From dulongj at habitant.org Sun Jan 14 05:47:05 2007 From: dulongj at habitant.org (John P. DuLong) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:47:05 -0500 Subject: [BHC] Costly Flawed Community Report Message-ID: <005401c737e2$80a08ad0$6401a8c0@family.local> Hello Folks, It has been some time since I have written about the Detroit Public Library, but I thought I should mention the flawed community report. Several weeks ago I heard that there had been a TV news report on a glossy report to the community that the Detroit Public Library released that was seriously flawed. I wanted to see the report for myself before writing to you and a kind informant came forward with a copy the Detroit Public Library Community Report 2000-2005 for me. This item is relatively rare now because I understand the library administration pulled the flawed copy out of distribution. So what is wrong with the report? Nothing really if you do not mind a great Detroit institution being referred to as the Detroit PUBIC Library. That is right, PUBIC. The incompetent administration of the library released a glossy report to update the community and on two pages, 5 and 16, it refers to the library as PUBIC. Now I have to be careful here because those of you who know me well know that I am completely capable of making a lame mistake like this in my writing. But when I make a grammar or spelling mistake, it is embarrassing, not costly. My sources indicate that well over $50,000 was spent on printing this report, with an unknown additional amount paid to a consulting company to design the report. According to accounts I have heard of the news story, Ms. Skowronski, the Directory of the library, blamed the consultant firm, the consultant in turn blamed the printer, and the printer simply replied that it was not his responsibility to proof the pages submitted to him for printing (which I understand is indeed the case with most printing arrangements). The client, in this case the library administration, is always responsible for the content of anything that appears as an official document. So you have incompetence mixed with a lack of accountability on the part of the library administration. By the way, this is not a unique problem, the phrase Detroit PUBIC Library also appears on the library?s website at http://www.detroit.lib.mi.us/ts/Technology_science.htm, the Technology and Science webpage, under the Government Documents section (as viewed on 13 January 2007). The report is flawed by other grammatical mistakes and the left justification format used in the financial report is not standard and makes it difficult to read the numbers. But apparently reading and checking the numbers was not a concern. The expenses they report add up to $108,750,231.00 but the administration?s math adds these numbers up to $36,938,419.00 a mistake of $71,811,812.00 (see page 26). Gee I hope they are not balancing their books with the same sloppiness. Now perhaps you will say to yourself that John is nitpicking and should just relax. Mistakes happen. True enough. But what really burns me up is that this mistake has cost Detroit tax payers more than $50,000. This is far more than has been collected by the bogus usage fee the library charges some non-Detroiters to use the Burton Historical Collection. It is a waste of money and there is no excuse for it. The report ends with the following quote by Thomas Edison: ?It was the books I borrowed from Detroit Public Library when I was a trainboy and too poor to buy them that gave me the scientific information needed for my early experiments. I cannot be too grateful for the library privileges accorded me and I hope we may speed the time when every boy in America?as well as every man and woman?may have free access to books.? How ironic. Young Edison was a Port Huron resident. The library would not be free to him now! He was a youthful entrepreneur who would sell treats and newspapers to passengers on the train ride from Port Huron to Detroit and back. On his stop in Detroit he would use the library. Of course now he would have to pay if he dared to use the Burton Historical Collection or check out a book out of the general collection. Lastly, a few days ago I went down and used the reading room of the Burton Historical Collection, which is still free to us. I noticed that Dr. Wheeler?s folly, the caf? he was so adamant about establishing, is no defunct. Also, I could not help but notice how shabby the library looked and how many lights were not functional. Too bad they did not use $50,000 to improve the lighting. Well enough for now. I hope you all have a good year and that 2007 sees a turnaround at the Detroit Public Library. JP John P. DuLong, Ph.D. Acadian and French Canadian Genealogy 959 Oxford Road Berkley, MI 48072-2011 (248) 541-2894 http://habitant.org From avtrudeau at wowway.com Sun Jan 14 07:54:07 2007 From: avtrudeau at wowway.com (avtrudeau at wowway.com) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:54:07 -0600 Subject: [BHC] Costly Flawed Community Report In-Reply-To: <005401c737e2$80a08ad0$6401a8c0@family.local> References: <005401c737e2$80a08ad0$6401a8c0@family.local> Message-ID: <20070114154515.M78990@wowway.com> Thanks, John, for keeping us posted. You always articulate so well for us? what many of us perceive but can't quite put so well into words. Your notes often remind me of that line from Alexander Pope's Essay on Criticism -- "What oft was thought, but ne'er so well expressed ". Al Trudeau WOW! Homepage (http://www.wowway.com) ---------- Original Message----------- From: "John P. DuLong" To: Sent: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:47:05 -0500 Subject: [BHC] Costly Flawed Community Report > Burton Historical Collection List >_______________________________________________ > >Hello Folks, > >It has been some time since I have written about the Detroit Public Library, >but I thought I should mention the flawed community report. > >Several weeks ago I heard that there had been a TV news report on a glossy >report to the community that the Detroit Public Library released that was >seriously flawed. ?I wanted to see the report for myself before writing to >you and a kind informant came forward with a copy the Detroit Public Library >Community Report 2000-2005 for me. ?This item is relatively rare nowbecause >I understand the library administration pulled the flawed copy out of >distribution. ? > >So what is wrong with the report? ?Nothing really if you do not mind agreat >Detroit institution being referred to as the Detroit PUBIC Library. ?Thatis >right, PUBIC. ?The incompetent administration of the library released a >glossy report to update the community and on two pages, 5 and 16, it refers >to the library as PUBIC. ?Now I have to be careful here because those ofyou >who know me well know that I am completely capable of making a lame mistake >like this in my writing. ?But when I make a grammar or spelling mistake, it >is embarrassing, not costly. > >My sources indicate that well over $50,000 was spent on printing this >report, with an unknown additional amount paid to a consulting company to >design the report. ?According to accounts I have heard of the news story, >Ms. Skowronski, the Directory of the library, blamed the consultant firm, >the consultant in turn blamed the printer, and the printer simply replied >that it was not his responsibility to proof the pages submitted to him for >printing (which I understand is indeed the case with most printing >arrangements). ?The client, in this case the library administration, is >always responsible for the content of anything that appears as an official >document. ?So you have incompetence mixed with a lack of accountability on >the part of the library administration. > >By the way, this is not a unique problem, the phrase Detroit PUBIC Library >also appears on the library?s website at >http://www.detroit.lib.mi.us/ts/Technology_science.htm, theTechnology and >Science webpage, under the Government Documents section (as viewed on 13 >January 2007). > >The report is flawed by other grammatical mistakes and the left >justification format used in the financial report is not standard and makes >it difficult to read the numbers. ?But apparently reading and checking the >numbers was not a concern. ?The expenses they report add up to >$108,750,231.00 but the administration?s math adds these numbers up to >$36,938,419.00 a mistake of $71,811,812.00 (see page 26). ?Gee I hope they >are not balancing their books with the same sloppiness. > >Now perhaps you will say to yourself that John is nitpicking and should just >relax. ?Mistakes happen. ?True enough. ?But what really burns meup is that >this mistake has cost Detroit tax payers more than $50,000. ?This is far >more than has been collected by the bogus usage fee the library charges some >non-Detroiters to use the Burton Historical Collection. ?It is a waste of >money and there is no excuse for it. > >The report ends with the following quote by Thomas Edison: > >?It was the books I borrowed from Detroit Public Library when I was a >trainboy and too poor to buy them that gave me the scientific information >needed for my early experiments. ?I cannot be too grateful for the library >privileges accorded me and I hope we may speed the time when every boy in >America?as well as every man and woman?may have free access to books.? > >How ironic. ?Young Edison was a Port Huron resident. ?The librarywould not >be free to him now! ?He was a youthful entrepreneur who would sell treats >and newspapers to passengers on the train ride from Port Huron to Detroit >and back. ?On his stop in Detroit he would use the library. ?Of coursenow >he would have to pay if he dared to use the Burton Historical Collection or >check out a book out of the general collection. > >Lastly, a few days ago I went down and used the reading room of the Burton >Historical Collection, which is still free to us. ?I noticed that Dr. >Wheeler?s folly, the caf? he was so adamant about establishing, is no >defunct. ?Also, I could not help but notice how shabby the library looked >and how many lights were not functional. ?Too bad they did not use $50,000 >to improve the lighting. > >Well enough for now. ?I hope you all have a good year and that 2007 sees a >turnaround at the Detroit Public Library. > >JP > >John P. DuLong, Ph.D. >Acadian and French Canadian Genealogy >959 Oxford Road >Berkley, MI 48072-2011 >(248) 541-2894 >http://habitant.org > >_______________________________________________ >BHC mailing list >BHC at habitant.org >http://habitant.org/mailman/listinfo/bhc_habitant.org > >To visit our archives of postings or to unsubscribe, please point your browserto our list <a href="http://habitant.org/mailman/listinfo/bhc_habitant.org">webpage</a>. ------- End of Original Message------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://habitant.org/pipermail/bhc_habitant.org/attachments/20070114/9d8cfff8/attachment.html From ckhyde at talkamerica.net Mon Jan 29 17:18:57 2007 From: ckhyde at talkamerica.net (Charles K. Hyde) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:18:57 -0500 Subject: [BHC] THE DPL'S FLAWED REPORT TO THE CITIZENS OF DETROIT Message-ID: <20070130011908.C6252138577@mail13.mdx.safepages.com> John: Thanks for bringing this most recent DPL Administration's blunder to our attention. A report to the citizens of Detroit with typos, poor design , and numbers which do not add up ! The response of Ms. Skowronski is typical. The Library Administration seems more adept at "passing the buck" than they are at "passing the book." A $50,000+ blunder. I wonder who lost their job as a result? Sadly, I know the answer. This would not have happened in any other library system in the United States. Only in Detroit. So sad. The taxpayer's dollars at work ! Isn't it ironic that the Library, which ought to be a "bastion of literacy" is anything butt that?