In an effort to resolve what has been described as an inadequate distribution of Jasper County’s rural patron library funds, a new funding formula was developed by the Jasper County Library Board. The change won’t go into effect until the 2014-15 fiscal year, though.
Jasper County Library Association president and Prairie City Public Library director Sue Ponder and her former city administrator’s inquiries, ultimately led to a follow-up audit on the rural circulation numbers Lynnville and Sully had been reporting.
“At the December (2012) Jasper County Library Board meeting, which was her (the former city administrator) first and only meeting as a member because she moved, she brought up her feelings that there was some inequalities in the funding,” Ponder said. “The JCLB asked me if I would research with the county how the funding is distributed.
“So I did that and they asked me to come back with recommendations from the JCLA,” Ponder continued.
Ponder said she contacted her regional library service office, which she said sent her nine different examples of how county funding is distributed in other counties. She then set up a JCLA meeting on March 28, where the librarians selected six of the scenarios to vote upon.
“Scenario Two won (the vote) 3-2,” Ponder said. “Lynnville and Sully chose not to vote for any of them. So I just told them I would make the recommendation to JCLB and I would recommend both scenarios, since they were only one vote apart.”
Scenario Two involved distributing 50 percent of the Rural Supplemental funds equally among the libraries. Another 25 percent would be based on hours of operation and the other 25 percent would be based on rural population by ZIP code.
The other selected scenario, involved distributing 50 percent equally and 50 percent by rural population by ZIP code.
After that meeting, the Sully Hometown Press quoted Sully Mayor Gordon Yarrington saying:
“The county library board will change the funding to suit the libraries in cities with lower rural usage,” Yarrington said. “If these libraries would increase their rural usage, they would receive more county money.”
Ponder presented the scenarios to the JCLB on April 15 in what was described as a “special meeting.” Representatives from both the Lynnville and Sully communities let their opposition to the proposal be known during the meeting.
All three members of the Board of Supervisors were present at the meeting, and Baxter Community Library director Marie Van Beek estimated at least 30 citizens were in attendance.
“The purpose of this special meeting is a discussion on the proposed scenarios for distribution of county monies as suggested by the JCLA and the possible change of bylaws,” JCLB President June Hjortshoj said.
However, due to time constraints, the meeting was adjourned without a resolution being met. After that meeting, Newton Public Library director Sue Padilla, who also attended the meeting, commented on the matter.
“I just hope they come to an agreement that is fair to everyone,” Padilla said. “I don’t know which one (scenario) it’s going be. We’ll see what they (JCLB) come up with.”
Van Beek also commented on the meeting.
“If the other libraries get more money, then they can improve their collections and then get more checkouts,” Van Beek said. “Checkouts will follow the money.”
The JCLB met again on April 29.
“On behalf of the Lynnville Library Board, I would like to apologize,” JCBL secretary and Lynnville Community Library Chair Marlis Van Zante said. “In the fall of 2011, we hired a new director. Since that time we have been struggling with new procedures, policies, everything. Things were just quite in disarray.”
“In February of 2012 we received a letter from the state librarian informing us that our numbers looked like they were inflated,” Van Zante continued. “We held a board meeting and decided we must do a complete audit of our database.”
Van Zante said the audit was performed by Lynnville Community Library Director Barb Hoogeveen, herself and an assistant librarian.
“We found many, many indiscretions that should not have been in there” Van Zante said. “Since that time, I think our numbers that we turned in this past year are reflective of what we now feel are proper and right. We apologize for any problems we caused to everybody else.”
“However, this last meeting (April 15) was quite an eye opener,” Van Zante said. “Not only has our city decided to step up, but our Chamber of Commerce has decided to help us and we have decided to start a new Friends of the Library (group).”
Van Zante said that they would agree to vote on the population-based measure for the distribution of funds. The JCLB wound up voting for the population-based scenario to be approved, but failed to ratify its new bylaws due to technicalities and set the date for another meeting.
Ponder showed her support for the population based scenario.
“Population is a pretty black and white number and it’s verifiable,” Ponder said.
Also during that April 29 meeting, the Lynnville library publicly announced it had returned a portion of the rural population money they received for the current 2012-13 fiscal year.
“That new librarian (Hoogeveen) down there is doing her best to get this stuff taken care of,” Ponder said. “She is an extremely honest person, she found some discrepancies and she is just a very honest person.”
Ponder went on to say she didn’t think Lynnville returning its funds would be as beneficial to Prairie City, as the city itself funds 90 percent of its library, but said it would be beneficial to the other libraries that only receive county funding.
“A library has to have a base amount of money to improve some of its services,” Ponder said. “Some of the smaller libraries whose cities don’t or can’t support them like Prairie City does, they have to have money to work with to increase their selections and offer more programs.”
On May 21, the JCLB held another meeting and officially changed its bylaws to reflect the new distribution process for Rural Supplemental funds.
“Reimbursement is on the basis of 50 percent of funds split equally between the seven libraries involved in the JCLA and 50 percent of funds distributed based on rural population by ZIP code in compliance with Iowa Code,” read Article III, Section 5 of the Bylaws of the Jasper County Library Board.
To some, the new bylaws became the end of the rural funding debate. Yet, some questions remained. Why didn’t the Jasper County Board of Supervisors become involved in the matter further or how come the county didn’t notice two of the smaller libraries receiving an incredible amount of funding?
Jasper County Auditor Dennis Parrott provided those answers.
“Basically, we have appropriated their money and we have allowed that library board to determine their own formula for allocating the funds.” Parrott said. “When you read the (Iowa) Code that is what it is going to tell you.
“Supervisors don’t have any authority over the Library Board,” Parrott said. “Iowa Code basically states that the board shall appoint and shall appropriate funds for their operation. If you want to give more, you can. After that, the Code instructs the supervisors to keep their hands off of it and let the Library Board determine their own operations.”
Parrott said he advised the board to stick with Iowa Code and keep a very hands-off approach.
Ponder summed up what the funding change will mean.
“I think it will be a great change. It will be more adequate,” Ponder said. “I think all these library directors do a great job and work really hard. I have no hard feelings towards any of them and I hope it all works (out). We are here to do library business and be a source of information and activities for the community.”
Staff writer Ty Rushing may be contacted at (641) 792-3121, ext. 426, or at trushing@newtondailynews.com.