MILFORD - A letter, read at last week’s Pike County Commissioners meeting, critical of the current Pike County Public Library Board and administration, has prompted a response.

At Wednesday’s meeting, Current Library Board Vice President Tom Hoff read a letter in response to last week’s letter, read by former board member read by Bill Griffin, raising several allegations. 

Hoff’s letter responded to five of the nine points made in Griffin’s letter:

The board was unable to raise sufficient funds for operations in the past four years.
The Dingmans’ Branch construction in 2002 was funded by a mortgage for $665,000 rather than any private fundraising or grant applications. The operational costs for it increased by about $87,000. Because the former Board failed to raise private donations or obtain any grants, almost half of the PCPL’s $200,000 appropriation was needed to pay for the mortgage and operating costs. By contrast, the present Board determined not to begin construction of the new building unless it had raised at least 75% of the capital cost in grants and donations. The current Board, once elected, implemented stringent operational cost controls and reductions and began fundraising and grant writing for operations, so that the operational budget has been cut by approximately 20% since 2008, and the PCPL has obtained in excess of $120,000 in grants for the past year alone.

The board used poor judgment in the handling of finances resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The present Board assumes that the statement is in reference to the fact that, since the recent challenges to the independence of the Library Board, some donors have requested that their pledges be rescinded and their funds returned. It is hardly poor judgment on the Library Board that the tax referendum did not pass and threats to the board’s independence have caused some donors to request a refund.

The board showed poor judgment from the beginning by focusing solely on an $8.5 million design and ignored a responsibility to the entire county library system.
This was felt to be a silly allegation. The Library Board decided in 2002 to expand first in Milford. In 2005, as a result of the Milford restricted gift by the late Dorothy Warner, the purchase of the Harford St. site was unanimously approved by the then board. The present Board simply inherited a plan for a new Milford Library. They were asked to handle all aspects for a project that had already been decided upon. The current board came into voting control in 2008 and actively sought and identified good locations fro branches in Palmyra and Lehman Townships. The former board members had decided in 2002 to not expand in those locations.

The board demonstrates a difficulty in maintaining positive relationships with public officials or anyone who disagrees with them.
This board has done outreach to more than 50 community groups in the past 6 months alone. Prior boards made no effort to hold community picnics, do outreach, or form the kinds of volunteer committees that we have recently formed. We have engaged civilly with anyone and everyone who has sought to engage with us.

This board has paid out excessive amounts for public relations and lawyers on a campaign for a million dollar referendum.
The current Board has succeeded in obtaining legal services pro bono. The only legal fees incurred in the past three years had resulted from the actions by the Board of Elections and the county solicitor. We believe the expenses incurred for the referendum were entirely reasonable. They were less thanthe reported campaign expenses for a number of other county-wide voted over the past several years.