Formula for Library Closures Is Flawed

* Although I was favorably surprised to see a long overdue [editorial] (“Closing Libraries to Balance the Books,” May 14) concerning the current library crisis in Orange County, after reading it I felt compelled to clarify some of the issues raised by it.

The potential closure of libraries is not the result of the bankruptcy, but rather the lack of attention by library management to a financial crisis that was predicted in 1991 by Price Waterhouse auditors in its Financial Master Plan for the Orange County Public Library. Indeed this lack of recognition of audit observations is analogous to the results of Mr. [Robert L.] Citron ignoring the recommendations and warnings of his department’s audits.

The February, 1994, Orange County Grand Jury report included the results of an audit conducted by Ernst and Young in which numerous observations indicated poor management practices in the library system. Your article properly points out the addition of expensive computer systems as library budgets were being cut; this is one example of errors committed by management.

Contrary to your opinion that a “sensible” formula was used to determine what branches should be cut, the formula was subjective and insensitive to the needs of communities. For example, closures of the Silverado, Garden Grove and the Leisure World branches indicate a lack of sensitivity for the isolated Asian American communities and the elderly, respectively. The “formula” is subjective and divisive.

[County Librarian John M.] Adams has developed a second plan that would keep all libraries open with the reduced budget but refuses to present it to the county supervisors. The Orange County recovery will be hastened by a government that provides solutions based on facts rather than opinions, and cities that look beyond their boundaries to achieve equitable solutions.

GUS KOBRIN

Silverado

* Your recent editorial on the closing of libraries in the county correctly calls attention to a situation which we all agree is awful, but it includes inaccuracies that need to be clarified.

You cite a “sensible” formula used in determining which branches to close. In fact, though the formula may have been sensible, it was misapplied, so that in counting the number of users the months when the west Garden Grove branch had been closed for renovation were averaged in as if it had been open.

A second erroneous impression was given when you state that the remaining regional library in Garden Grove is a large, good facility, capable of absorbing the additional patrons. In fact, though it is a good library, it is jammed with people at almost every hour now, and has relatively little space to handle the needs of a city with a population of more than 150,000.

The City Council of Garden Grove has been working with citizen groups to forestall the closings until other sources of funding can be explored. We are finding a huge amount of community support for our libraries. We do not believe we should bear such a disproportionate share of the library burden.

Closing two branch libraries, both of which have been extensively renovated within the past two years, and both of which have had costly computer systems installed this year, seems unnecessarily wasteful of taxpayers’ dollars. A better solution is to truly share the pain by keeping a limited time schedule for all libraries while seeking alternative funding.

We are surprised and disappointed that your editorial gave tacit approval to such an unfair and shortsighted plan to eliminate a necessary community resource.

TOM and MARGE ENGLAND

Save Our Libraries Committee

Garden Grove