Just for the sake of clarity. Mr. Andrews was not involved in the process. His office sent a general template of an MOU to all nonprofits back on May 6th. He was not involved in further discussions.

The Friends took parts of that MOU and parts from MOU templates created by the American Library Association to create the original version we submitted. The trustees had "problems" with that version.  We made revisions and that version also was not acceptable to some of the trustees.

The Friends then hired a nonprofit lawyer (who had worked for the AG's division of charities and nonprofits for 12 years prior to going into private practice).  She helped us create the final version. This is the only version that should be of interest to anyone. 

Because the trustees meet monthly, the process has taken some time. The final vote was 5-1-1.

The bottom line is that the Friends are a private nonprofit under the authority of the Attorney General.  The MOU basically gives us permission to use the premises with the approval of the Director to raise money to support our work .

In the past, we had the permission of Mary Jane Pillsbury and later,acting director Susan Pizzolato to use the premises since they both recognized the importance of a strong and active Friends organization. (Since our 2006-2007 fiscal year the Friends have raised and SPENT on the main library more than $200,000. And yes, we have the evidence to prove this, or will have when the IG's office returns all of our financial records!!)  We did not need an MOU in the past 18+ years that we have been supporting the building at 59 Marion Road, I believe, because we all worked together for the good of the library and there was never a question of our integrity by the Director or Library Trustees.

We will continue to use the phrase suggested by our attorney for our fund raisers--Proceeds support the work of the Friends of the WFL.  Anyone who does not agree with the work of the Friends need not support us. Plain and simple.

Our mission is defined in the final version of the MOU and is as it appears in the original Articles of Organization filed with the AG in 1976.  Charity law requires that we abide by that mission. Consequently, the Friends have the final decision on how we will use funds raised according to the Attorney General's office and our attorney.

This MOU is a public document and a copy was given to everyone present during the trustee meeting. The Friends are ready and willing to resume our work for the WFL and will be meeting with the Library Director soon to discuss how we can best be of help.

It was a long and ugly struggle to get this signed by the trustees. Let's put this to rest.

Five for: Tom Wavro, Jack Houton, Larry McDonald, Johnna Frederickson (chair), Martha Strachan.

Opposed by proxy (??!!): Kate Fuhrler

Abstained: Leie Carmody

EDIT: I just saw the second part of the question--why.  You would have to ask them.

Last edited by Nora Bicki (2010-08-17 12:58:53)

I disagree with a number of statements made by Nora Bicki.

On March 23, 2010, I went to the library to find out why the Friends could not raise money in the library.  I was told by a library staff member that the decision had not come from the acting library director but directly from Town Administrator Mark Andrews.  I went across the street and had a private meeting with Mr. Andrews on that same day.  He acknowledged that this was his decision and he said the reason for the policy was that he wanted to be able to account for and control funds that were raised for any town department.  I asked him what legally controlled the relationship between the town and a 501(c)(3) organization.  He did not answer this question.  I explained to him that there was a lot of history involved and ask that he expedite matters because the current situation was hurting the Friends’ ability to raise money.  He said he would.  Several months went by and nothing changed.  There were many things he could have done so that the Friends could raise money at the library while the MOU issues were worked out.  He chose not to do any of them.

If you go to the town website, you will find the boilerplate for non-profit MOUs at http://www.wareham.ma.us/Public_Documen … mplate.doc

This document says, in part:

"The entity shall comply with all Federal, State and Local laws, financial regulations and/or other requirements as deemed appropriate by the Town Administrator. These include, but are not limited to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP); any pertinent pronouncements under the Governmental Auditing Standards Board (GASB) currently in place or made in the future; and the Town Charter and By-Laws. Failure to adhere to these requirements and any other that the Town Administrator establishes, will constitute non-compliance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)."

There are lots of problems with this MOU.  The most absurd is that it gives the Town Administrator the complete freedom to make any requirements he wants of the non-profit.  Signing the MOU essentially gives the Town Administrator the ability to completely control the non-profit while the agreement is in effect.  For this reason, it would be completely unreasonable for any non-profit to be asked to sign such an MOU.

I don’t know who was involved in making the initial decision to require an MOU; some have speculated that one or more Selectmen were involved.  I also don’t know who was directly involved in various discussions that followed or who was indirectly involved.  But to say, as Nora Bicki did, that “Mr. Andrews was not involved in the process” is a false statement.

After trying to get more information about the MOU at town hall, Shirley Oldfield sent me E-mail on June 21, 2010, telling me of the existence of the online template.  I responded the same day, explaining that the template was incomplete with respect to non-profits and asked for additional clarification.  I received no reply to this E-mail.

I also disagree with Nora Bicki’s statement that the final MOU “…is the only version that should be of interest to anyone.”  I am very interested in the versions between the template and the final.  One reason is that I had a conversation with Steve Holmes about the MOU and he blames the Friends for not signing previous versions and thus delaying their ability to raise funds.  My contention is that asking the Friends to sign these previous versions was completely unreasonable and that Mark Andrews is to blame for the delay.  The truth of this matter will be clear if the interim MOUs are made public.

Last edited by Peter Baum (2010-08-17 13:28:33)

I disagree with Peter Baum's statement: "But to say, as Nora Bicki did, that “Mr. Andrews was not involved in the process” is a false statement."

Mr. Andrews was NEVER present during any of the Trustee meetings where the MOU was discussed. That is the process I was referring to and the only one I was speaking of. I clearly stated he was not involved in our further discussions. Whether or not it was his decision to require an MOU is a different subject from the one I posted above. I therefore stand by my statement.

Also, what is the point of dissecting previous versions of the MOU that are now moot since the final MOU is the one we all signed? I stand by my statement there as well. We need to move on.

The Friends created ALL versions of the MOU that were presented to the trustees (as I stated above we took parts of different templates and customized them and then hired a lawyer to work with us). The Friends were never asked "to sign these previous versions" as stated by Mr. Baum. In fact, the Trustees were asked to sign the previous versions and they did not.  So, I must disagree with Mr. Baum's "contention" that the Friends were asked to sign them and that "Mark Andrews is to blame for the delay."   

I think if you read my original version of the events, the cause of the delay is quite clear.

Clearly, you misunderstood Peter.

Since I have some experience with the English language, I stand by the use of the word, "created."  When you take some sections from one document (the town's) and some sections from another (the American Library Association's) and add your own sections specific to your own group, I would say that qualifies for the verb---created. Since I explained that procedure in the original post (thereby defining the word "created"), I don't see how that could be misleading.

Since I also clarified my statement in the original post that the TA was not involved in the PROCESS by stating he had no role in the discussion, I do not find that misleading. His statement that all nonprofits must sign an MOU is not a "process" in my lexicon.  The PROCESS I spoke of was between the Trustees and the Friends in coming to mutual agreement on a final MOU.

The final MOU is a public document. The previous ones that were CREATED by the Friends belong to the Friends, so NO, I will not post them. And FYI, we would NOT have given an MOU to the trustees if we had not been ready to sign it ourselves. Each version that we gave to the Trustees for approval was PREVIOUSLY approved by the Board of Directors of the Friends.  Why would we "refuse" to sign a document we CREATED?

And I am interested in truth and honesty which is why I made the original post but I don't see any benefit to continuing this conversation.  How does this in any way help the Friends? It doesn't. My statements stand. Sorry if you don't like what I have said, but since I helped to CREATE the documents, attended all of the Trustee meetings where the MOU was discussed, and worked with the attorney throughout, I think you can trust that I have been honest and truthful.

Nora,

What is misleading is the suggestion that the Friends created several iterations of MOUs that were reasonable for them to sign, that all of the Friends involved in the process agreed they were reasonable to sign (including counsel), and that it was the unreasonable Trustees who rejected the various proposed MOUs.  I will admit that it was complicated in some instances.  For example, I understand that at one point the Friends did submit a proposal (unsigned) to the Trustees that Friends’ counsel later advised the Friends not to sign.  So I agree with you that there were various adjustments made as the wording was worked out.  However, it was the sections of the town’s boilerplate MOU used by the Friends that contained what Mark Andrews wanted all along.  This made him part of the process.  He is the one who made the policy (perhaps following BOS instructions) about no fund-raising without an MOU; presumably the one described in the boilerplate.  I’m sure both the Trustees and the Friends knew what he wanted and I’m sure he had discussions with Trustees during the process.  Much of the boilerplate is absurd.  You appear to be telling me that the Friends had no problem taking the parts of the boilerplate I consider absurd into various MOU iterations, and it was the Trustees who kept rejecting various aspects of it until almost nothing unreasonable for the Friends was left.  I just don’t find this credible.  But as I said before, this is a very easy disagreement to settle.  We will know the truth when the intermediate MOUs surface.  I hope this also clarifies the issues about “creation” and Mark Andrews being “involved in the process.”

Regarding your refusal to release the intermediate MOUs:  When you submitted the intermediate MOUs to the Trustees I believe they became public documents and therefore obtainable through a public records request.  If not, please tell me what exemption you are relying on that would keep them private. The Friends aren’t bound to release them, of course, but why not release them  if the Trustees have to?

Regarding why you would “refuse” to sign a document you created – I have already given one example.  The Friends didn’t know what they were doing until counsel advised them at a later point in time.  Another possibility is that they created several documents to try to understand what the Trustees were actually looking for.  In other words, as a way to make concrete some of the alternatives, to more easily discuss unintended consequences, or to pose alternatives for the Friends to vote on at a later time.  This is certainly not an uncommon approach during negotiations.

Regarding, “…I don't see any benefit to continuing this conversation.”  Of course you don’t, because you have refused to let the intermediate documents settle the issue.

Regarding, “How does this in any way help the Friends? It doesn't.”  This is a problem I have had with you in the past.  Although we often have the same goals, I don’t like your willingness to be manipulative and bend the truth in service to what you think is a good cause.  The issue I am raising is about the truth, not about how to help the Friends.

I don’t trust that you have been honest and truthful.  The things you have said are contradicted by information I have received from other sources.  I could, of course, be mistaken.  The intermediate MOUs will settle the issue once and for all.

Sounds like Mr. Baum is dragging this discussion out just to be heard.  We heard what you had to say.   We believe Nora, who has always been honest and straight forward with everything regarding the Friends.  Time to put this discussion to bed, Mr. Baum.

Bobo the Assclown wrote:

...Until the "Friends" wake up and realize that having Bicki serve as their spokeperson is incredibly damaging to the Wareham Free Library they don't deserve another penny from this community.

Who is this idiot who cries like a baby because a few people mentioned a boycott of his piece of shit rag... he claimed it was unamerican, the worst crime ever committed??..and it's repeated endlessly by his mindless followers..this very same shitstain now supports NOT supporting an organization that has given so much to "this community".

I have no problem with Nora's reasoning that the only MOU that "really matters" is the final one..that's the one that's signed..and legal. I also think that Andrews played a "strong part" (guided by Jane, Brenda, Bruce) in the "creation" of this..and all MOU's...by "requiring" them in the first place. I think it's ridiculous that MOU's were made a requirement. These organizations have laws and regs they need to follow anyway..filings that have to be made..and they have always functioned within those guidelines..if you can prove otherwise..bring it.

When the Assclown writes:

"But it’s important to note that the MOU requires the “Friends” to obey the law. That should have gone without saying, but the fact that it was included in the MOU is pretty interesting."

That's about the dumbest thing I've ever read..that's right..they agree to do exactly what they've always agreed to do..except the Town would hold them hostage until they stated it specifically to the town..and signed it.

and more Assclown lies...

"But a few years ago they quietly changed their mission statement to include support of “any library” in Wareham. They never publicly announced this change."

Wrong again shithead...I remember Fogcutter tried to explain this to you one time..but it doesn't quite fit with your spin..so you disregard it...As I recall, Fogcutter explained that in one of their filings there was a change made..it was done in a public document..a required filing..THAT IS PUBLIC. What are they required to do in your estimation..take out an Ad in your rag? Now..I get the feeling that anyone interested in supporting the Friends could easily look up/acquire any public documents..and y'know...read them. I'm also sure they could contact the Friends and get a complete rundown of what it is they "do"..and how to direct their donations toward the "area(s)" they wish them to go. This is just another chance for Bobo to smear one of his favorite targets..Nora..and the Friends of the WFL.

Wanna know what would be best for this community? Tar, Feather..and send Bobo out on a rail...

TBW
P-SPAN

Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-08-18 21:49:02)