0:00The proposal to transfer funds was met with considerable debate among board members, centering on the timing and necessity of the move. One member raised concerns about executing a significant fund transfer without the completion of the 2024 audit, arguing that financial decisions should be made with full knowledge of the library’s current financial standing. The member stressed the importance of a cautious approach to using funds, suggesting that the money should only be allocated to capital projects if there was a defined purpose, otherwise it should perhaps be returned to the community.

In contrast, another board member argued in favor of the transfer, emphasizing the need to prepare financially for potential future projects, such as the construction of a branch library. They highlighted that the capital plan had been developed with guidance from the State Library and that the funds were earmarked for specific facilities. The dialogue highlighted a divide among board members about the best approach to financial stewardship and whether to prioritize immediate fiscal prudence or future infrastructural investments.

The vote ultimately resulted in the rejection of the transfer. This decision marked a notable moment in the meeting.

18:08Another notable discussion during the meeting involved the approval of a new RFID security system for the library. The board considered a proposal from Envision Weare for RFID gates priced at $12,858. The proposal aimed to replace three non-functional security gates at the library’s entrance, with the intent of better protecting the library’s collection of approximately 150,000 volumes. The vendor had also suggested that installing the gates simultaneously with a previously approved self-check machine could save the library $2,000 in installation fees.

The discussion saw a split among board members. Some expressed doubts about the necessity of the gates, citing the library’s historical lack of an efficient security system for over 20 years. Concerns were raised about the potential for theft, with one member noting that the library’s collection had not been inventoried in nearly three decades. Despite these concerns, the majority of the board voted in favor of the lower price option for the RFID gates, acknowledging the need to protect the library’s assets.

33:47The meeting also addressed several other topics, including the library’s growing collection of ebooks. A member expressed concern that some titles were not appearing in the catalog, prompting calls for improved tracking and access. Additionally, the board discussed the library’s museum pass offerings, deciding to replace underused passes with those likely to attract more interest, such as a pass for the Thomas Edison Museum.

Further, the board explored the library’s media outreach efforts, particularly the challenge of advertising in local outlets like the Patch. With Old Bridge lacking its own dedicated Patch, the library has been using the Middlesex County Patch at a cost of 25 cents per posting. Some members expressed frustration over the arrangement, noting the importance of local representation in media coverage and the benefits other towns derive from dedicated platforms.

18:08The meeting concluded with updates on upcoming events and projects. The director reported a positive trend in library usage, with foot traffic recovering post-COVID, and highlighted ongoing efforts to enhance library services. The board also discussed upcoming conferences, including one on artificial intelligence, and the importance of keeping abreast of developments in library technology and management.