A blog about living in Aberdeen, New Jersey.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Library Trustees Have Served Rice But No Eggrolls

The next Matawan Aberdeen Library Board of Trustees meeting is scheduled for this Thursday. I've been told that Susan Pike, the director of the library, has received her Rice notice, which indicates personnel action against her will be discussed at Thursday's meeting.

Since virtually all meetings on personnel issues must be held in closed session by state law, a Rice notice is an extraordinary exception. It's been in effect in New Jersey for more than thirty years. Named after the court case Rice v Union County Regional High School Teachers Association (1977/1978), a Rice notice grants a person the right to request a public meeting if he/she so chooses.

The politicization of the board comes at an inopportune time. The public would normally put faith in the library's trustees to weigh carefully Ms Pike's years of faithful service against whatever infraction(s) under review and make a fair determination. But the board is "defending the taxpayers" of late and robbing the library's coffers whenever practicable, so what else might they do? Not exactly an atmosphere that nurtures public trust.

I expect friends of the library will fill the place Thursday evening at 7:30 pm.

1 comment:

  1. I'm confused. If I recall correctly, I believe that last year the justification given by the town and borough councils for taking the payment back from the library was 1) the municipalities would appreciate it in the form of friendly review and considerations of special future requests of the library, and 2) failure to promptly and nicely return the monies might jeopardize sweet will of the local governments. This sounds a bit like a protection payment to me.

    And now I find out that the mayors and or their designees are SITTING on the board with an adversarial role against the library, having disallowed the re-appointment of one of the opponents to forking over the surpluses out of the library monies. Is this payback for not kicking back funds soon enough and with a smile?

    Whatever improprieties they are sniffing around for is likely to be chump change relative to $275,000 high-jacked from the accounts last year. (Could be more, could be less. We cannot tell without comparative financials).

    I do not like this Sam I AM, I do not like this crooked scam.