The Finkelstein Memorial Library Board voted at a special meeting Tuesday night to approve a 4.5% tax increase, drawing opposition from two trustees and raising concerns about how the budget was reviewed.
Trustees Esther Waldman and Yossi Rubinstein were the only members to vote against the increase.
During the meeting, trustees explained that the controversy began in the days leading up to the vote, when a special meeting was announced to address the library’s budget. As part of that process, the Finance Committee, tasked with reviewing and scrutinizing the budget in detail, attempted to convene a meeting to go through the proposal line by line.
However, as reported by trustees during the meeting the board president informed members that committee meetings were being suspended, resulting in the library’s director and business manager not attending. Despite this, members of the Finance Committee proceeded with a review alongside the treasurer, analyzing the budget to the best of their ability without administrative input.
During that review, several areas of concern were reportedly identified, and a formal report outlining those issues was submitted to the full board days before the vote.
An effort was made ahead of the meeting to amend the agenda to include the Finance Committee’s findings, but the request was not approved. A similar motion made during the meeting was also voted down, preventing the committee’s report from being presented prior to the budget vote.
The board proceeded to approve the 4.5% increase after hearing from the library director, without significant discussion of the concerns raised or a detailed line-by-line review.
The measure ultimately passed, with Waldman and Rubinstein casting the only dissenting votes.
It remains unclear if library officials will respond to the concerns raised regarding the process leading up to the vote.
Aren’t there other trustees from our community? Why did they vote for this, especially if there was no input from the board on this budget?
Not at the moment,
One resigned, and the other seems to be less interested in representing the community that voted them in.
Well done, library board and thank you👏👏
The board did an excellent job. They passed a 4.5% proposed tax levy.
This post is not correct. It has a lot of factual deficiencies.
The finance committee that was called was an illegal meeting. It was not notified to the public and there wasn’t three days notice. The quorum of the board voted for this budget to be passed based on the financial needs of the Libray The vote was four who passed and two who declined. This mis information is obviously coming from one of the people who voted no
Let’s be clear about what’s actually happening here.
Yes, if the finance committee meeting wasn’t noticed three days in advance, that’s a procedural issue — and it should be addressed. Rules about public notice exist for a reason. But focusing almost exclusively on that point feels like a convenient distraction from what the committee was actually doing: its job.
Because unlike the quorum, the committee appears to have taken its responsibility seriously. It met, it reviewed, and it engaged with the financial details instead of just waving them through. That’s the whole purpose of a finance committee — to provide scrutiny, ask questions, and ensure decisions are grounded in oversight, not assumption.
Meanwhile, the quorum is being praised for approving the budget “based on the financial needs of the Library,” as if that alone is enough. Since when is “they said they need it” an acceptable standard for approval? Oversight means verifying those needs, not just accepting them at face value.
So yes, talk about notice requirements — but don’t use that technicality to undermine the only group that was actually exercising due diligence. The irony here is hard to miss: the committee is criticized over process, while the quorum gets a pass for bypassing substance entirely.
If anything, this flips the narrative. The real concern isn’t that the committee met — it’s that the broader board seemed far more comfortable approving a budget than actually examining it.
You are so misinformed obviously you drank the Kool-Aid
Obviously, you drank the Kool-Aid
Unfortunately your post is simply untrue. These are the facts. The Finance Committee meeting was not “illegal.” It was called on Monday, for Friday, which is more than 3 days notice. Several attempts were made to have it publicly posted, but the Library Director, Board President, and Board Secretary all ignored those attempts in an effort to suppress the meeting. The meeting was called because the Handbook for Library Trustees which guides Boards of public libraries states that “During its development, the budget draft should be reviewed and scrutinized by the… Board’s Finance Committee… before it is
presented to the full Board…” (pg. 75). It is not the Finance Committee who acted illegally, but it is the director, president, secretary, and the rest of the board who, not only voted to approve a tax levy increase without appropriate review and scrutiny, but actively tried to prevent the Finance committee from performing their fiduciary duties as well. Before posting misinformation in the future, consider whether it may be libelous.
The recent decision by the Finkelstein Memorial Library Board to approve a 4.5% tax increase reflects an important investment in the continued strength and accessibility of a vital community resource. The library’s unique ability to offer extended seven-day service, along with flexible borrowing that allows families to access multiple materials at once, represents a level of service that is both uncommon and deeply valued by residents.
Maintaining these standards requires not only thoughtful planning but also the necessary operational support, including staffing for extended hours. In particular, the ability to remain open seven days a week often necessitates overtime coverage, ensuring that the community can reliably access services when they need them most. This level of availability contributes significantly to educational support, workforce development, and overall quality of life within the district.
While it is natural and healthy for board members to engage in discussion and express differing viewpoints, it is equally important that the broader perspective remains centered on the long-term success and sustainability of the library. The institution serves a diverse population whose needs continue to grow, and investments such as this help preserve equitable access to information, technology, and shared community space.
At the same time, it is worth noting that public discourse surrounding the budget has included a range of perspectives. Some commentary appears to reflect concerns more closely aligned with minimizing financial impact on property stakeholders rather than fully recognizing the comprehensive value the library provides to the entire community. Striking a balance between fiscal responsibility and community enrichment is essential, and continued collaboration will help ensure that all voices are considered constructively.
Overall, the approved increase represents a commitment to maintaining the high level of service that patrons have come to expect. Moving forward, continued transparency, open communication, and a shared focus on community benefit will further strengthen trust and support for the library’s mission.
Did you read the article? It wasn’t about cutting library funding or services. It was about a board that made a decision without looking at what they were voting on.
No one is arguing against the value of the library or the services it provides. The issue isn’t what the library does—it’s how this decision was made.
Supporting the trustees who voted no isn’t about opposing investment in the library; it’s about expecting a transparent and accountable process before asking taxpayers for more money. When the Finance Committee is prevented from presenting its findings, and a line-by-line review is effectively sidelined, that raises legitimate concerns—regardless of how worthwhile the services are.
A 4.5% increase may very well be justified. But if that’s the case, it should be able to withstand full scrutiny and open discussion. Rushing a vote while blocking internal review doesn’t build trust—it undermines it.
Wanting both strong library services and proper oversight isn’t unreasonable. In fact, it’s exactly what residents should expect.
I support this decision because all communities in the Spring Valley and Rockland area contribute to the taxes that fund the Finkelstein Memorial Library, and therefore everyone has the right to benefit from its services. We cannot focus on just one concern—we need to consider the needs of the entire community.
It’s also important to recognize that if the budget does not pass, the community could lose access to some of the services and benefits that make the Finkelstein Memorial Library such a vital resource.
Did you read the article? It wasn’t a decision at all. In fact it was about a board that chose to approve something without looking into it.
You step into that library and it’s like you’ve accidentally triggered a time machine — destination: 2016, frozen at midnight. Seriously, I half expected someone to hand me a Pokémon Go tip and a fidget spinner on the way in.
And the vibe? Immaculate… if the goal was “historic exhibit of slightly outdated public funding decisions.” Meanwhile, you take a walk to any other local library nearby and suddenly it’s, “Hey, maybe we can make things look nice!”
But sure — after that little nostalgia trip, we’re supposed to come back and enthusiastically approve more money? Bold strategy. Truly visionary.