 |
 |
By DEREK MOORE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Several Sonoma County library commissioners were critical Monday of a scathing grand jury report that called their jobs and
Sandra Cooper (CHRISTOPHER CHUNG/ PD)
the leadership of library director Sandra Cooper into question.
“There are some things that we should look at, but it was really one-sided,” said Commissioner Tim May, the group’s vice-chair and longest-serving member.
Three commissioners, including May and Chairwoman Julia Freis, said the grand jury did not contact them prior to releasing its findings on June 28.
Freis said she “disagreed” with the report’s basic premise that Cooper rules by fiat with the seven-member commission going along with whatever she wants.
“We certainly do not rubber stamp everything that our director requests or presents to us,” Freis said.
The grand jury report said Cooper, who was hired as director in 2005, is an “unresponsive” leader who “undermines the spirit” of the 1975 joint powers agreement that created the county’s modern library system.
County supervisors grilled Cooper during a budget hearing two days before the report’s release, with Supervisor Mike McGuire telling Cooper he believed she has been operating the library “like an island.”
Supervisors are calling for a revision of the library’s operating agreement to give them more oversight of the director’s job, including possibly the power to fire her.
But all three commissioners reached Monday said Cooper has their support and they urged caution about seeking changes to the library’s governance.
Commissioners are appointed by county supervisors and by city councils in Santa Rosa and Petaluma. They meet monthly and have authority over the director’s job.
“Longer term, I don’t know that they (supervisors) want that kind of involvement,” said Commissioner Mary Evelyn Arnold, who represents Sonoma. “I thought the supes were kind of busy enough with other stuff.”
Cooper defended herself after the grand jury released its report, saying that she has been subjected to personal attacks by people who have their own agenda, including from the union representing 138 library employees. She said county supervisors had a “legitimate concern” about her not keeping them informed about what’s happening at the library.
None of the commissioners reached Monday said they have ever felt that Cooper has withheld information from them or edited minutes of meetings to paint herself in a more favorable light. Both criticisms were contained in the grand jury’s report.
Freis said Cooper has “weaknesses,” including, she said, “communication, obviously.”
But Freis said the grand jury failed to point out Cooper’s strengths.
“We’ve not closed a branch. We’ve not laid off any permanent employees. I give Sandy Cooper full credit for navigating us through these difficult financial times,” Freis said.
Cooper is the Sonoma County library’s longest-tenured director outside of David Sabsay, who retired in 1992 after 35 years. The library had three other directors prior to Cooper’s arrival. She is paid a base salary of $150,820, plus an additional $39,829 in benefits.
Freis said the grand jury erred in reporting that the director “does not appear” to be held to any objective standards of performance.
Freis said the commission is conducting an annual review of Cooper’s job. She declined to be specific, saying that as an employee Cooper is legally entitled to confidentiality.
The commission has 90 days to respond to the grand jury report.
All three commissioners reached Monday said they do not support replacing Cooper.
“I think she has done a good job under difficult circumstances,” Arnold said. “I support her.”
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
I guess we will find out what Freis thinks the strengths are of the Director this Monday at a special meeting of the Library Board/Commission. She will be put to the test on her quote “We certainly do not rubber stamp everything that our director requests or presents to us”? Because I’m pretty sure the Director will be requesting more time or a better economy or something that would allow her to continue in her present role. My money is on the good old RUBBER STAMP! This Board/Commission has been nothing but consistent since I’ve been following this story for the last three years. First they disregarded the staff, and then they disregarded the public, and then they disregarded the BOS , and then the BOS again, and then the Grand Jury, and then? Well you get the point. NO MORE AND THENS!
The Board/Commission will come out of from behind the doors of their closed meeting and say something that sounds like this:
“Well after careful consideration and a long discussion we have decided to allow Mrs. Cooper to continue to close the Libraries on Monday’s and carry on misinforming the Board/Commission. We will enable her to prolong the agony of the publics desire to have input on the Library’s hours and services. She will maintain her practice of minute rewrites to make herself look good.”
“Furthermore we believe that she will continue to endured great hardship over low balling project costs in an effort to sell them and make readily available inadequate misleading budget estimates to the public at all times. It is our pleasure to provide you the public with the best that money can buy with Mrs. Cooper. Thank you for your concerns. We hope you all have a nice night.”
Trust me your going to want to see this. The meeting will be at the main Library in Santa Rosa on E street starting at 6:30pm on Monday the 16th of July.
The Board of Supervisor should be seriously concerned and questioning the Library Commission in how they handle their responsiblities. Maybe this job is to much for a volunteer. At the July 2nd Library Commission one of the agenda items was to evaluate the Library Director and the item was postponed. Why? Maybe they realized the community was upset and wanted input on the poor perfomance by the Director,hmmm I think so. So what does the Commission do, they call for a special meeting and the only agenda item;the Library Director’s evaluation! A meeting they can assume will have little attendance. How can we expect the Commission to hold the Driector to be accountable if no one holds the Commision accountable. The director will probably have a glowing evalutaion,who knows they may give her a raise.
You’re all over the map, bear, and you are wrong when you say that who pays the most has the most power. The taxpayers, as I said, pay the vast majority of the library system’s bills. But the taxpayers/public are not being well represented or even heard right now.
As for the qualifications for the director’s job, I believe they are having a library science degree and some kind of experience running a libary system. Perhaps that is something to consider changing.
And as for salary level, it is very common for public sector hiring to be done on a “oh, we have to offer the highest salary” basis. In these economic times, that is a notion that needs to change.
We’re talking about the library system here, so I won’t wander onto other subjects as you did.
@Kirsten
Well, sure the public gets to have a big say over the actions of the Library Board. Isn’t that what’s happening now?
But these boards appointed by multiple jurisdictions are almost set up to be slow to react to anything. The issue is how to manage resources (in this case, libraries) that serve multiple communities? So that everyone is equally represented? Or represented to the degree of their financial participation?
Who pays the most and gets the most from the library system? They have the power.
As for median wage arguments, you need to consider the what the qualifications are for various jobs. An MA? A PhD? A law degree? An MBA? Or police, fire and EMT certifications (they are the toughest).
If you want to eliminate waste, look at salaries and benefits for the BOS and other high-level political appointees.
Sadly, chopping those salaries would not solve the budget crisis. And hiring “consultants” to provide comparable services at the lowest possible cost would not result in comparable services.
You guys hate pensions, but they were always part of the compensation deal. But only high incomes allow you to collect high pensions.
Please figure it out.
Why does she get paid so much? Why can’t she get paid the median income for Sonoma county?
@bear: and what exactly are you getting at? Are you saying that the library commission and the director should not be held accountable to the public because they are not directly voted for by the public? Would that make any sense? The public, whether it directly elects officials or not, is ultimately their boss in this country. The people are sovereign, not bureaucracy.
The running of the library has come under serious scrutiny by members of the public for some time now. When we the people see something is wrong, it is indeed our right and responsibility to see that it is corrected.
Local elected officials – elected by you – set up the Library Board. It was intended to reflect the interests of all the cities and unincorporated communities served by the library system.
Short story: you don’t get to elect library board members. And under normal circumstances, who would care? Voters can barely grasp the concepts of State vs. Federal offices, and who does what.
Why not reduce the wages of all public employees to minimum wage, with no benefits? That’s what you really want.
I suspect I would die laughing if the “employment histories” of persons posting on these boards were public information. Why shouldn’t we all know this? In general terms?
I want to know if people in the private sector really have the skills that warrant their wages, benefits, annual bonuses and self-congratulating conventions. Otherwise I might not pay for some private sector services.
Press Democrat:
Please publish the employment resumes of the “board members” who supposedly are skilled at making decisions on behalf of the public.
Oh, wait. Employment skills don’t count for political appointees, do they?
Seems the Board of Sups need to step up and replace their appointed commissioners with people who are willing to serve the public interest and hold the director accountable. That’s a commissioner’s role; if they are not fulfilling it, they need to go too.
Today’s article in support of the Library Director makes it perfectly clear that the Library Board seems to be just as much the problem as the current Director is. Who is accountable here? These Commissioners need to get a clue and wake up. They admit that the current Director lacks good communication skills. One of many essential skills needed to be an effective leader. This along with trust seems to be lacking in this Director. Trivializing the Grand Jury report by reducing it to a tabloid status is unconscionable. Did I miss something in these articles or in the Grand Jury report? Did someone state that they didn’t like the Directors shoes, or maybe they didn’t like her hair? Since when has holding someone accountable for their decisions so easily been dismissed as a personal attack or a lack of communication? This is simply irresponsible. No were have I read anything personal about anyone. Maybe that’s what we need to curb our understanding. How about some history about this Director? What did she do before, for how long? Is she from Sonoma County or somewhere else? This would start to make it more personal. Give me a break; are any of these people even professional?
Houston, we have a problem.
We’ve got both a director and a commission that are too insulated from the public and its needs.
Given that the commission hired Dir. Cooper, it is not too surprising that some commissioners went on record defending her.
But the commissioners had the opportunity to discuss WITH THE PUBLIC their views on the grand jury report but declined to get into any specifics. This in itself is a failure of communication, so obviously it is not only the director who has this problem.
Certainly, the last few years have been difficult ones for the library system. But other organization, both private and public, have also been seriously economically challenged, so it is hardly a unique circumstance. And in such situations, it is all the more important that both the commission and the director communicate transparently and even eagerly with the public, not merely informing, but soliciting advice and assistance as well. Neither commission or director has done this well.
The commission definitely should not dismiss the facts presented by the grand jury report. Dir. Cooper’s mishandling of the money for shelves in one branch is inexcusable. Not to rehash all the details of the report, but if the commission really doesn’t see that there is a substantive problem with this director and with the way that both the commission and the director manage the library system, then others — especially those with authority — need to make it abundantly clear to the commissioners.
I wonder. Can the BOS and the city councils of Santa Rosa and Petaluma recall their commissioners and install new ones who will be more responsive to the public’s needs? At the very least, every supervisor and the councils should talk to their appointed commissioners and insist on some changes in the way they — and the director — conduct library business. These commissioners are all volunteers, but that is a point in itself. Although, I truly appreciate their willingness to give of their time and efforts, if they are not willing to be more assertive and more oriented toward the public, then perhaps this wasn’t the volunteer position to take? Perhaps they could give that some thought?
As has been mentioned, taxpayers fund the lion’s share of the library system’s needs. It is not unreasonable then that the director and commission focus on the needs of the public — as the public perceives those needs.
It’s the Library Board that needs to be looked into. The Library Board is a rubber stamp for the now tarnished library director. They have allowed and tolerated the missteps in management like closing the libraries on Mondays without public comment or input.
They have tolerated the lack of communication with the staff and the public. The Board has allowed the chief librarian to act like her job was to check out books instead of running and managing the library system in the County.
This is a total failure of the Board and the library director. They all need to be replaced and the whole structure reorganized with a substantial salary and benefit reduction for the library director position.
The library board has allowed to many of the libraries to become homeless hangouts with dirty bathroom and crazied people hanging about.
Time for a shake up and a righting of the library ship of fools.
Why is this news?
What else would you want her cronies to do?
Fire her and move on. Time for some leadership.