Op-Eds provide an opportunity to provide a range of opinions on editorial pages. However, contributors are entitled to their views, but not to distort the facts.
In “Libraries are fighting for survival” Bill Hudson, Administrator for the Lancaster County Library System asserts,
“The state funding the editorial referred to is distributed by the system, as required by law. What’s missing from the article is the fact that 100 percent of the funds are distributed by a formula created primarily by the directors of the member libraries in partnership with the system board.
“As the editorial noted, the issue of fundraising is a contentious one. That is why the system board had meetings with member library directors, as well as interested member library board presidents. The goal is to find a way to get funding to support countywide programs/services that benefit all the member libraries while, at the same time, reducing the chances of negative local impact. A difficult task for sure but it has been an open conversation with the member libraries, and many are supportive of the discussion.”
At best this is misleading; at worst it is deceptive and arguably a purposeful distortion:
The major point of contention, of which the Sunday News editor certainly should be aware, is that each library has one vote regardless of number of users. To add insult to injury, the downtown Lancaster Public Library, the largest in itself with about 1500 visitors a day, has two non-voting suburban branches that are larger than some voting libraries.
Therefore Hudson’s statement that “the funds are distributed by a formula created primarily by the directors of the member libraries in partnership with the system board” is deceptive.
“One library, one vote” is the issue at the very heart of the controversy because, if voting rights were allocated by the number of people who use each library, there would not only be different policies but a much smaller, less bloated, and and far less expensive Library System.
The Sunday News editor should have insisted on clarification or refused to publish this disingenuous propaganda. NewsLanc certainly would have.
We invite the Sunday News to re-publish this editorial as a Letter to the Editor.
