The Finkelstein Memorial Library Board of Trustees held an emergency meeting on Wednesday and officially passed a resolution confirming that the library will not conduct a revote following Tuesday’s election.
As part of the resolution, the board also voted to keep the 2026–2027 tax levy at the same rate as the 2025–2026 fiscal year, meaning there will be no tax increase despite the originally proposed 4.5% hike being rejected by voters.
The decision comes after residents overwhelmingly voted down the proposed budget increase in Tuesday’s highly watched library election, which also saw Ariel Dahan elected to the board of trustees.
Monsey Scoop will continue to follow developments surrounding the library and any future actions taken by the board.
This statement is provided to clarify serious concerns regarding the conduct and decision-making processes of the Finkelstein Memorial Library Board.
Library boards are elected with a clear mandate: to act in the best interests of the library and the full community it serves. This responsibility requires transparency, accountability, and a consistent focus on equitable representation for all residents. Based on publicly available information and recorded board meetings, it is increasingly evident that the current board has not consistently met these standards.
Board proceedings have demonstrated ongoing dysfunction, marked by an inability to efficiently resolve agenda items and maintain orderly, productive meetings. The repeated need for legal counsel and security personnel to manage meetings underscores the extent of this breakdown in governance. Such conditions are not only atypical but unacceptable for a public institution entrusted with community oversight. The situation has escalated to the point where at least one board member chose to resign, citing the untenable working environment.
The handling of the proposed 4.5% budget increase further highlights these concerns. While the financial impact to individual households may have been relatively modest—estimated at approximately $12 to $15 annually—the integrity of the process itself is of far greater consequence. Established review procedures were disrupted, Finance Committee findings were not meaningfully incorporated into board deliberations, and efforts to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the budget were blocked. Advancing a tax increase under these conditions reflects a disregard for standard governance practices and undermines public trust.
There is also a growing perception that the interests of larger property and building stakeholders over those of the broader community including renters and single-family households has influenced the negative vote. A public library must serve all constituents equitably, and any deviation from this principle warrants serious concern.
While the proposed budget was ultimately rejected by voters, it is important to recognize that the outcome was influenced, in part, by coordinated outreach efforts, including advocacy by certain community members encouraging a “no” vote. As a result, the vote should not be interpreted as a simple or comprehensive reflection of community consensus, but rather as an outcome shaped by active campaigning during a period of heightened controversy.
Taken together, these circumstances point to a clear need for improved governance, greater procedural integrity, and a renewed commitment to serving the entire community. The library is a vital public institution, and its leadership must operate with the professionalism, fairness, and transparency that residents both expect and deserve.