Restore library funds
The Worthington Borough Council's 5-0 vote to cut $3,000 of its $4,000 contribution to its library is disappointing. The logic one councilman used to support his vote is just wrong.
Council Vice President George Kerr said voters showed they didn't want to support the library last year when they rejected a tax increase for it at the polls. That's like saying you don't support the Steelers because you can't afford season tickets for their games.
Voters weren't saying they didn't support the library; they were saying they could not afford to up the ante in tough economic times. You can't, or shouldn't, make the leap that it means they don't support the library — or that they don't care that funding was so drastically cut.
You have to wonder what the council would have done if voters had approved the tax increase in May. It is not much of a stretch to think they would have voted to slash funding of the library because it was no longer needed. It seems the library was going to lose no matter what.
A library remains a valuable resource for any community. Residents should make it known that they don't think it's acceptable that budget cuts are threatening the Worthington-East Franklin Community Library.
The council made a bad decision — based on strained logic — to cut funding to the library. But it is not too late to reverse that decision and reinstate the money to ensure that the library remains open and vital in the community.
That would be the right thing to do.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Another carbon credit scheme
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states
- Rick Perry’s indictment: The real abuse
- School funding canard: Money isn’t the answer
- More foreign aid is no answer to border problem
- Tuesday essay: Sophie