I just got this email from the tabloid writer: I read your most recent post regarding the copy machines. I have financial documentation that shows the library leased the copy machines for $217.31 per month. Care to revise your statement?

Robert Slager


In September, 2005, the Library Trustees, a private non-profit trust (and the court agreed that this is true) rented a copy machine from a company called Riso. That copy machine was for the staff. It resides next to the technical services librarian's desk in the back area of the library not open to the general public and there is no money box attached to that machine. Staff can make copies at no charge.  Note the date, late 2005. The claims involved the years 1995 to 2005.

And here is the logic. If the trustees leased a machine that DID have a money box on it, and the trustees hold a private trust and paid the rental from that trust, then the money would have legally belonged to the trustees and NOT the town.

So, really, no, I have no reason to revise my statement. I am telling the truth.

thank you Nora. I have a couple of questions for you regarding the copy machine arrangement, in the interest of minor clarifications.

You mention the two public machines, which charged for copies. Were there other copiers available only to staff? If so, were these part of that  lease agreement between the library & the vendor, or were they under a separate lease?

Was the amount collected from the public copiers the full extent of the compensation to the vendor, or was there a base lease rate paid by the library?

I suspect that the nature of the agreements between the library and its vendor are being used by you-know-who as a jumping off point for his egregious fantasy trip.

BoBo? Jumping off?

Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1

"tis a consummation devoutly to be wished"

There was a machine in the back for the staff during those years. I don't remember, but I think the library owned that one outright and eventually it was really needing a lot of repairs etc. so that was when the contract was made with the vendor. It might be possible that if the library didn't "own" it outright, that is purchased it with its budget, that it might have been "owned" by the town as part of the town's copy machine service at the time. Since this was done by the library, and not the trustees, I don't have that documentation so I can't answer the compensation question.

I do know that the trustees paid no fees for rental of copy machines until the one I mention renting in Sept. 2005. I paid those bills $271.31 per month to Riso until the end of 2006 when I was no longer treasurer.

For the other questions, you could ask staff that worked there then since Mrs. Pillsbury, who would have worked with that vendor is no longer with us.

I hope this answers your questions.

We also have yet to hear from Bobo on in important issue. The appointment of the former library trustee to the CEDA board. This war veteran and no-nonsense man was not asked any questions or even taken to task by Bobo! He is not just a former trustee, but a former Chairman. WHy is it that Bobo is avoiding this angle? Could it be that this honorable man is alive and not deceased? Could it be that not only would this man stomp the coward for suggesting such allegations?

Ms. Lilly,
Let me see if I've got this right --- In the face of verifiable evidence that Slager's allegations are based on complete falsehoods and that should raise doubt as to the veracity of everything he has written utterly without proof,  you want to turn your attention to how much electricity the copy machines used?

Are you serious?

Yeah...I guess those two copy machines, back in 1995-2005 dollars, probably used about 15 cents per day.
Let's just say $1.00 per week. That's $52.00 per year, times 10 is $520.00 over ten years.
Yeah..that's relevant.

Very serious Taj...I can't do anything about proving or disproving the recent allegations but I can try and  correct a poor managerial decision that allows my tax dollars to be flushed down the proverbial toilet...and how many more decisions just like that one have been made over the last 10 years?  You obviously don't care about the town wasting our tax dollar so someone else can profit, but I do...

Let me get this straight...because I can't solve the "big one", I'm not supposed to pay attention to the little ones I might be able to?  Enough little ones make a big one...

Are you serious?

I forgot to mention that all staff members had a "bypass" key that allowed them to make all the copies they wanted for library job purposes for free. You insert the by pass key and you don't have to put any money into the coin box. I think that probably covered the fee for electricity.

Nice try at a diversion from the real issue though.

I don't hear people complaining about the taxpayer dollars spent on Kopelman and Paige for the litigation. Read the settlement and see if it was all worth it.

Nora,
That isn't part of the "their" agenda. If they can bring the focus on the pittance spent on electricity, maybe people will forget the astronomical amounts spent on lost legal cases and poor management decisions! (Wow...what a concept!)

Taj,
Ignore Ms Petunia. She is just a shill for Slager and has proven it over and over again.

MsLilly, I just did a quick search for a mid-range Canon office multi-function device - not the best, not the worst, somewhere in the middle.  About what a library would need.  These devices start at $800 apiece.  So you're saying you would rather have the town front $1600 for two copy machines, bear responsibility for any maintenance costs, and pay for paper and toner, in exchange for a few pennies per page copied? 

If it's 10 cents per page (about what i remember paying for copies back in the day), then we're talking about 16,000 copies needing to be made before the machines are paid for, and that's without discounting the original cost as any good economic model would do.  The real number for cash flow purposes is probably 18,000. If we assume a useful life of 5 years (probably generous for a technology product), then that's 3,600 copies per year - 10 per day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year - just to pay for the devices.  Maintenance on these devices would be in the range of $75/hr.  So every time something goes wrong with one of them, that's 750 copies that need to be made just to pay for 1 hour of service, nevermind any additional parts or labor.  Add in toner and paper, and the economics just get worse.  Add in the risk of the device(s) totally failing, and it gets still worse.  Add in the free copies that library staff could make on the provided devices, and it gets still worse.  Even if running such services were profitable, it would then be further exposed to the risk of someone stealing from the kitty, as was the accusation that has been made and proven wrong.

If you still think that the town is getting a terrible deal on this, then you're right, we'll have to disagree on the issue.  But this is the same model that companies all over the world use to provide services outside their area of expertise - the idea that we're "losing money" on this service just because there's an outsourced provider doesn't really hold water.

Interest of full context...

===========================================
The endless lies of the library lobby
By Robert Slager
The Wareham Observer


    For the past few days I have sat back and read the absolute nonsense being spewed by the library lobby on local web sites. These people are doing everything within their power to convince the good people of Wareham that the town should not order a full forensic audit of the library books and a full forensic audit of the library computer systems.
    Attempts to justify such a position have been absolutely ludicrous. I will address each of these so-called justifications individually and allow the readers to draw their own conclusions.


    A judge ruled in the favor of the former board of library trustees during litigation with the town: This is perhaps the most absurd claim of all. The library lobby has repeatedly made the claim that a judge ruled in their favor regarding the lawsuit between the town and the former board of library trustees. That is an outright lie. The judge made absolutely no such determination. Both sides in the lawsuit agreed to engage in non-binding mitigation to try to resolve their respective complaints before going to trial. A tentative settlement was reached. The judge made no ruling whatsoever regarding which side was right and which side was wrong. The purpose of mediation is not to determine such things. It’s to try to reach a legal compromise to avoid sending a case to trial.


    A team of lawyers and a judge went over the trustee’s financial records and found nothing amiss: This is another outright lie. Any evidence provided to the judge by the former board of library trustees would have to be presented to Town Counsel by law. Nora Bicki, a spokesperson for the former board of trustees, made a post of Bill Whitehouse’s web site Friday morning saying there was nothing in the settlement agreement that required the former trustees to turn over their financial records to the town. If, as the library lobby claims, a judge had all the financial information, found that nothing was amiss, and was required by law to share those financial documents with Town Counsel, why would the town still be asking for those financial records? Wouldn’t Town Counsel already have them? The truth is those financial records were never turned over during mediation. If they had been the town would already be in possession of them.


    There was no way money was embezzled from the library copy machine and used as revenue in a money laundering scheme because the company the library leased the money from collected it each month: Bicki post this ridiculous claim Friday morning on Bill Whitehouse’s web site. She actually claimed money couldn’t have been embezzled because the library leased the copy machines from an outside vendor and that vendor collected the money each week. Wow. These are Bicki’s exact words: “TRUTH: During the 10 years in question NO money from the public copy machines was recorded with the town, and there is a good reason for that. There are 2 public copy machines. One is near the circulation desk and the other is in the reference area. The library had a contract during those years with a private company that owned the machines. Accordingly, the company provided the machines, serviced them and provided the copy paper. In return, the company collected the money. NOT ONE PERSON ASSOCIATED WITH THE LIBRARY HAD KEYS TO THE CHANGE BOXES OF THE COPY MACHINES. That included Mary Jane Pillsbury, all staff members, trustees, Friends, janitors, you name it.  Company reps came to the library on a regular basis during business hours, were well known to the staff, cleaned out the change boxes, supplied paper, and left.”
    When the Observer presented Bicki with evidence that the former trustees paid $217.31 to lease the copy machines, Bicki then clarified her statement on Whitehouse’s web site by saying “I do know that the trustees paid no fees for rental of copy machines until the one I mention renting in Sept. 2005. I paid those bills $271.31 per month to Riso until the end of 2006 when I was no longer treasurer. For the other questions, you could ask staff that worked there then since Mrs. Pillsbury, who would have worked with that vendor is no longer with us.”
    The Observer reported that the alleged money laundering/embezzlement scheme at the library occurred from 1995-2005. Bicki admitted that the former board of trustees didn’t begin leasing the machines until September of 2005, adding that she has no specific knowledge of what occurred with the machines prior to that. The Observer has found no evidence of any contract with a vendor that would allow that vendor to collect money from the copy machines before or after 2005. Such an agreement is completely implausible. The town would have paid to lease the copy machine, turn over the profits from that machine to the vendor while being responsible for the electricity required to operate the machine. That makes no sense whatsoever.


    The Internal Revenue Service should conduct the investigation: This is clearly the best hope the library lobby has to thwart an actual forensic audit of the library books and computer system.
Admittedly, it’s a clever strategy. Because money was allegedly embezzled from the library to replace funds that were kicked back to donors, the IRS may initially have a difficult time bringing charges against the donors. The entire concept of money laundering is to cover evidence of wrong-doing. Many of the 123 people allegedly involved in this operation may be able to provide canceled checks to one of the various fund-raising organizations for the library, thus showing evidence of their alleged innocence. But their donations were allegedly “cleaned” by former library director Mary Jane Pillsbury. The entire purpose of conducting a full forensic accounting audit at the library is to either find financial documentation that supports the allegation of money laundering or to discover that documents have been removed or deleted that would show evidence of the money trail.
    The IRS will not undergo such a time-consuming and costly investigation before an embezzlement case is established first, and that's not within their jurisdiction. The library lobby no doubt plans to claim that the refusal of the IRS to get involved initially means the allegations aren’t valid and no other investigation should commence. That is why the people of Wareham should demand, as the Board of Selectmen did on Tuesday, that the Plymouth Country District Attorney’s office publicly announce its intention to commence a full investigation into the matter. If the DA refuses, the residents of Wareham should fully support the town in hiring a reputable independent accounting firm to conduct a thorough forensic audit of all library records dating back to 1995.

From the front page of the Wareham Observer
http://www.thewarehamobserver.com/
===========================================

ACO...unless I misunderstood, we already have all those responsibilties in regards to the copiers that are for staff use only...the town pays for those...I was talking about the copiers that have a money box on them that are making a profit for a privately owned company who so graciously allows us to have them and uses the electricity we pay for to do so...as much as I appreciate all your stats, it's a basic concept...copy company gets all the money and we pay for the electricity...

Do you think anyone would mind if I put a slot machine right in between the copiers?  It wouldn't take up much room and it uses the minimum of electricity and of course I promise to maintain them and I'll even come and take all the money out of it so the town won't be bothered one little bit...what a service to our citizens that enjoy their trips to Foxwood I'd be providing...all that time and energy saved if they could just gamble right there at the library...

Onset dude,
Again, Slager wants to spend money, but not his own. OUR money, taxpayer money on a full forensic audit that will cost the town over 6 digits. WHy? he said it himself. The IRS would not undertake an investigation of this magnitude without first having evidence. Not hearsay, not accusations, but confirmation of just ONE claim made by Slager or any of the informants. Hmmm, so we should proceed with an investigation without a shred of proof? Does that even sound like an intelligent statement?

I am sick of hearing how "the people" of Wareham should demand an investigation when the person making the accusations cannot make them stick and wants everyone to back up his claims like they were our claims.

If our Selectmen back up this idiot and his outrageous claims, they should be run out of town on a rail. This coward has done nothing to prove the claims and wants us to "trust him"?  Enough.....


If this is the type of person you follow Onsetdud, my sympathies are with you.

Am I living in a parallel universe?
Alice through the looking glass?

MSLILLY YOU ARE AVOIDING THE TOPIC ALL TOGETHER. NORA PRESENTED EVIDENCE THAT IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO TAKE MONIES FROM THE COPIER MACHINES. AN INDEPENDANT COMPANY TOOK CONTROL OVER EVERYTHING INCLUDING THE COLLECTION OF MONIES DEPOSITED. NO ONE HAD A KEY TO ACCESS THE COIN BOX. YOU GO OFF ON A TANGENT AND TALK ABOUT ELECTRICITY. MOST TOWN DEPTS DO THIS BECAUSE COPIERS ARE VERY EXPENSIVE TO MAINTAIN AND SERVICE. JUST LOOK HOW MANY TIMES A COPIER REPAIRMAN COMES OUT. THE WHOLE POINT IS THAT SLAGER HAS GOT CAUGHT IN A LIE ABOUT THE COPIERS AND YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE TOWNS ELECTRICITY.

MsLily, you need to immediately contact the FBI and amend your complaint that you made when you were juiced up on, ah, electricity.

1. Rental of space: wow, how did you miss this one? lesse, we can measure the copier(s), so many centimeters by so many centimeters, multiply it out and get the number of square meters that the machines demised. BUT WAIT!, there's more! In order to actually, yaknow, USE the machine, there would have to be a space to stand in front of it. Oh, this is tough. Do we square it off? use an average-sized person to estimate the required space? I'm beginning to see why you skipped this one.

BUT HOLD ON! The space ABOVE the copier is of little use to the library, so perhaps the proper method of calculation is the VOLUME of space that the copier and its appurtenant users take up. For that we need to know the distance from floor to ceiling, and, of course, how to compute the volume of a cube. Whew!

AND THERE'S MORE!! One presumes, does one not, that the library had to provide storage space for all those freebies, like paper (at least two sizes, no?) and toner. Should that be part of our rental of space agreement? Ya darn tootin'! Not only that, but the library had to provide a rubbish basket!!!!! and, maybe a recycle bin. More space.

Boy, I wish that I was the real estate rental agent who handled that sweet deal, I tell ya.

2. Allocation of applicable personnel costs: Here's another one you blew, badly. That rubbish basket? the recycling bin? Got to be emptied, doncha think? And copy machines are dirty little things. No doubt the vendor cleaned the machine itself, BUT, what about the floor, walls & ceiling around the machine? Can you say:STAFF. How'd ya miss that one, O goddess of expense allocation.

3. HVAC: In your overheated state, you completely missed this one. Machines like copiers tend to work best, in my experience, when temperature and humidity are within acceptable ranges. the library, I have it on good authority, actually kept the temperature and humidity at levels which the copy machines favored.

WELL. As part of the chargeback to the copier vendor, there should certainly be a charge for heating & cooling, which includes MORE electricity, as well as fuel. The HVAC systems wear out over time, so there should be a charge to account for the depreciation of the systems, no doubt due to overwork to heat & cool the demised space for the copier. Ya need to get beyond the surface on these things, Lilypad.

4. Building maintenance. Well. how obvious is this? If the copier vendor is going to rip off, er, make a profit, then the library patrons have to get into the building, true? SO any & all work on the parking lot, walkways, etc should have an allocation to charges to the vendor, correct?

AND, the same is true of the building itself. Can't have a roof leaking on the machines, now can we? More allocations.


MsLily, does this totally sarcastic extension of your feeble thoughts make you in any way see just how nonsensical you can be? My guess is no.

You're simply dizzy, MsLily
Charged up on the juice
You're just a dilly, MsLily
And can't accept the truth
Comeon, comeon, comeon Lily
Stop falling for the BoBo's ruse

Last edited by notalawyer (2009-11-13 14:44:16)

It has been obvious for the past three years that a factor feeding into the mess that Bobo and The Bozos have created is their aversion to reading : The Charter, the  Public/Private structure that Wareham shares with nearly fifty communities in the Commonwealth. , and even the charges against the people they have been trying to "take out"! They simply haven't "done their homework", and it shows every time they open their mouths!

Here's our old pal Mark Twain saying things that are appropriate here:

"Get your facts first..then you can distort them all you like'"

" Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable."

Here's the real "zinger" :   "A person who won't read has no advantage over a person who can't read."

BUT WAIT THE COPIER COMPANY MIGHT BE "IN" ON IT TOO. ANOTHER LIE EXPOSED

notalawer

Wow, you are really talented.  I just stopped laughing.  It is a shame your talents are being used to defend the obvious.  MsLilly is nuts.  When Bruce S. is voted out in April the observor will just go away.  He will not have anyone feeding him this absolute foolishness.

P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM

P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM

Ms Lilly: the reason libraries even exist is to offer a range of free to low cost services to residents under the general headings of learning, knowledge and sharing information.

In many areas they compete with private business either by providing free services or in the case of copies matching or beating their prices. This is all done so patrons can avail themselves of related services under one roof.

I am sure regular posters don't need examples or an explanation of why the public copy machines are part of these library services and therefore costs of electricity are justified as part of the overall taxpayer funded budget.

Would you have the library get into the copy business just to make a few dollars? Who would service and maintain the machines and buy and keep track of the supplies and manage the money? Do you really think over-worked librarians ought to be asked to take on this task?

(Call a few libraries and see whether they have similar arrangements with copy machine companies for public use machines. I know of at least one other library that does.)

Recently some libraries have stopped book sales because the staff  time needed to go through the books - the library old books and  the donations - to decide what to keep for the collection and what to sell isn't available, even if they can make some money from the sale.

Am I going crazy? I just read the entries by Nora Bicki and then I read ragboy's interpretation of what she said. I think someone is a bit off planet here.

But since he knows that not all of his readers read this truth blog, I'm sure they'll believe his story about the $217 thing. Talk about spin. Ignore the facts, pick out the phrases that work for your spin factor and make it look like Nora is lying.

I know some of his followers read this blog, so maybe, some of them will begin to realize that the rag is just that, a rag. Not worthy of fish wrap, puppy poopy patrol, bird cage liners etc.

It seems to me that there is hard evidence what with checks and invoices with dates on them. It's hard to deny the truth.

Evidence, now there's a novel idea. Or perhaps we've just been reading a bad novel.  It sure sounds like it.