Tobin Brinker: "We must consider" closing library branches

Very gutsy move by Tobin Brinker.

Have to give the man credit as he is likely to take a considerable amount of heat over this on two fronts: he is a teacher and the cuts would particularly impact the West side.

I think Brinker is spot on though when he talks about creating technological kiosks.

I think the city would be far better served by bringing technology and internet access to our lower income neighborhoods. Books are and will always be important. You can never replace the tactile nature of sitting down and reading a book.

With that said, I believe that for a fraction of the cost, we can provide 80-90% of the services we currently provide through our traditional libraries via technological kiosks.

I can't say that I have always seen eye to eye with Brinker, but I applaud him for standing up and staking out a tough position.

Thanks you for reading and commenting.

Leaving aside the issue of more technology-driven or smaller, even mobile libraries (which are legitimate concepts), there is clearly no way to spin shuttering the two libraries in our city's poorest communities as a net-benefit to the people living there.

More broadly, cutting in half the already meager library footprint (4 facilities) in this city of 200,000 seems like a cut deep into the bone.

Further examination is needed: How much could be saved? How much would be lost (ie. an audit of how many people rely on these libraries for books and Internet access, for instance)? And what other city departments are asked to tighten their belts?

These are questions to which we as a newspaper must seek answers.

In short, this is about politics - ie. who gets what share of finite resources.

All that said, one can conclude at this early juncture that closing two libraries in historically underserved and impoverished neighborhoods seems, on its face, like a particularly distasteful cut. The community deserves robust dialogue and explanation before any such move is made.

Robert Rogers

Using technology to replace the branch libraries is a good idea to me.

I say this because my children have gone to the branch library on Marshall to do research for school reports only to call and say that they need to be driven to the Feldheym library because the book they need isn't at that branch library. This hasn't happened one time - it has occurred several times (and those books were never at the other branch libraries).

Also a lot of research for school is now done on the internet. In fact one of my daughter's reports was supposed to use only internet sources.

With technology like the internet and e-books the whole collection of books from the San Bernardino libraries could be available to all citizens through all branches of the library.

Another thing to note is that Dr. Clark did not have information on the usage of each branch at the budget meeting. This is an important aspect of determining how these satellite branches serve the community.

Also has anyone polled the community on what they use at the libraries, and what is needed to make the library more useful?

I find it interesting that while the library states the need for computer access for the impoverished, at the same budget meeting our Police Chief (not more than 15 minutes earlier) announced that the Police Dept. would be shutting down the physical Community Service Offices and will be replacing then with an online "Virtual Community Service Office" model.

We'd better keep those libraries open so that the residents who don't have internet access can file complaints for the Police Dept. at the library.

Thanks for reading and commenting CJ.

I won't elaborate much more on my ealier response to Mr. Turner.

But you did bring up something new with Chief Billdt's announcement about looking to close those community policing offices.

This is a whole new topic that needs to be explored. I will say that the short-term impact of replacing physical community offices with an online model would very likely be a step back for people in poorer communities, who are more likely to not have high-speed Internet and/or not be Internet proficient.

I must confess I know little about the cost savings or other exigencies the chief must deal with in this case. But I do know about the digital divide that persists in our poorer communities and can with confidence conclude what I said above.

Robert Rogers

Robert:

Everyone knows that over the years, the library budget has been under enormous pressure.

And at the outset, I acknowledged the fact that the West side would be injured (with respect to library services) by this potential cut.

Obviously, there isn't a net benefit to the West side, if one is purely looking at library services.

However, if the choice is between cutting police or fire services (versus cutting library funding), the West side would be far better served and this would be a net benefit.

With that said, I do not believe that it should be an either/or discussion and that there is plenty of waste throughout the city that can and should be looked at before cuts are made to legitimate services.

I particularly find it distasteful that City Manager Fred Wilson, who has been at the helm of this ship for many years (and presided over these budgets) has been rewarded for his fiscal mismanagement with raise, after raise, after raise...all the while calling on EVERYONE else to tighten their belts.

Fred Wilson makes over $17,000 a month, plus another grand in deferred comp, another $500 in a car allowance, plus great benefits.

In January, he received a raise of 5.5%. Yet, he knew that we were facing tough fiscal times.

It is the height of arrogance and the ultimate manifestation of the classic "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality by another out of touch bureaucrat.

How is it exactly that he can accept a raise with a straight face and in good conscience when he is asking others to "trim the fat" and he is responsible for this budget situation?

And to add insult to injury, he gets a $500 car allowance while the average resident of San Bernardino schleps off to work in their own car, on their own dime?

It begs the question: If running a city into the ground to the tune of a purported $17+ million dollar deficit constitutes a job well done and merits a pay raise, what on earth could possibly be considered poor job performance?

Thanks for responding again, Joseph.

You make some interesting points. Clearly, the city manager's hefty raise seems to run counter to the city's fiscal trouble and should be further investigated. I believe my colleague Andrew Edwards has some interest in that story.

I will note one thing you said which I think may be less clear than you make it out to be: You wrote: "However, if the choice is between cutting police or fire services (versus cutting library funding), the West side would be far better served and this would be a net benefit."

I don't think we can draw that conclusion without any evidence. Unit costs are an important factor here. If, say, shaving a $1 million from the meager library budget (what is it, $4 million?) results in the closing of two libraries, the question is how much would shaving $1 million from police/fire impact service quality on the Westside? Would that mean 8 fewer officers on duty? One less fire engine company? Would those losses be more or less costly politically, socially and economically than going from 2 neighborhood libraries to zero.

I don't know the answers to these question, at least not yet. I merely am saying that reasonable people may not be ready to concede your point that the Westside would be "far better served" by cutting one service instead of another. I think more information is needed to draw that conclusion.

thanks again,

Robert Rogers

There is an arrogant indifference about Brinker’s proposed cuts which highlight concerns in regard to the manner in which city officials view and relate to west side residents. I find it hard to ignore the fact that the third ward councilman chose controversial cuts in the poorer sixth and first wards while avoiding offending the more affluent and politically influential members of the communities who just so happen to reside within the wards represented by council members who like Brinker have received financial support from police and fire representatives. I guess this explains the pick your poison manner in which councilman Brinker chose to present his “uh excuse me,” their proposal. Possibly the councilman would care to enlighten us on this curious development?

There are so many troubling aspects to this episode that I doubt we would be able to touch on half of them within a reasonable amount of space but I suggest we at least try. So I’ll start by asking where were council members Johnson and Estrada? Judging from the silence and delayed reactions from them, I wonder if they weren’t caught by surprise, or maybe they were simply asleep at the wheel. Is the council in such a state of flux that they have been reduced to a collection of political lackeys blindly pushing the political agendas of special interest groups to the detriment of those they have been elected to represent?

I also question the reasoning behind the cuts. Why propose something as controversial as closing libraries when as Joseph Turner pointed out “there is no net benefit.” Why fan the embers of a smoldering political “not to mention racially sensitive,” fire to the benefit of no one within the affected communities? I suppose the councilman is playing politics, showing his constituents that he is looking out for their best interests. Or maybe he truly subscribes to the “vile maxim of the masters,” which is. “All for ourselves, and nothing for other people.”

I don't know if the cause is obdurate in nature or simply a case of the councilman acting out of selfish interest or stubborn prejudice. What is apparent is he is ignorant of the passionate fears he is inciting with his callous disregard for the long term impact such cuts would have on those communities.
Mr. Turner’s acknowledgment of "the fact that the West side would be injured,” is proof that there are factors at work here which are as much a threat to the security and safety of the sixth and first ward communities in the long run as an immediate curtailing of police and fire services.

If I might I would encourage our Mayor, council and city management team to be reasonable and fair in their efforts to reform the city. Success relies on their ability to adopt and enact measures which reform without punishing, to cure without disenfranchising those segments of our community who have not the resources to participate financially in the political machinations of the elite.

Estrada and Johnson were not "asleep at the wheel" - they jumped out of the car.....they left the meeting early.

In reforming this city the community MUST participate. It is the community that elects the Mayor and Council; it is the Mayor and Council who determines who is the city management team. If any or all of these pieces of this reform are not performing as needed then it is up to the community to call attention to this and change it.

The community can change things - you have to attend the city council meetings and let our elected officials know what we, the community, think.

Not only the "elite" can change things. However the "disenfranchised" are not interested in changing things - they don't show up at these meetings - to watch or speak. Not many for the community - elite or otherwise - show to participate in our community - that is why it is the way it is!