HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-12 MinutesFAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Minutes of June 12, 1995, Meeting
Attending: Mark Burdette, Carol Phillips, Steve Singleton, Michael Thomas, trustees; Linda
Harrison, Fayetteville Public Library director; Karen Duree, Ozarks Regional Library director;
Mary Jo Godfrey, Lynaire Hartsell, June Jefferson, Lolly Maxey, staff; Steve Davis, City of
Fayetteville.
SPECIAL MEETING
President Thomas called the meeting to order, noting that he had informed the press of the
special nature of the meeting and saying that he would inform the media if anything substantial
came out of the meeting.
Harrison said she had lost track of all of the policy manual material that the board had reviewed,
so she had included some items that might have been covered previously. For example, she
noted, the library's equal opportunity statement (PA-1)had been revised recently to coincide with
the city's statement. Thomas and Phillips said they did not recall having seen that document
previously.
Singleton said he had drafted an equal opportunity statement for Tyson Food when he worked
there, and he noted that the library's statement included subjective work qualities (merit, including
abilities, capacity, aptitude) and that the promotion statement was more clearly drawn, including
attendance, work experience, job evaluation, "things that are objectively verified." He said the
language of the latter section would be more applicable to the equal opportunity statement. He
questioned how one would define aptitude, for example. Attendance, evaluations and references
are more verifiable, he said.
Harrison asked if an acceptable replacement would be "employment should be on the basis of
merit, qualifications, and experience," and noted that performance or job evaluation was not
useful in hiring a candidate, because he/she would not have been evaluated by library
management. Singleton said that previous job performance in the form of references for a
candidate would be considered. He suggested "attendance, job performance, prior experience"
as being "more quantifiable."
Jefferson asked if the wording in the statement was not the wording the City of Fayetteville used
in its equal opportunity statement. Harrison said she thought it was
based on the city's statement. Singleton said the way around
the problem was to eliminate language that indicated skills required were of a subjective nature.
Jefferson said that the statement was modeled after the city's statement, and the library tried to
use the city model wherever possible. Singleton said if that were the case, then the city probably
was in error.
He said he could get a copy of Tyson's statement and that he was only suggesting that "abstract
qualities" were impossible to measure. How does one test attitude, he asked. The board told
Singleton that the quality named was aptitude. He then asked if there were a test for aptitude and
said the statement should reflect that the candidate would be subject to the results of an aptitude
test. Jefferson said such specificity was unnecessary. Singleton suggested, then, that the
wording be left out.
Phillips suggested leaving all the qualifications out, and including "merit ... without regard to
race, sex, color, national origin ..." . Jefferson said the statement must be in compliance with
federal regulations. Singleton suggested just leaving out specifying what constituted merit in the
statement. Harrison said, again, that the library was attempting to stay as close to the city's
statement as possible. Phillips concurred with Harrison's statement. She and Thomas noted that
they understood Singleton's concern.
Phillips again suggested using the phrase "merit ... without regard ...." Thomas told Harrison
to use that wording.
On PA -3, Phillips asked about using "his/her." Jefferson said that was to make the statement
grammatically correct. Thomas asked if "disciplinary action" needed to be defined. Harrison said
that it was defined in PA -13.
On PA -5, Phillips jokingly noted that "shall" was grammatically incorrect. Jefferson said that the
use of shall in documents relating to the city gave an implication of some sort, a measure of
emphasis, as in "the city council
shall provide money for raises for salaries ...." She said it was based on city wording in
ordinances and resolutions. Thomas and Phillips noted that the use of shall in that fashion was
somewhat antiquated.
Singleton questioned the conditions of past employment statement regarding 30 -day leaves of
absence. He asked if those conditions needed to be defined. Phillips asked if such a leave of
absence had ever come about. Harrison noted that there was such a leave of absence in effect
at the moment. Phillips asked if that was Susan Sissom, the former
adult services supervisor. Harrison said it was.
Singleton noted that the statement leaves the decision up to the director and provided no policy
guidance on the matter. "It basically leaves it up to the director's discretion," he said. Harrison
asked if the board wanted to define past employment.
Burdette said he thought the wording was fine, in that it was at the director's discretion; that was
part of the director's job, he said. Each situation would be different, he said, and the board could
not anticipate every situation. Jefferson said the situation would probably be covered in the
Family Medical Leave Act, which would provide more specifics. Some of those circumstances
would lead up to the leave of absence without pay statement. Harrison said that wording would
provide "quantifiers."
Phillips asked Singleton if he had specific wording in mind. He said he did not, except that the
leave would be based on the director's discretion and that if the employee disagreed, normal
grievance procedures would apply. He noted that the statement also said nothing about the
employee's returning to a position that was the same or comparable. He noted that that
statement would give the director some flexibility. For example, he said, if an employee would
have to be gone 29 days in the worst possible season, Harrison might need to put another
employee in that position temporarily, and that statement would give her more flexibility when
people return.
Thomas said that point had been controversial. Jefferson noted that that matter was addressed in
the Family Medical Leave policy and in the Americans with Disabilities Act, noting a return to a
comparable position. Phillips asked if the matter needed to be referenced, noting there was no
need to be repetitive.
Singleton said the matter should be referenced. If, for example, a person were the executor of an
estate, that would not come under the Family Medical Leave Act or the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Still, he said, that would leave the director in a bind if he/she felt a job must be
held for that person, but that person wasn't there to do it. He suggested using "at the director's
discretion, based on the need of the individual and the needs of the library, etc."
Harrison summarized the changes: (1) Leave of absence without pay for up to 30 days may be
granted at the discretion of the director, depending on the need of the individual, and
convenience of the library, vacation time, sick leave, etc." and adding "Refer to medical leave
policy for related information" and the number of that policy. The board approved the changes.
The board approved the political activity statement. It also approved the travel expenses
statement previously discussed.
The board agreed that, all other qualifications being equal, the library could hire a non-resident to
work at the facility.
The board informed Singleton that wage reviews came at the anniversary date of an employee'
hiring. Harrison noted that supervisors had told her that evaluating employees' job performances
on anniversary dates, instead of evaluating all employees in the third quarter of the year, would
simplify the process by allowing them to spread out the time it takes to perform the reviews.
Singleton said if pay and performance were not linked, that would be fine. Harrison said the two
were not linked; pay is based on a matrix formula. Employees must change jobs or titles to
achieve a pay raise. Singleton said it was a shame that performance could not be rewarded.
Harrison said probationary evaluations go into the employee's personnel file. She said the three-
month probation period allowed sufficient time in most cases to determine whether employment
should be considered permanent. She said supervisors evaluate the probationary employee, but
she reads the evaluation and signs off on it before the form is copied and returned to the
employee.
If there is a problem with an employee's performance, Harrison told the board, the supervisor has
usually tried to handle it herself and brings it to the attention of the director only after she has
been unable to resolve the difficulty.
Phillips noted that she could not recall Harrison ever having brought disciplinary action to the
attention of the board in the time she had served on the board, although she knew that some
disciplinary action had been taken. Harrison said she had not that she could recall.
Thomas noted that he thought it might be prudent for Harrison to report disciplinary action to the
board, not that the trustees would change anything or attempt to micro -manage the library staff.
Phillips concurred, saying that the board's knowledge of the action would serve to protect the
director and the supervisor. Thomas noted that that sort of report would have to be made in
executive session, although that session need not be lengthy. Harrison agreed and proposed
including the statement, "Disciplinary action will be taken by the library director as a result of
recommendations from supervisors and reported to the board in executive session."
Singleton asked if supervisors did not have the authority to
fire or promote staff members on their own initiative.
Thomas and Harrison said they did not. Singleton said a supervisor should play a role in that
action. Jefferson noted that supervisor activity was defined in section 4 of the document, which
defined the sequence of events. Singleton said he was asking the question because he was
unsure of the chain of command. Jefferson said the staff was small enough that the supervisors
and employees all could work with Harrison closely on these personnel matters.
The board had no questions on work week. Singleton asked about the references to the library's
38 -hour work week and another reference to a 40 -hour work week. Harrison said the 40 -hour
week was from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The full -time -equivalent work week at the
library is 38 hours per week, she told Singleton. More than 40 hours, as compensatory time goes,
is the cut-off point for time -and -a -half, she said. The 38th and 39th hours an employee worked,
she said would be considered straight time, she said. The board agreed with the explanation.
Singleton asked if the morning and afternoon breaks of 20 minutes each was workable and if
staff members were flexible in using the time. For example, he asked, were staff members willing
to delay breaks to wait on patrons? Harrison assured him that the staff willingly put off breaks if
patrons needed assistance, and the entire staff did not go on break at the same time.
Singleton also asked about employees taking compensatory time and how the director's
discretion was used when employees were required to take the time off. Did that lead to a labor
shortage, he asked? Jefferson said leaves were granted only after supervisors and the director
met together to determine if the schedule would allow an employee to take the time she had
requested. Harrison said the time must be taken within a year of the time it was accrued.
Singleton suggested that leave might be requested 30 days in advance in the event that an
employee had accrued 60 days of leave, for example. Harrison said she would have a problem
with an employee taking 60 hours all at once.
Jefferson reminded the group that that situation had occurred before, because a 38 -hour work
week, with two weeks of compensatory time accrued, amounted to more than 60 hours and that
several employees had taken three-week vacations before. Harrison said that had not happened
very often. Thomas asked if accrued days off could apply to sick leave. Jefferson said it could.
The board approved that portion of the document.
On the holiday policy, Harrison noted that the only holiday
not on the library's schedule was Veteran's Day. The city
employees have taken that as a holiday, but the library traditionally has taken the Saturday after
Thanksgiving instead. She said it was of more value to the employees to have that four-day
period off. The board agreed.
Thomas asked if it was sick -leave policy that had gotten the library into a financial bind the
previous year. Jefferson said the library was starting from square one on sick -leave policy.
Singleton said he would get a copy of Tyson's policy if it would be helpful. Jefferson said that
public agencies had to follow different guidelines than private businesses. Harrison said the board
could always look at another policy for ideas. And she affirmed to Thomas that the payout of
vacation and sick -leave time to employees who had left the previous year had indeed placed the
library's finances in a bad position. She said she was comfortable with the policy of an employee
accruing up to two years' of vacation time but no more than that. She said an employee could
accrue up to 20 days of vacation time but could not accrue any more than that without taking
some of that time. Burdette asked what an employee who had worked there for five years without
taking a vacation would be entitled to; for example, would that employee be entitled to 30 working
days off? Harrison answered that the employee would be entitled to 15 working days; that would
be two years' of accrued vacation time. If the employee left, he/she would be paid for 15 working
days.
Singleton asked if a library employee could take no vacation and then not be paid for it? Would
the library would be forcing an experienced employee to take time off or risk losing the vacation
time and then have to bring in someone less experienced? Harrison said that had never
happened. She warns people who are coming close to accruing that much time. Singleton said
that the policy of no paid time off for a first-year employee, though standard, seemed rigid and
asked if there were a provision for allowing a first-year employee unpaid time off. Harrison said
that there was. Employees were allowed comp time, for which they would lose no pay, for
example. Jefferson said the library also allowed shift -sharing.
Singleton asked how immediate family was defined. Harrison said she had asked the board
previously for a definition. Jefferson said the library was now working with four different
definitions of immediate family: the library's, the city's, the county's and the Family Medical Leave
Act's.
Singleton suggested the board come back to the document when the definition had been
determined.
On military leave, Singleton said "in time of war and national emergency" was not needed,
because if an employee
enlisted in the military, it didn't matter; the enlistment
invoked the military provisions. In section 2, he said that
the employee's retention of seniority, sick leave and vacation time was correct, but he recalled
that military service counted as seniority for the purposes of vacation time, for example. Harrison
and Thomas said that would need to be checked. Harrison said she objected to someone who
had not worked for the facility to accrue vacation time. Singleton said the library could just say it
conformed to the military leave required by the federal government.
The board decided to set aside the document on retirement provisions until further information on
the retirement plan could be incorporated into the document.
Thomas asked who was serving on the grievance committee. Harrison said she was unsure,
because the committee had not met in about seven years. There had been only one occasion in
that time when one was needed. Phillips and Thomas said that a grievance committee should be
in place at all times in the event that it was needed.
Singleton said he had a problem with the phrasing of the statement in that if the grievance
committee resolved an employee dispute that was not to the satisfaction of the director, it would
cause the committee to lose credibility as an acting body. He said he had no specific
recommendation to replace the language, but he was concerned about the phrasing.
On a question from Godfrey about whether the committee would recommend a remedy or
enforce a remedy, Thomas said his understanding was that the committee would render a
decision about a remedy and if the employee was not satisfied or the director was not satisfied,
the matter would then be brought
before the board for a final remedy. Harrison said that was the plan. Thomas again said that the
matter should be handled in executive session. Harrison said that was a personnel matter and
would have to be in executive session. Thomas noted that the staff needed the clarification.
Harrison said that the committee could be appointed that week.
Jefferson said that problems occurring with a committee of that sort were documentation,
confidentiality and legality. She would like an opportunity to speak with other facilities that have
grievance committees to see how those problems are handled. Harrison suggested setting aside
this document as well for later consideration. Thomas and Phillips questioned the need for delay.
Harrison supported Jefferson in saying that documentation was needed and the matter merited
further investigation.
Singleton commended the policy, saying that employees really wanted to be heard on matters
and a hearing could often
prevent lawsuits or EEOC action, for example.
Maxey asked if the grievance committee could act without board approval. Thomas outlined a
scenario in which an employee had a dispute with Maxey that she could not resolve. The
employee next went to Harrison; if that was not satisfactory, then the employee next went to the
committee. If that was not satisfactory, the next measure would be to go to the board. Harrison
confirmed that sequence of events.
Jefferson then asked if the committee could overrule the director. Thomas said no. In that case,
Jefferson said, the guidelines and legalities for the grievance committee must be outlined.
Singleton noted that that was the pitfall. That was where the director's confidence in the
committee came into play. If the director consistently ignored the recommendations of the
committee, it would be worse than having no committee at all, in terms of employee relations, he
said. Would the decision of the grievance committee, then, go back to the director, Jefferson
asked? Singleton said, ultimately, it would have to; if the committee upheld the action of the
supervisor and/or the director, then that was the end of the action, unless the aggrieved party
was not satisfied and then wanted to take up the matter with the board of trustees. If the
committee took the step of overruling the staff or director, then it would be making a powerful
internal statement that the policy was wrong or that the director or staff had made an emotional
rather than a rational decision. Then it would be up to the director to either uphold the decision or
abide by the committee's decision and refer it to the board.
Jefferson said the underlying message of the entire process was that it had to be documented. In
industry, Singleton said, the process was that management appointed one member who was
likely to side with management, labor appointed one member likely to side with labor, which left
one member who was neutral and could be swayed by the facts to one position or the other. The
assumption is, he said, that the right course of action is likely to be recommended. "In effect you
get a jury trial," he said.
Jefferson said the library grievance committee is set up to take the information on the matter and
then take it under advisement and work on it. Committee members, she said, will need to know
that the positions mean work. It is not a simple or snap decision, she said.
Thomas noted the importance of having such a committee in place, even though it has not had to
be used that much in the past. Phillips said she did not believe that a staff
member's service on the committee will require much extra
time, because she did not anticipate that the need would arise that often for a grievance
committee to meet. Harrison noted, however, that if the committee did meet, membership on the
committee would require extra time. Duree noted that once the committee had rendered a
decision, the way in which the language read indicated that the decision would be final until and
unless either the director or the complaining staff member appealed it before the Board of
Trustees. The language does not allow for the director to summarily overturn the committee's
decision, she indicated. She said it did not contain the language to allow the director to review the
decision and decide whether to go along with it.
Documentation about the grievance committee's decision would have to be placed in the
employee's personnel file, Jefferson noted.
Harrison said members could be appointed and assigned by the next board member. All
members of the staff would need to be informed about the reappointment of the committee,
Phillips said.
At that time, the board adjourned the special meeting.
REGULAR MEETING
President Thomas called the regular meeting to order and announced to the group that no
substantive decisions were reached in the special meeting.
Duree asked for a change on Page 6 of the minutes: the "inter -local agreement" to "Ozarks
Regional Library agreement." Thomas asked for clarification to his statement about one board
member meeting with city officials to comply with the Freedom of Information Act; the city had
requested that only one member meet, he said. Thomas also noted that City Attorney Jerry
Rose had written a letter to Harrison stating that he would represent the library in any legal
matters that came up. Thomas suggested penciling in changes. The minutes were approved as
corrected (Phillips, Burdette).
Harrison then discussed correspondence, including minutes of the Washington County Library
Board meetings.
Thomas took time to note that he had talked with city budget officials and had been told that the
1996 fiscal year target budget would be the same figure that the library had ended its 1995 FY
budget. However, he added, the Washington County Library Board had given no promise that it
would budget in 1996 an additional $23,000 that that panel had allocated to the Fayetteville
Public Library in 1995. That allocation is still a possibility, he said, but there is no guarantee.
Harrison noted that letters had been received thanking Godfrey and Mary Loots for programs
presented.
Harrison brought attention to a letter she had sent Davis regarding budgetary concerns and the
fact she had pointed out that the library would have to seek a millage of 2.5 mills to maintain
current services and would have to seek more than 2.5 mills to increase services. (This increase
in millage reflects what city taxpayers would have to approve if the Fayetteville Public Library
sought a citywide millage for library services and withdrew from the Washington County Library
tax agreement.)
Phillips and Duree noted that the figures in the letter did not reflect the funding increases that
additional residents would pay or figures that reassessment of property taxes would reflect.
Burdette asked if the board was saying that its members would be comfortable in working with
the city and in seeking a library millage of 2.5 mills. Phillips said city officials had been telling the
board that it was getting harder and harder to pass tax levies. Thomas said he was under the
impression that the library could not expect to get any more than the current millage, because
other entities would be seeking millages, such as the schools. Duree noted that there was talk of
seeking a citywide tax to support parks services. Davis noted that would be a tax on hotel, motel
and restaurant receipts. Phillips said when asked by Burdette that she had been told by a city
official -- though not an alderman -- that the library could expect no more assistance from the city
until a library millage increase had been approved.
Godfrey asked if the fact that Fayetteville voters had resoundingly approved an increase in the
county library millage in 1994 carried no weight with city officials. Phillips said she believed that
was a very good question, and the library board had pointed out that fact when trustees and city
officials had discussed using a discretionary mill for library support.
Thomas said those city officials with whom he had discussed the matter were "more than a little
miffed" with what they considered retaliatory action when the library had closed on Saturdays and
eliminated evening hours on Mondays and Wednesdays early in 1995. The other matter of
consideration on discretionary millage, he said, was that the mayor and city council had pledged
not to use a discretionary mill without voter approval when Mayor Hanna rolled back discretionary
millage to allow the library and the Fayetteville Public Schools to seek their own millages. Davis
said that was "a fair appraisal."
Phillips said the library could either have closed on the front end of the year or the back end of
the year; it had not had the funds to maintain its old schedule with the staff members needed to
man the service areas. "We chose to do it on the front, and that may have appeared retaliatory,"
she said, but it was done out of necessity. Perhaps it would have been better, she said, to stay
open until November and then close because of the shortage of funds.
Thomas said it was not just some of the aldermen but Mayor Hanna who would not entertain or
endorse a millage. "Unless we go for our own," Phillips said. Where that leaves the library then,
Burdette said, is that on January 1, the library will be in the same spot it was in last year when
the board cut the operational hours of the library. Harrison said she suspected that was true. "It
might not be quite as bad," she said.
Harrison then turned to the matter of IRS codes. She pointed out correspondence from the IRS
and said she had talked to John Ervin on the library's tax-exempt status. She said Ervin's initial
statement that it would cost the library $2,500 to file a user fee and $500 for an accountant was
in error, but she had not received the exact amount from him. She asked the board if she should
further pursue the matter.
Phillips said she did not think that would be necessary. Ervin's letter indicated that if the library is
not part of the city, it is part of the county, and the tax-exempt status would be assured on that
score.
On the statistical reports, Thomas noted it was nice to see volunteer hours increased. Maxey
reported attendance up in children's activities.
Harrison noted there was additional interest in the long-term development account that was
reflected in the financial report. Singleton asked if the library was doing the best it could with
earning income from assets. Phillips said that the newest account from Boatmen's Bank was
earning 6.3 percent, which was about the top percentage. Another account will mature in
November, she said, which had been earning a very low percentage rate, and that will be
upgraded.
The statistical and financial reports were approved (Burdette, Phillips).
Harrison then presented fund-raising ideas to Singleton that staff members had suggested. He
said he would like to meet with Harrison before the next board meeting to discuss the ideas. He
also said he would like to have a "wish list" from staff members on activities they would like to
pursue. Harrison said that was contingent on staying open and having the money for basic library
materials.
Singleton said he would like to see sponsorships of materials. He said, for example, Fayetteville's
selection of periodical materials was not as good as that of the Springdale library, and he would
like to see the selection doubled. He suggested going to businesses and ask businesses to
subscribe to magazines for the library for a certain period of time. Harrison said most of the
library's periodicals are bid as a block through jobbers, specifically through the Regional library.
Duree said many are paid for by the Regional library. Singleton said it would be a visible way to
increase the library's collection.
Harrison said the Friends of the Fayetteville Public Library had tried that approach with only
limited success. If subscriptions could be sponsored, he asked, could those funds be diverted to
other items, such as books, he asked. To increase library patronage, he said, his idea would be
to secure something that would be relatively quick, visible and inexpensive. Harrison said any of
these ideas would require discussion about implementation. Duree said other libraries had
programs where books were "adopted;" for example, she said, if an individual paid for a new
bestseller, that person would be the first one to check it out when it became available. All these
matters would require staff time, she noted. Singleton said he was not sympathetic to items that
would require more staff time, because having more books would also require more staff time.
Jefferson noted that a good example of donations was the library's audio-visual collection, for
which there has never been a budget. All these items have been donated, either by individuals or
by the Friends of the Fayetteville Public Library. The Friends have committed $5,800 extra for
acquisitions of audio books for 1995, Jefferson said. This is an item that takes extra staff time,
she said, because it takes an additional seven or eight steps to get them ready for circulation.
Harrison reiterated that this idea would have to be discussed before any increases could be
implemented.
She then informed the board that she had reached a decision on the hiring of a new adult
services supervisor. David Johnson will begin work on July 3. He holds a master's degree in
communication and also a master's degree in library science. His previous position was as a
reference librarian with Louisiana State University at Eunice. He is a Little Rock native who
received his master's degree in communications at Fayetteville. He has extensive computer
experience, including serving as an instructor on the Internet. She said he had asked if his
starting salary could be increased from $24,698 to $25,933 as entry. She noted that the higher
figure had not been budgeted; Phillips said
"no" was the answer, because it was not budgeted.
Harrison said a special meeting would need to be held for purposes of approving a capital
improvements budget to submit to the city on July 1. The meeting was set for 4 p.m. on June 26.
The board approved holding the library's annual work week August 28 through September 4
(Phillips, Burdette).
Harrison noted that the insurance coverage figures requested were listed on the agenda: $1.746
million for the building, and the contents for $2.315 million. Harrison said she thought the building
value was from figures the city purchasing department has, and the contents value is probably
from book capitalization figures. Duree said she would be concerned that $1.7 million wouldn't
begin to rebuild the building, with 30,000 square feet in the main library and 6,000 square feet in
the annex. Duree said she based her concern on the cost of building the 24,000 -square -foot
Rogers library. Harrison said the square footage was closer to 32,000 square feet in Fayetteville.
On the next matter, Harrison said an additional person besides Phillips was needed to sign
checks for the library. Ann Prichard previously signed the checks. Burdette was selected.
Burdette reported that volunteer forms had been approved by the city. They were sent out in the
Friends newsletter, he said, and people are filling out the forms now. Genie Donovan will go over
the forms, and work will proceed from there. Harrison said the library had had telephone inquiries
on the subject.
Maxey said a representative from Mcllroy Bank had asked to send a representative to a
children's reading program to talk about opening savings accounts. She said board approval was
needed.
Harrison said this brought up the need to look at people's deriving personal gain from the library.
Use of the meeting room, under provisions listed, prohibits deriving personal gain, she said.
Phillips said a motion was needed on the matter.
Maxey said she had told the representative that all programs were already planned. Her concern
was the not-for-profit nature of the reading program, she said.
With appreciation to the bank, a motion was made to decline permission for the presentation
(Phillips, Burdette). The motion was approved.
Harrison noted that Dr. Mashburn had approached Godfrey with a request to put up signs noting
that his former office space was now part of the genealogy library. He indicated that he would
donate some money toward that end, but he didn't specify the amount. The board indicated that it
would act on putting up a plaque if a sizable donation was obtained. Phillips said Mashburn would
be entitled to no more than any other person who made a sizable donation.
Hartsell reported that the overdues program was not compatible with certain printer
configurations, but the company has not provided her with a list yet. It will not work with the
printer the library has, she said. Burdette asked for Hartsell to ask the company what it was
prepared to do if the printer problem can't be worked out. Nothing the library received from the
company indicated that any special printer was needed: It merely specified IBM or IBM-
compatible equipment, she said. Thomas asked for a copy of the letter.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned and moved into executive session (Phillips,
Burdette).
The meeting was reconvened in regular session. No action was taken in executive session. The
meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted by:
Susan M. Sissom
Staff
Follow -Ups:
Hartsell: Letter to computer overdues software company on printer problems
Harrison: Appointment of grievance committee members
