LIBRARY STUDY COMMITTEE

55 Maplewood Terrace

Springfield MA 01108

April 22, 2003

Mr. Joseph Carvalho III, President

Springfield Library and Museums Association

220 State Street

Springfield MA 01103

Dear Joe,

I am very disappointed in your April 18 letter which contains your response to my April 10 request for information. As you are fully aware, our study committee was created by a 9-0 vote of the City Council and as such must be considered as an arm of the Council itself. Thus, it is really the Council which is asking for information and it is the Council that you thwart in spite of the fact that without the Council=s annual appropriations SLMA would be unable to survive. I trust that you will quickly reconsider those specific responses which were negative in your April 18 letter. A reversal of your position on those items is necessary so that the ultimate recommendations of this committee can be based on a full analysis of all the requested information rather than on the basis of a short-sighted and contemptuous rejection by SLMA of requests for information to a city government and its taxpayers which have contributed $72,492,327 to the SLMA over the last ten fiscal years.

We are troubled by your comment that the volume of material we have requested would take months to retrieve. That is not so and I dare say that you know it is not so. Your statement as to item 3 (in which we requested SLMA financial statements from 1983 through 1995) that the Avolume of work@ we are requesting relative to the production of said statements Ais impossible@ and you will not comply with that request is illustrative of your refusal to comply on spurious grounds. Rather than it being an Aimpossible volume@ of work, I went to the historical museum the other day, obtained SLMA=s financial statements for the years in question and in one hour=s time photostated all of them. So much for impossible tasks. Joe, the request was a simple one. It could easily have been complied with. Don=t bother now, I=ve got the essence of what I wanted in those statements and we=ll move on to other items.

I reiterate our request for #5, with this exception. I have received from Tony Basile, the City Auditor, the detail on the 1999 bond issue of $4,000,000 and the 2001 bond issue of $2,900,000. If there were bond issues between 1987 and 1998, I need that information from you. Furthermore, only you can tell me the actual amount spent on any of your projects in which City bond funds paid all or some of the cost.

I again ask for the information in request #7. Is it too much to expect that in your records there is a file or two as to the recent Sixteen Acres addition? I=m sure it=s there. We need to see it.

Between Mr. Dunbar and your auditor you are fully capable of answering #8. We want to know about the branches and that includes Mason Square.

Your public protestations of cooperation with this City Council study do not square with your refusal to answer as to the expenditures for capital improvements at the Central Library over the last 15 years. Your attempt to cut back to one year is insulting.

As to the Mayor=s Recommended Budget for the last 10 years, I am sure that you also have those. Joe, you originate them_ However, in the spirit of Camp David, I will reduce the request to the last 5 years.

In your financial statement every year you have a revenue figure for monies received from the State and Federal governments. We want to know the specific items which taken together total the line item found in your statements. Five years was an appropriate request. You should be embarrassed not to comply. However, to move forward we will modify these requests (items 12 and 13) to 3 years.

As to item 17 we want Mason Square included. We would be willing to modify the dates to January 2002 (which you agree to provide) and either January 2001 or January 2003. As to item 18, we ask for 3, you offered one. Let=s settle for 2. OK?

In order to understand the whole picture, we need to have facts for the whole picture. Part of the SLMA picture are the museums. Please include the museum figures in #19.

I reiterate verbatim my request #20. We want 3 years with not only the number of volunteers but the cumulative number of hours.

As to item 23, in using the words Aperpetual trust,@ I took those words from Note 8 of your 2002 financial statements. As of June 30, 2002 the SLMA had $25,876,521 in permanently restricted net assets. With the exception of $205,053 of that amount which is for works of art, I want the detailed information asked for in this request. Let us see it. What are you hiding? The principal we are acting for (the City Council) gives you millions of dollars every year. We are not the enemy_ Just give us the information and let us digest it for what it=s worth.

Item 24's request is similar to item 23 but it is directed to specific investments. Look at the asset section of the June 30, 2002 balance sheet. There is an item, a little more than halfway through the list of assets, which is referred to as AInvestments, at fair value@. $2,822,232 is listed on that line under Aunrestricted - operations@ - $1,150,000 is listed on that line under Aunrestricted - plant@. The total is listed as $3,972,232. That is the amount as to which we want you to provide the information spelled out in the request.

On item 26, only deliberate obstructionism would cause you to limit your answer to one year. Please, you have the reports, now provide them to us.

As to 27, we will accede to your three years proffer.

Why are you so difficult? You have the museum attendance information (Item 28) Do we have to fight over every single request? It certainly is germane to know how many visitors there are to not only the libraries but also to the museums when SLMA is closing (and even selling) some branch libraries whose attendance may be higher than some of the museums with lower attendance. We just want to understand the whole picture.

Your refusal to give any information in 29 and 30 to your fund raising revenues and expenses is very frustrating and somewhat shocking. Note 9 of the 2000 statement indicates you spent $964,270 on fund raising and marketing, Note 12 in 2001 indicates $983,841 and Note 13 in 2002 shows $1,036,650. These are major sums of money. One could operate 3 or 4 branch libraries for those amounts. Are we getting our money=s worth? Is it cost effective? An analysis of income and expenses in this area is essential. There can be no retreat in our demand for this information. However, just to make your day, we do reduce 29 and 30 from five to three years.

Joe, I=ve called several times. You tried me once. Let=s sit down together. ASAP. In your office. We can cut through a lot of this much more effectively if we are face to face. Just let me know the time and I=ll be there.

Best wishes,

Charles V. Ryan

P.S. On April 17 I sent you my requests for information on Mason Square. This is a vital issue. The SLMA violated its fiduciary duty to the City in unilaterally and secretly agreeing on the Urban League deal. You cannot have the benefits of a partnership with the City without living up to the partnership duties you have of candor, full disclosure and consultation. This is a major policy decision involving a significant asset of our library system. Over the last 48 years by far the lion=s share of the aggregate cost of maintaining the branch was borne by the City. SLMA then persuaded the City Council to bond for $575,000 to help with the recent renovations. This interest of the City in the property cannot be laughed off or ignored. Indeed, a constructive trust for the property in question has been created to the extent of the City=s financial contributions to the real estate and book collection vis a vis SLMA=s financial contributions to the same. It is imperative that all of the Mason Square requests be responded to affirmatively and promptly.