The joint meeting on October 29, 2024, was a unique experience in my journey of public service. I arrived at the meeting and was invited to sit directly with the Executive Committee and the Library Director for the non-profit Samuels Public Library. While I didn’t know it at the time, I had been recommended and voted in as a Trustee-at-Large, and I was suddenly thrust into a direct, face-to-face dialogue with the County Board of Supervisors.
A Dialogue on Accountability
I wasn’t there to give a formal presentation; I was there to listen, understand the Supervisors’ next moves, and provide clarification where needed. When Supervisor Jamieson questioned how the library handles public interaction, I shared our process—reminding the Board that our meetings are open, our notes are public, and the community has direct access to us.
When Supervisor Cook raised concerns about public comment restrictions, I provided specific details of our bylaws, clarifying that we allow five speakers for five minutes each, with the ability to waive those rules as needed for the community.
The “Grant” Perspective
One of the more interesting exchanges concerned the framing of the county’s $1 million appropriation. Supervisor Cook described it as a “grant.” I noted that in a typical grant-making relationship, the grantor typically does not sit on the board of the organization receiving the funds and does not make decisions about how those funds (and others) are applied.
I asked a simple, clarifying question to move the needle: “Is there some kind of value that you’re expecting from the library that you’re just not getting?” I wanted to understand if there were specific performance metrics they felt were missing.
Bending Without Breaking
I also shared with the Supervisors the “thick air” and the stress our staff had endured during months of uncertainty. It was important for them to hear that the library had already made significant, expensive changes—rearranging collections and adjusting policies—well before the MOA was even proposed.
We demonstrated a willingness to cooperate, but I also touched on the IRS and legal constraints that limit how much a 501(c)(3) can “bend” toward government control without losing its charitable status.
The MOA and the Reality of 5 vs. 9
The conversation inevitably turned to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Supervisor Jamieson argued that a proposal for five county-appointed members would not constitute a majority. While I stayed focused on the dialogue at hand, the documents tell the full story. Per the library’s Bylaws, the minimum board size is nine members.
In that mathematical context, five appointees would indeed represent a voting majority. While I didn’t push this specific point at the table that night, having that document in hand was vital for understanding the weight of the “compromise” being offered.
Looking for a Path Forward
The meeting ended with an offer to “talk offline” to provide a better breakdown of operational costs. This meeting was a chance to humanize the board and show the Supervisors that we are serious about transparency, even as we protect the legal independence of the library.
Watch the Interaction
The following video is a clip of my thoughts, responses, and the context that led to them. The full video is available on the Warren County government website.
- 0:41 – Clarifying the library’s public interaction and open meeting policies.
- 3:01 – Responding to the “Grant” framing and the role of grantors.
- 5:14 – Asking the Board about the “expected value” they feel is missing.
- 7:17 – Mentioning the “sunk costs” and changes made by the library prior to the MOA.
- 8:40 – Highlighting the IRS and legal constraints on nonprofit boards.
- 9:52 – The dialogue regarding board representation (5 vs. 9).
- 11:10 – Offering a breakdown of operational expenditures (lights, staff, maintenance).
This video clip focuses primarily on my interaction with the supervisors. The whole meeting can be found on the Warren County Swagit link: Oct 29, 2024 Board of Supervisors Work Session
