Reactions to bookworm tax proposal

I recently reported that Mendocino County library supporters informed me of their intention to circulate petitions to place a tax measure on the November 2022 ballot that would add a one-quarter cent (0.25%) sales tax to fund libraries in Mendocino County. Nearly every town in this county has a “Friends of the Library” group that work, organize and fund-raise to establish brick-and-mortar libraries throughout the county. My daughter is a founding member of the Laytonville library group.

That item caused a number of readers to respond expressing their concerns about the proposed voter initiative.

Here’s a few of the comments:

Actually, there’s more than Measure A expenditures to audit. The county should have a total audit of its budget when the present CEO departs. That allows the new CEO a fresh start, as well as finally allowing the public knowledge of county expenditures and revenue.

Is there any assurance that the present Measure A money has not been illegally diverted from library expenditures? With that assurance in place, I am all in favor of the new library tax.

—George Dorner

How could anyone ever prove or refute the proper use of the money? —Carmel

I’m very pro-library but equally anti any new tax. If I recall correctly Boss Angelo and her lackeys on the BOS tried to divert Measure A funds for other purposes. Two or three Library Directors were disappeared by this cabal after they and the Library Commission exposed the chicanery and tried to get the money, which eventually was returned to the library. If I got any of the details wrong, I’m sure The Major will correct them. At any rate, like you, I’m very conflicted about this proposed tax measure.

— Stephen Rosenthal

I would like to support a library sales tax measure. But there are several reasons to be skeptical: This Board of Supervisors is not showing the kind of management or backbone that would lead some voters to support any new money for them even if it’s in a lockbox. Not one Supervisor has shown any serious commitment to library spending oversight. There is no “supplement, not supplant” provision. The Library Advisory Board has not demonstrated that the last library sales tax measure was spent for objective “improvements.” There’s nothing stopping County admin from either 1) delaying the spending and sitting on it to make the books like balanced, or 2) overcharging the Library fund for support services just because there’s money there. There’s no specific list of “improvements” that the money must be spent on.

PS. Don’t forget that Mendo figured out a way to spend $5 million for a $1 million house — “a Crisis

Residential Treatment facility,” a house that some observers have noted is not well built — and brags about it as some kind of accomplishment. Then we heard today that even though they held a wellhyped “grand opening” it’s not open yet because the contractor Mendo picked has some kind of licensing problem.

Here’s my reply to the concerns these intelligent folks have raised:

All good points which is why this proposed measure builds a super-solid lock box to protect and, I