with just the renovation and, working feverishly with our architects, had come up with a viable plan that was shared acceptable to the state.

I felt certain we could obtain the balance of the funds within the near future so as to include the expansion in our plans! I had know five term U. S. Senator Arlen Specter since I was thirteen and he, along with my older brothers, were fraternity brothers at University of Pennsylvania. As his state wide Finance Chair, I had played a pivotal role in his 1980 initial election as senator, for which he felt beholding. We had helped each other from time to time over the decades. I had often lunched with him in the Senate Dining Room often when in D. C and would see him and his wife Joan at family events.

In the fading days of the George W. Bush administration, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. a $700 billion dollars rescue plan, had been cobbled together to save the economy, in part for “shovel ready” projects. THAT DESCRIBED US! We could place architectural, structural and mechanical plans on Specter’s desk.

With forty years of successfully overcoming the inevitable obstacles and bringing projects to fruition, I felt certain that the renovation project would readily be achieved but, even more importantly, if we had the go ahead form the board, long before ‘breaking ground’ we would have pivoted to the full project of renovation and expansion.

Yet the board members hardly knew me. And it was my failing not to be able to get to know them or, better yet, to find a knowledgeable go-between who would bridge the relationship. Moreover, to my anger and dismay, a couple of board members had partnered behind the scene to scare the already skittish board members into scrapping the project, despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars for plans that the board had already spent.

As I observed that the project was about to go down in flames at the pivotal board meeting, I had to make a decision. Karen and I could have offered to guarantee any fund shortfall for the renovation project.

But if we made such a pledge, the sense of responsibility for the endeavor would pass to Karen and me. Responsibility would no longer be on the board members, not the library staff , not major supporters, note elected officials, not even the community.

How much support would we receive from the already disinclined library board and administration once we took full responsibility upon our shoulders?

As an outspoken opponent of the Convention Center Project, thus crossing swords with the powerful Lancaster Establishment, I feared that potential major donors shut their check books and say “Let Robert and Karen pay for it.”

Then there was the moral quandary of whether it was appropriate to devote still more of limited e funds to the local library at the detriment of other pressing charitable needs?

There was a strong ‘macho’ urge to stare down the objectors and play the role of hero, especially considering Karen’s awkward situation as president with her board about to vote against both of us. But after minutes of deeply contemplating the situation, I decided not to make such an offer. I accepted the largest failure to date of my career.

Karen soon thereafter resigned as president but stayed on the board as treasurer, to which she devotes many hours and much effort. She rotates off at the end of this year but remains an enthusiastic library advocate, as do I.

We have not totally given up on hopes for the renovation and expansion of the library. This time I will watch from the sideline as efforts are again afoot to bring it about, despite an apparent lack of public funding.

The board membership has been much strengthened over the years. But will there be selfless leaders with the necessary experience, wisdom, knowledge, ability, practicality, passion, determination, and leadership skills to bring about the project?

Will these board members be better informed, become involved, and support the leaders?

Only time will tell. We wish them ‘God speed.’