The proposed charter amendment to allow the Town Council to establish a municipal library system is being presented as a simple administrative improvement, but this change is far more significant than the ballot language suggests. The Town’s explanation focuses on creating a clear system for running libraries and ensuring access to learning resources. The discussions from the Charter Review Commission, Town Council, and the Libraries Board of Trustees reveal substantial gaps in process, communication, and evidence that must be addressed.

The libraries were excluded from the CRC’s deliberations. Although Council Member Iannotti and Council President Tassoni met with library leaders beforehand, those meetings were outside the CRC process. The CRC later said it did not know library directors or trustees wanted to speak. This communication failure calls for better collaboration, not restructuring the library system.

Financial oversight and a theoretical $700,000 savings claim have been cited to support the amendment, but neither establishes a case for municipalization. The libraries’ finances are public and reported to the Office of Library and Information Services. Municipalization would shift long term costs to the Town, while the libraries have independently funded numerous major improvements with no cost to the town. Clearer communication and expectations could address oversight concerns without dissolving the two institutions.

The future residency of the ESL is not an abstract concern. Its current location directly serves the lowest socioeconomic area of town and the only Title 1 school in Smithfield, making stability essential for the families who rely on it most. A municipal restructuring that introduces doubt about the library’s presence in the neighborhood it is designed to support risks harming the very residents who depend on it most.

A core reason to preserve the libraries’ independence is to keep educational materials, book selections, and programming free from political influence. Professionals trained in development and programming should make these decisions based on merit and community need, not government pressure or shifting priorities. Independent libraries protect intellectual freedom, diverse viewpoints, and public trust. Direct municipal control risks politicizing educational content and undermining the integrity and mission of both libraries.

The amendment goes far beyond administrative clarity or efficiency: it would dissolve two nonprofit institutions, transfer their legal and financial obligations to the Town, restructure governance, and potentially affect library locations. It also raises concerns about donor confidence, long-term costs, political influence, and the stability of both branches—complexities and objections from library leaders and commission members that the Town’s explanation does not adequately address.

These concerns do not warrant a municipal takeover. Communication failures should be resolved through collaboration, not restructuring; where the Town can provide services more efficiently or affordably, it should offer shared services as it does for the school department. I therefore oppose the ballot measure and support a transparent, data-driven process that strengthens communication, defines financial expectations, and preserves both libraries’ independence, stability, and community value