Editor, The Transcript:

There are four good reasons to vote against the $49.5 million library bond and millage. The first is that a new building is unnecessary. The existing facility contains rows of empty shelves and vast amounts of underutilized and wasted space. The plan for the new library building includes frivolities such as a "public art display" and "coffee shop." With an economic recession looming, why should working families in Norman sacrifice to construct a $50 million coffee shop?

The second reason to vote against the bond proposal is that the Pioneer Library System has deceived the citizens of Norman. Over the past few years, the PLS has advanced a number of specious and disingenuous arguments that the existing Norman library building has mechanical problems and is outdated. These complaints have never been substantiated. In a June 28, 2007, editorial, The Norman Transcript called the PLS on this deception. The Transcript pointed out that many buildings on the OU campus are twice as old, yet perfectly serviceable. They concluded, "If it's worth doing, the public shouldn't have to be conned into doing it."

The third reason for voting "no," on this proposal is that the PLS has badly mismanaged the Norman Public library for decades and shows no signs of reforming. As of 2004, the library had only 1.24 books per capita, just 52 percent of the national average. This is fewer books than any comparable facility in the US. One of the reasons that our library is so poor is that the PLS has systematically diverted scarce resources to duplicate educational and social welfare services offered elsewhere in our community.

The fourth reason to vote "no," is that the management of the PLS has demonstrated contempt for the citizens and taxpayers of Norman. After giving us the worst public library in the country, the director of the PLS, told The Transcript last year that "Oklahomans must change their attitude." On the contrary, it is the PLS that must change their attitude.

The citizens of Norman deserve a library that is dedicated, focused and managed efficiently. The PLS has proven itself unable to deliver, and should not be rewarded with a beautiful new building until they demonstrate more effective management. In the long run, withholding funds until management improves will give us a better facility. That is why everyone who loves the library must vote "no," on this ill-conceived plan.

David Deming

Norman