INTERIM REPORT OF CITY COUNCIL LIBRARY STUDY COMMITTEE

TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF SPRINGFIELD

April 23, 2003

SLMA=s Plan for the Closing of Three More Branches

Recommendations

 

History

 

On February 10, 2003 the Springfield Library and Museums Association (hereinafter called SLMA) announced that it was firing 42 employees (18 from the libraries and 24 from the museums) and closing the Forest Park, East Springfield and Liberty branch libraries because of being informed that its budget was being reduced by $200,000 for the balance of fiscal year 2003.  The closing of the three branches was done without any notice to or consultation with the City Council or any of Springfield=s citizens.

 

Several protest gatherings took place followed by a City Council meeting on March 9, 2003 at which time the Council unanimously passed an order by a 9-0 vote creating the City Council library study committee and charging the committee with the responsibility of studying the feasibility of the City taking over the operation of the library system from SLMA.  It directed that the Committee file a report with its findings and recommendations no later than June 15, 2003.

 

The City Council order provided that each neighborhood council and civic association could designate one member of the committee and that the nominations should be completed on April 1.  On April 9, 2003 the committee held its organizational meeting and created appropriate subcommittees to work on various facets of the study.

 

On that same day of April 9, the SLMA board of trustees culminated several months of secret negotiations with the Urban League for the transfer of the Mason Square branch library property.  Once again, no notice was given to or consultation had with either the City Council or the citizens of Springfield.  The shocking news of this clandestine arrangement has caused your study committee to file this interim report on an emergency basis.  In this report we propose to

a) set forth certain facts about the SLMA that we have already determined

b) convey to you the facts we have discovered so far about the Mason Square matter

c) outline the rest of SLMA=s blueprint or plan for the extermination of further branch libraries

d) set forth certain principles of Massachusetts law relevant to the City=s relationship with SLMA

e) make interim recommendations to you for your consideration and action

 

 

General Facts About SLMA

 


1.  Over the years the City Council has been generous to SLMA.  It is clear that this Council and its predecessors feel that our system of one central library and nine branches in various neighborhoods of this 31 square mile city is essential and must be maintained and supported.  It has not been easy over the last several years and significant relief is not yet visible on the horizon even though we all know that our economy runs in cycles as it alternates from good to bad and eventually back to good again.

 

By the budgetary decisions of the City Council, Springfield=s taxpayers have given $124,386,384 to the SLMA over the past 20 years, with $72,492,327 of it allocated during the most recent 10 years.  Breakdowns of these figures are given to you in accompanying Exhibits 1 and Exhibits 2.

 

An examination of the financial statements of SLMA over the last seven fiscal years indicates that in each one of those seven years the revenues of SLMA exceeded expenses.  Indeed, the aggregate amount of surpluses over said seven years was $18,090,301.  This astonishing and welcome piece of news is further accentuated when one realizes that the $18,090,301. result was achieved even though one of the Aexpenses@ deducted from revenues was the non cash expense of depreciation.  This so-called expense totaled $8,526,106 even though there were no out of pocket payments reflecting the depreciation amounts.  In other words, if the depreciation item were not deducted as an expense, the SLMA would have had a 7 year accumulated surplus or excess of revenues over expenses of $26,616,407.

 

More good news in a tough economy is found by noting that SLMA=s financial statements in that same seven years reflected a gain in their net assets from $18,176,257 in 1996 to $57,123,545 in 2002.  Most organizations, whether business or non-profit, would be delighted with a tripling of their net assets over that particular 7 year period of time.  And yet, the mere reduction of $200,000 in February has resulted in a steamroller being activated which has already (in 2 short months) claimed 4 branch libraries as victims and shortly threatens, as we shall inform you, 3 more branches in the immediate future.

 

The detailed information as to the annual operating surpluses and the tripling of net assets is found in Exhibit 3.

 

2.  Even though we are still waiting for some of our production of information requests to be honored by SLMA, we can tell you in very general terms that the total cost of our library system according to SLMA in fiscal 2001 was $6,612,968 and in fiscal 2002 it was $6,689,383.  We need to be able to analyze the component parts of these figures thoroughly in order to make judgements as to how many central office expenses are being charged to the libraries and whether or not said charges are fair or unfair, in line or out of line.

 

3.  The initial response of Mr. Carvalho to our specific requests for information was extremely disappointing. We were expecting and hoping for the kind of assistance and cooperation from Mr. Carvalho and his staff that he had promised in his public statements.  To date it has not been forthcoming.  Our initial request of April 10 for some 30 areas and the cover letter accompanying it are marked Exhibit 4.  A supplementary request of April 17 for 7 areas of information with respect to the Mason Square branch is Exhibit 5.  Mr. Carvalho=s written response of April 18 is marked Exhibit 6 and Mr. Ryan=s further letter of April 22 to Mr. Carvalho is marked Exhibit 7.

 


A review of these documents will illustrate that the SLMA willingness to produce information is so limited it can be termed grudging.  From a substantive point of view it is inadequate and does not furnish to the Committee the information necessary to responsibly carry out the Council=s charge to us.  We hope for a change in attitude on the part of Mr. Carvalho.

 

Two areas especially should be red flagged for you at this juncture.  The first is their unwillingness to give us any Mason Square information on the grounds that it has been sold.  As you will see later in this report we believe the purported sale to the Urban League is not only wrong but it is also illegal and should be challenged by the City Council.  Therefore, our request for information as to Mason Square is vital to the Council and should be insisted upon.  Secondly is their refusal to extend to the committee any information about the SLMA=s fund raising expenses and revenues received by SLMA through its fund raising activities.  This is an area of significant expense: $964,270 in 2000; $983,841 in 2001; and $1,036,650 in 2002. Indeed, with that level of expenditure, 3 to 4 branch libraries could be operated.  We need the detailed breakdown of funds donated because of fund raising efforts along with a detailed breakdown of the expenses incurred, both salary and non-salary, in the fund raising and development area.  Is this a good expenditure of money?  Are the efforts cost effective?  We can ascertain the answers to those questions only if we receive the information we requested.  Mr. Carvalho=s letter informed us of his refusal to give the requested data on the grounds that our request was not Agermane.@  We urge the Council to support us on this matter for, if indeed these large expenditures are unjustified and money is being wasted, in whole or in part, the ultimate penalty will be paid by the branch libraries as they are closed one by one for financial difficulties when the real cause of the difficulties may well be occasioned by mismanagement and bad decisions in other parts of the SLMA operations.

 

 

The Mason Square Branch Library Matter

 

On April 5, 1952 a resident of the Mason Square neighborhood, Annie G. Curran, died. She left the residue of a substantial estate in her will to the City Library Association of Springfield (the SLMA is the acknowledged successor to that association) "to use for the purposes of establishing and maintaining a branch library to be located on State Street in the vicinity of Winchester Square@ (Winchester Square was renamed Mason Square about 25 years ago). The size of the residue was about $1,000,000. The cost of building the branch library in 1955 was approximately $250,000. For the 48 years said branch has been in existence the primary supporter of it from financial point of view has been the City with supplemental assistance coming from SLMA with monies from the Curran Fund.

 


In 1998 the SLMA came to the City Council and represented to it that $1.2 million was needed for capital improvements to renovate the Mason Square library, that the various improvements set forth were necessary to insure that the job of providing library services could be carried out effectively in the years ahead.  The changes that were delineated were substantial and fundamental and clearly would extend the life of the facility in a first class manner for well over another 50 years. SLMA asked the City Council to bond $575,000 for these expenses and said that it would take the balance of the funds out of the Annie Curran fund and its own plant fund.  SLMA knew that the City bonds would have to be repaid by Springfield taxpayers over a 20 year period.  Acting with trust and confidence in the SLMA and relying on the partnership relationship which mandated honest, candid and loyal behavior to the City and on the representations that said bond items were necessary for the long-range health and effectiveness of the Mason Square branch, the Council in December 1998 and January 1999 voted said bond by an overwhelming margin.  Five members of the present City Council were members of the Council in those years and voted for the bond.  The building was closed during renovations and only reopened a year and a half ago in October, 2001.

 

On April 9, 2003 the SLMA board of trustees voted to close the Mason Square branch library and sell the land and building to the Urban League on June 1, 2003 for $700,000.  Said library presently has a collection of about 36,000 books and periodicals.  Under the terms of the agreement with the Urban League, somewhere between 3000 and 5000 books will be left in the facility on bookshelves in the area of the building which will be used for the Urban League office and operations.  Loans will not be tracked by using SLMA's automated circulation system. There will be no SLMA staff people in the facility after the sale except for the part time services of one Youth Services Research Librarian who will come to the building by appointment.

 

The closing and sale of the Mason Square library, a major policy decision to be sure, was negotiated secretly between SLMA and the Urban League. There was no notice, input, request for consultation or participation by the City Council, the City Council Study Committee, neighborhood groups or citizens of the City. Indeed, the clandestine nature of this was carried to such extremes that the chairman of the SLMA Board of Trustees, Donald D=Amour, the SLMA President, Joseph Carvalho, and the SLMA Library Director, Emily Bader, in attending a meeting of the SLMA Library Advisory Committee two hours before the full Board of Trustees was to vote on the Urban League deal, refused to give any information whatsoever about the upcoming vote even though they were strenuously questioned about it by two advisory committee members who said they had heard rumors of a sale to the Urban League.

 

This refusal to divulge or consult with its own advisory committee occurred in spite of the fact that the Advisory Committee was created some years ago by the Board of Trustees for the specific purpose of giving advice to the Board of Trustees.  The next day, after the fact,  Emily Bader confessed to members of the Advisory Committee that she had been going to inform the Advisory Committee about the Urban League deal the preceding day but did not do so because it appeared to her that Donald D=Amour did not want the matter disclosed to the Advisory Committee.

 


As of June 30, 2002 the value of the Curran Fund on the SLMA books was $2,293,829. The action of SLMA in entering into the Urban League transaction puts the entire Annie Curran Fund at risk.  Her will, cited above, is crystal clear that her bequest must be used by the defendant "for the purpose of...maintaining a branch library...in the vicinity of Winchester Square."  The SLMA has announced that with the sale of this property, it will no longer maintain a branch library at the Square.  The Urban League certainly is not going to operate a branch library. Library Director Bader on April 10, the day after the trustees vote to sell to the Urban League, gave a one page memo to the advisory committee outlining the library related uses of the building under the Urban League ownership.  The memo is marked Exhibit 8.   Thus, we see a breach of faith by the SLMA of Annie Curran's conditions and explicit directions. The failure to continue a branch library could leave the Attorney General of Massachusetts who must assume jurisdiction under General Laws, Chapter 12, Section 811 no alternative other than to declare that the gift has lapsed and forfeited because of the closing of the library. Should that unhappy event occur, the people of Springfield will at that juncture be deprived of any further benefit from the Curran fund which is the largest library endowment SLMA has ever received in its 125 year history.

 

According to members of the Advisory Committee who were at the meeting, Mr. Carvalho told members of the Advisory Committee on April 10, 2003 (the day after the trustees meeting) that the purchase price which would be received from the Urban League would go entirely to the SLMA to replenish both the Curran fund and its own plant fund.  The $575,000 contributed by the City would not be reimbursed. The expected continued use of the library for at least another 50 years had dwindled to 1 2 years while the taxpayers of Springfield are left with the grim responsibility of annual principal and interest payments on the bond of another 18 years.

 

The assessed value set by Springfield's Board of Assessors of the Mason Square branch library property before the recent renovations was $672,000.   SLMA is selling it to the Urban League for only $28,000 more than the assessed value in spite of the fact that $1,200,000 in value was added to the property over the last 2 to 3 years. This raises the serious question as to whether or not the Urban League transaction was a sweetheart deal without any bids.

 

It is ironic and nonsensical that the branch which has the most substantial endowment of any of the library buildings, including the Central library, is being marked for extermination.  The Curran fund has been of substantial assistance to the Mason Square library for over two generations.   Annual operating assistance from this fund in 1997 was $64,395.  It has risen steadily over the intervening years with the figure ultimately reaching $200,372 in 2002.

 

It is submitted by your study committee that the Urban League deal which had been in the works for several months is outrageous.  It is a cruel and unwarranted blow to the citizens of the greater Mason Square area of Springfield and an affront to all fair minded people wherever they live.

 

 

SLMA=s Plan for the Closing of Three More Branches

 

For a city that loves its libraries the way Springfield does, the last 2 months have been a nightmare with the sudden announcements of branch closings and, in the case of Mason Square, the actual sale of a facility which has primarily been maintained for 48 years with the dollars of Springfield=s taxpayers.

 


These closings were the result of decisions made by an out-of-town board of trustees (8 of 32 members are Springfield residents) in closed sessions where the rule is that no member can divulge what happened in the meetings other than the chairman (Mr. D=Amour) or the President (Mr. Carvalho).  There is no public input sought or allowed.  There is no press coverage allowed in the meetings.  This claustrophobic veil of secrecy exists even though roughly 85% of SLMA=s funding comes from public funds.

 

On April 9, 2003, 3 hours before the trustee meeting in which the Mason Square library was sold, Chairman D=Amour, President Carvalho and Library Director Bader attended a meeting of the Library Advisory Committee.  Atty. Patrick Markey and Joan Ryan were among those in attendance as members of that group.  The first part of the meeting centered on SLMA=s list of priorities for future closings of additional branches.  Director Bader repeatedly alluded to an anticipated 20% cut in funding to SLMA.  She indicated that in the event the cuts were 20% that the order of closings would be Mason Square[1] East Forest Park, Pine Point and Indian Orchard.  Ms. Bader went on to say that because the 16 Acres branch is heavily used and because the Brightwood branch might be eligible for state and other funds as it is located in the poorest neighborhood, they would not be closed.  Chairman D=Amour stated that if and when libraries closed, it was likely that the first three on the list would be closed at the same time.

 

Mr. Markey asked Mr. D=Amour to convey to the trustees the strong preference of the Advisory Committee that if the libraries had to be closed at all that they should be closed only temporarily.  He stated that he expected the state=s economy to improve at some time in the future and that he could not fathom how a one time 20% cut in city funding would require the permanent closing of six libraries.  He concluded by saying that he would hate for us to be in the position of no longer having branch libraries when additional funds for such libraries became available in the future.

 

This is grim news!  Three were closed when only $200,000 was cut in February.  Mason Square was sold in April even though there were no further budget retrenchments and the Annie Curran endowment was available.  Now, 3 more are targeted if in fact there is a 20% additional cut back in funds.

 

You, especially the five of you who voted for the library renovations bond in 1998 and 1999, have got to ask yourselves what kind of primrose path did they take you down.  Not only did you vote $575,000 for Mason Square and $175,000 for Liberty Street, but you voted $900,000 for East Forest Park and $1,350,000 for Indian Orchard.  In a matter of another month or two, if SLMA is allowed to continue running this system and if budget cuts in the magnitude of 20% do occur, all that we will have left of our once proud 7 branches will be the privilege of paying for the cost of the renovations for another 18 years.

 


SLMA has never had its business decisions or its judgments challenged.  The fact that its meetings are private and unreported, along with the unique relationship it has had with the Springfield Newspapers, have served to cast its activities in a warm, feel good light.  But perhaps it is time for a more penetrating analysis as to whether or not they are effective managers.  It is clear right now that staff morale is very low, that 4 branches are down and 3 additional branches in significant danger.

 

The accumulated surpluses of the last 7 years and the tripling of net assets should have given SLMA enough strength to weather our present Arainy days@.  If in fact they were so close to the edge that a $200,000 reduction would cause a total of 4 to drop by the wayside, and a potential 20% cut knock out 3 more, they never should have asked you in January 1999, only 4 years ago, to vote a total of $2,800,000 in bonds for the branches in question.  Seemingly, all that was accomplished was to spend a lot of money we did not have to put the buildings in first class condition before we close them and eventually sell them.

 

 

Certain Principles of Law Having Applicability to This Study

 

We have thoroughly researched the Massachusetts law on fiduciary relationships and constructive trusts.  For your convenience we have not only cited the relevant propositions of law that are applicable, but have cited the specific cases in which the quoted passages are found.

 

1.  Fiduciary relationship

 

SLMA clearly has a fiduciary relationship with the City.  This can be established on either of two separate grounds: partnership/co-venturer or trust and confidence. For over 100 years the City of Springfield (hereinafter referred to as "The City") and Springfield Library and Museums Association (hereinafter referred to as "SLMA") have acted as partners and co-venturers to bring free public library services to the people of Springfield. Through their joint and cooperative efforts there has been created a library system consisting of one central library and nine branch libraries serving well over a million visitors per year.

While there appear to be no written contracts of memoranda of understanding between the City and SLMA as to their respective rights and responsibilities as partners and coventurers, the partnership and co-venturer relationship has remained essentially the same throughout their long relationship.


Annually the SLMA officials prepare a budget for the operation of the entire library system and request the City Council to appropriate the necessary funds.  Earlier in this report we have quantified the substantial amounts they asked for and you provided. The City Council and past City Councils of the City have paid out these vast sums of money without any written contractual undertakings by the SLMA because it believed in the many statements and, indeed, protestations of candor, cooperation and loyalty to the City which have been and are being regularly made by the officers and trustees of SLMA. In a word, the City Council over the years has put its faith, trust and confidence in SLMA's expressions of partnership, coventure and stewardship. The SLMA knew of said trust and confidence on the part of the City Council and encouraged it to exist and flourish.

The partnership arrangement between SLMA and the City left the SLMA with the responsibility of making day by day operating decisions with the understanding that major policy decisions could not and would not be made without agreement between the City and SLMA. Obvious examples of major policy decisions were the decisions to build the main library and branches in Forest Park, Memorial Square, and Indian Orchard prior to World War I, the decisions to create new branches in East Springfield and Liberty Heights between the two great wars, the decision to build and staff the Mason Square branch in the early 50's, the decision to create the Sixteen Acres branch in 1965, the decision to create the Pine Point branch in 1970, the decision in the 1980's to close the Memorial Square branch, sell the building and relocate the branch library into the public school serving the same neighborhood, the decision in 1998 to create a new branch in East Forest Park, double the size of the Sixteen Acres branch, make major capital improvements in the Indian Orchard and Mason Square branches and finally the decision to close the Central library in 2002 and 2003 for a $3,000,000 renovation to that facility. These major policy decisions in each and every instance were made by both the City and SLMA acting in concert. Indeed, because of the nature of the partnership and coventure it would have been unthinkable for either the City or SLMA to do any one or more of these projects unilaterally. The above decisions involved very significant expenditures by the City and appropriations by various City Councils and were carried forward by the City only after importunings, requests and presentations by SLMA and representations that the facilities in question would be used in carrying out the joint mission of the partnership to provide first class library facilities to the people of Springfield.

 

We can look at several cases to see what duty is owed.  In De Cotis v D@Antona, 350 Mass, 165, 168 (1966) it is stated that AWhile the enterprise continues, joint adventurers, like partners, owe to one another the utmost good faith and loyalty.@  This duty is amplified in Meehan v Shaughnessy, 404 Mass. 419, 434 (1989) where the court added with respect to one partner=s duty to another A(partners) were obliged to consider their copartners= welfare, and not merely their own.@  The case of Markell v Pfeifer Foundation, Inc., 9 Mass App. Ct. 412,443 (1980) is noteworthy for the following: AApart from the strictly fiduciary relationships (trustee-beneficiary, executor-legatee, attorney-client, guardian-ward, etc.), the law recognizes the existence of fiduciary responsibilities arising out of other relationships of trust and confidence and provides a remedy against one who abuses the confidence reposed in him by another turning it to his advantage.@  Finally, we call your attention to the words of the eminent Judge Cardozo in the case of Meinhard v Salmon, 249 N.Y. 458,464 (1928) wherein he wrote AJoint venturers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty.  Many forms of conduct permissible in a workaday world for those acting at arm=s length, are forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties.  A trustee is held to something stricter than the morals of the market place.  Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then

 


 the standard of behavior.  As to this there has developed a tradition that is unbending and inveterate.@

 

2) The duty to Disclose

 

 The case of Reed v Little Co., 256 Mass 442, 448 (1926) states that AThe duty of honest advice and full disclosure arises where one party reposes confidence in the integrity of another...@  On page 449 the Court says AIn the case at bar the parties did not deal at arm=s length...When confidence is reposed and accepted, the person trusted ...is...liable for concealing facts which by reason of the relationship he should disclose.@  It is clear that SLMA had a fiduciary duty to the City Council as the appropriating body of the City to disclose its intentions to close the 4 branches in question and an even more significant duty to disclose that it was negotiating to sell the Mason Square real estate, without any bidding, at a price that was open to question and was going to retain all of the proceeds of the sale.   Shelley v Smith, 271 Mass. 106, 115 (1930) reiterates the familiar rule that partners owe each other the highest degree of good faith and fair dealing in all partnership matters and continues Anone could rightfully violate that duty for his own advantage.  The duty devolved on each to disclose to the others any material facts to transactions connected with partnership interests.@  The Markell case, cited above, also states on page 444 that AWhen confidence is reposed and accepted, the person trusted is...liable for concealing facts which by reason of the relationship he should disclose.@   The fiduciary duty owed by SLMA to the City has been significantly breached by its non-disclosure.

 

 3) Fraud

 

Our courts view the fiduciary relationship as a very serious matter.  A breach of the fiduciary duty is dealt with in harsh terms.  The court has gone so far as to state in Samia v Central Oil Co of Worcester, 339 Mass. 101,113 (1959) that a Amere failure to reveal may be fraudulent where there is a duty to reveal.@  Jamesbury Corp. v Worcester Valve Co., 443 F.2d 205, 209 (1st Cir. 1971) held that silence can be fraudulent concealment by a person, such as a fiduciary, who has a duty to disclose.@  To the same effect is Puritan Medical Center v Cashman, 413 Mass. 167, 176 (1992).

 

 

4) Constructive Trust

 


Barry v Covich, 332 Mass. 338, 342 (1955) is authority for the following propositions: AA constructive trust may be said to be a device employed in equity, in the absence of any intention of the parties to create a trust, in order to avoid the unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of the other where the legal title to the property was obtained in violation of a fiduciary relation...@  The Court went on to say AIt is difficult to define the exact scope of this remedy because of the diversity and variety of the different forms which came within its sweep....  This equitable doctrine has frequently been employed, and our present tendency is to extend its availability....where there has been a breach of a relationship long described as fiduciary.@  Another way of stating this doctrine was employed by Cardozo, J. In Beatty v Guggenhein, 225 N.Y. 380, 386 as he stated AWhen property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience obtain the beneficial interest, equity converts him into a trustee.@

 

The law of constructive trusts has powerful significance with respect to ownership interests in the library facilities and collections which nominally may be in the name of SLMA.  To the extent said facilities and collections are the result of expenditures by the City rather than SLMA, the city=s interest should be recognized and protected on a pro-rata basis.

 

Of more pressing interest is the application of the constructive trust rule to the Mason Square facility and collection.  In this case, applying the facts as we understand them and handicapped by not having seen the Urban League purchase and sale agreement (we have requested it), we appear to have all the ingredients for the application of the constructive trust rules.  For example, there has been a breach of the fiduciary duty owed by SLMA to the City, the City has spent far more money than SLMA on the property and its contents over the life of the branch, SLMA fraudulently did not disclose its 5 month negotiations with the Urban League and to the extent that SLMA tries to keep all the proceeds of the sale and the City receives nothing, there is unjust enrichment.

 

 

Recommendations

 

1. The prime recommendation as of this moment is to enact an ordinance which would create a municipal library department.  This should be put in place immediately so that the Council will have an alternative vehicle at budget time to the SLMA for the library funds it appropriates.

 

It is too early to say what the final recommendations of this study will be relative to the City assuming control of some or all of the libraries.  It is evident, however, that SLMA has washed its hands of Forest Park, Liberty, East Springfield and Mason Square.  Thus if those facilities are to be operated it will have to be done by an entity other than SLMA.  Added to this is the statement by Director Bader and Chairman D=Amour of the closing of Pine Point, East Forest Park and Indian Orchard if budgetary cutbacks hit 20% more.

 

It is prudent to get ready now, so that the City will have an entity in place if it is necessary to appropriate some or all of the funds for libraries to some group other than SLMA.

 

We would recommend that said department have its affairs managed by a library board composed of 5 citizens of Springfield appointed by the Mayor.  It is envisioned that the ordinance would use as a model the structures set forth with respect to the police, fire or park departments.

 


2.  We recommend further that the City Council pass a resolution which objects in the strongest possible terms to the closing of the Mason Square library and the transfer to the Urban League.  The resolution also should condemn the secrecy of the process and the breach of SLMA=s fiduciary duty to the City.

 

3.  We recommend finally that the City Council President and the Chairman of this Committee meet with ChairmanD=Amour and President Carvalho to tell them of the community=s strong opposition to the Mason Square contract, to inform them that we consider it illegal and request them to rescind the proposed Urban League deal.

 

 Respectfully submitted

 by

 THE CITY COUNCIL LIBRARY STUDY COMMITTEE

 

 

__________________________________________

 

Charles V. Ryan, Chairman

 

 

 

 

 

 



[1]This was especially disingenuous of Director Bader for she was well aware that Mason Square would be voted to be sold a couple of hours later.  Chairman D=Amour and President Carvalho did not challenge her on her Mason Square statement and the Advisory Committee was left with a less than true presentation.