While we don’t yet know the outcome of the forthcoming bond referendum, one thing is certain: the intense point of engagement by community members on either side of the issue is rather inspiring.
I am quite happy to see that so many people have stepped forward to take a position and while I would personally like to see the people of Great Neck vote down this ill-conceived referendum, I remain pleased that all sides continue to express their views publicly.
It is worth noting that this publication, the Great Neck News, has made this public debate possible, which is refreshing since not all that long ago, Great Neck was hamstrung by two highly regulated community papers that practiced the art of censoring most critiques of public projects and officials.
As we prepare to head to polls, I am surprised that no one has pointed out what I view to be the fundamental flaw in the library debate, a flaw that exceeds the poor leadership of the library board and its director.
No one appears to have suggested just how inappropriate it is that any expansion and/or renovation of the library is intended to be financed in full by borrowed tax dollars and not through any form of philanthropic support.
The leadership of the library (board and executive) has been so consumed with pushing their reckless agenda that they have neglected their fiduciary responsibility by failing to ensure a process of fiscal discipline for this project.
Their inability to employ an appropriate means and vision to meet the long-term needs of the library is almost as if they were following the playbook of the mayor and board of trustees Great Neck Plaza, save for the lack of photo-ops!
While every municipality on earth should be cutting back and conserving funds, Great Neck has been blessed with a library board that has the ability to tax. Rather than feel the squeeze of the current economy, they have the ability to carelessly grow their annual expenditures since people rarely come out to vote against the budget. So as we muddle through the egos and hopes of a few handpicked public servants, we should be reminded that their arguments lack detail and the process they instituted lacks transparency. Rather than present their case based on the need of the community, supported by actual data, they only seem to be able to push the referendum on the basis that the expansion won’t cost much per taxpayer, per year.
In this very fortunate corner of the world that we call Great Neck rests an enormity of wealth and possibility. Had the library board (or staff) worked in a manner that sought public engagement, they would have intelligently taken the necessary steps required to create a not-for-profit entity that could have worked to raise private money from the community to build (literally and figuratively) a new library. The leadership of the library need only look to other essential community services as inspiration for how it is done: hospitals, universities, museums, houses of worship, etc. Perhaps one day, the Great Neck library will get it right.
Go vote on Oct. 25 to reject a small-minded approach to a real problem: how to create a 21st century library that truly impacts the community.
Michael S. Glickman
Great Neck
