Public trust must first be possessed before it can be lost.

I would say that the overall trust factor for almost all facets of our local government is extremely low at the moment, and getting lower. Most of those you are hearing from (by various means) fit into two distinct categories:

1: Those who are extremely annoyed at the way many of the current budget proposals (including that involving the main library) were developed and presented or,

2: Those who are “not particularly surprised”.

Those who are extremely annoyed are the ones whose opinions you (our local elected and appointed officials) have been damaging and eroding for some time now.

You lost, quite possibly irretrievably, those who are “not particularly surprised” a long time ago.

From deficits to infrastructure to the museum of art to polluted beaches to the breakwater to redevelopment to our public schools and more, the public’s capacity to trust that you (our local government) can efficiently and successfully manage their business has been slowly but inexorably dissolving for decades.

Your public doesn’t feel included. Meetings intended to solicit public input are so poorly planned and run that time actually provided to the public is routinely and severely truncated. These meetings are, in fact, *our* meetings, yet we are routinely made to feel as though you entertain our comments only grudgingly.

Your public doesn’t feel you are sufficiently honest with them. You routinely say that we ‘must’ do one thing or another to better manage our city, yet fail to fully explain to us why. When you do bother to explain, you routinely offer us insufficient facts so that we may best advise you of the direction we want you to take.

Your public is fed up with financial ineptitude. We’re tired of hearing about budget deficits that could and should be better planned for and resolved but are not. Like almost all other budgets, our budget fails not because we don’t have enough revenue, but because we routinely spend more than we make. Our government was never intended to be all things to all people. There are some products, services and programs that you (as a government) have no business even offering, let alone providing. That you continue to try to provide these excesses costs us precious revenue that we then cannot apply to the things that should be clear priorities: sound infrastructure, quality education, superb public safety, a cleaner environment and a welcoming business climate.

Your public is tired of the overall lack of accountability (i.e. consequences) for failure. When an appointed manager repeatedly fails to meet the goals and objectives you set for him/her, they must be dismissed and replaced with another who will meet them. When a publicly funded project repeatedly fails to meet the reasonable benchmarks for success that you set for it, you *must* de-fund that project.

Your public desires that you maintain our infrastructure. When you build a library, you must maintain it. When you build roads and sidewalks, you must keep them…all of them…in a condition that is safe to use. When you build neighborhoods, you must pave the alleyways and you must assure that sufficient parking and ingress and egress exist to prevent related parking and traffic congestion.

Your public desires that you keep the promises you make. When you use public funds to build an aquarium or a parking structure or to improve a museum and promise us that each will be able to re-pay their debts to us and operate self-sufficiently, you must do better at protecting our investments and become much more decisive in your actions in response to failures.

In short, Ms. Schipske and colleagues, you need to govern more effectively. This does not mean becoming more adept at convincing us that what *you* desire to do is best for us. It means becoming more adept at subordinating yourselves, during your time in office, to those who are truly sovereign in this relationship: the People, as represented by a majority of the electorate.

It means closing your mouths and opening your ears…and your minds…far more often than you do currently; to what your constituents are saying and what it is they want for their city.

It means understanding, once clearly communicated, what your constituents truly want for their city that and then doing that and nothing else but that.

Once you and your elected and appointed colleagues better understand these things, Ms. Schipske, and then begin to govern accordingly, then and only then will you begin to recover that public trust of which you speak.

After attending most of the city council's budget meetings – and listening to all of the lengthy public comment, including people from all over the city who use Main because they can’t find what they need at the branches, and reading Theo’s very thoughtful coverage of the issue in The District, my opinion is this building should be repaired, kept open, and remain a library. The city has let it fall into disrepair, and now some are trying to justify shutting it down and, presumably, tearing it down (we have to presume, since there is no plan). This building is architecturally notable; it should not be considered disposable! Just think if NYC had let its public library fall apart, then just tore it down! Long Beach has a history of razing buildings, only to put up worse ones (The Pike, CityPlace, etc. etc.). There is no study that says the Library's repairs must happen imminently, and I support Councilmember Bonnie Lowenthal’s idea to put a “library bond” before the voters. Come on Long Beach, show a little pride in your public institutions!

City Councilmembers, please take Main out of this budget process and do your due diligence!!

Cari Marshall