Letter: Trumansburg Village Board’s Budget Priorities

After reading about the Village of Trumansburg’s Board of Trustees’ budget priorities discussion, I sought out public recordings to listen directly from the source, ensuring I understood. What I heard was far more upsetting than was initially reported. 

I was disheartened to hear Village Trustees bemoan the ratio of library employee salaries and programming expenses. Trustee Horn proclaimed she was “shocked” by the difference between the two, followed by a chorus of agreement from several fellow Board members. Although the meeting aimed to tackle the Board’s obligation to support organizations and how that fits within the scope of responsible spending, most of the discussion was unfairly and inappropriately focused on the Ulysses Philomathic Library.

In reality, the most considerable expense of a library’s operating budget includes salaries, benefits, and continuing education. The most recent annual reports for the other five Tompkins County libraries showed similar overhead vs. programming ratios, all of which are publicly accessible online. Generally, nonprofits should spend most of their budget on staff. 

In fact, spending too little on overhead deprives nonprofits of the competitive salaries, staff training, equipment, and other resources they need for long-term success. And as it stands, only three states pay library workers a living wage on average: Washington, Nevada, and California. A look at annual data provided by the Institute of Museum and Library Services’s annual Public Libraries Survey showed that libraries rely less on government funding than ever before and, as a result, pay their workers less than a livable wage.  

The library, as an entity, is America’s most democratic institution. Libraries ensure everyone can “access information and lifelong learning, strengthen communities and help create a more literate and just society.” Libraries, especially in a small, rural Village without a community center, like Trumansburg, are an important “third place:” a concept coined by sociologist Ray Oldenburg, referring to places where people spend time between home and work, where we build relationships and exchange ideas. And while it’s true, especially for young Americans, that many third places are now virtual – the library provides that, too, free of cost. 

A common thread in the Board’s discussion was the suggestion that the Board should be dangling funds, forcing nonprofits to, as Mayor Hart stated, “sing for their supper.” Or, as Trustee Hannon suggested, “taking the money away for a year to say ‘hey come back next year with something new.’” While Hannon stated this with the addendum that the Board might be open to increasing funding, the overall implication places UPL in the position of pleading for necessary monetary support, perhaps even based on which specific projects or goals the Board finds acceptable or necessary.

And while I commend the Board for its dedication to being responsible and intentional about the utilization of taxpayer money, I’m disappointed at the lack of due diligence taken in achieving a fuller understanding of UPL’s operation and offended by the flippant attitude demonstrated in some of the discussions. If the Board wants to make its funding request process more project-based, it can and should make those changes and be explicit about it. The idea of bringing their approach in line with that of the Town of Ulysses, as suggested by Trustee Darfler, is something with which UPL is already familiar, as they have already successfully navigated the Town’s new process with a broad request to support their operating budget. 

But the suggestion that the Board is putting nonprofits like the UPL “on notice,” as stated by Mayor Hart, is an insulting Hunger Games style of discussing funding. For the local government to suggest that library support be thrown into a catch-all bowl for some grant-style award system in which some years they receive nothing is disappointing. Government support of lifeline institutions such as public and association libraries is not a “handout.” Despite what Mayor Hart insinuated, libraries such as UPL and across municipalities nationwide do not rely on local governments to be “grantmakers.” 

I urge the Village Board to seek expert knowledge from the leaders of its community nonprofits so they can fairly and accurately develop a successful strategy for their budget priorities pertaining to vital support for mainstay institutions like our library. I urge the Board to be more judicious in their approach to and language utilized regarding this topic, carefully reevaluate their perception of UPL’s role in Trumansburg, and educate themselves on its operation, funding, and processes. 

Sincerely,

Molly Wadzeck Kraus

Trumansburg, NY

Full Disclosure: Kraus previously served one year on the UPL Board of Trustees (2019-2020)