Really? That was the best option?

“After days of public outcry,” Mecklenburg has revisited the decision to close half of the library locations.  Seems that was only one of three options originally presented when looking to cut the budget.  The other options included cutting library hours and cutting pay, each option with a different rate and number of layoffs. 

So, the board thought it would be better to close 12 locations and layoff 140+ employees, rather than cut hours and pay and layoff roughly 80 employees.

How was THAT the better option??

Wouldn’t it be better, in this economy, to keep people employed, and ensure access to a public resource?

It really makes me wonder if they did it specifically to get people riled up. 

Personally, I think the best option would be a combination of ideas.  I think that some locations can be closed without much of an uproar.  So, close some branches, cut some hours, cut some pay, and, if needed, lay a couple of people off.  It sucks, but shouldn’t the idea be to lessen the impact on everyone involved?

I love the idea of politics, or maybe I should say the ideal.  I hate the current practice.  Common sense is sorely missing in the public arena.  Kind of makes me want to (cannotbelieveI’mabouttosaythis) get into local politics.


2 responses to “Really? That was the best option?

  1. About politics? Yeah, um… Just Say No. 😉

  2. I’m thinking they may have originally chosen the option that would affect the least amount of people.
    Think of it this way—so they’re now going to keep more people on, but it can’t be full time. And they will lose benefits. So they were originally going to lay off 120. Now they will only lay off 80 but another 80 will lose benefits and go to part time. I think they were doing the “right” thing.

    People are outraged and they should be, IMO, because the budget should have been kept in more of a surplus the last few years versus riding the deficit line. Just my two cents.