ShareThis Page
Regional Asset District seeks special audit of Carnegie Library |

Regional Asset District seeks special audit of Carnegie Library

The Tribune-Review
| Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:00 p.m

The Allegheny Regional Asset District is asking a special auditor to examine how the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh chose the branches it wants to close, how much money that would save and how the pay of Carnegie Library President Barbara K. Mistick compares with directors of similar-size systems.

Those are among 10 tasks outlined in a request for proposal released this morning by RAD. The district’s board approved a special audit Oct. 21 in response to a request from Mayor Luke Ravenstahl.

The mayor called for the audit after the Carnegie’s board voted Oct. 5 to close the Allegheny Depository and branches in Beechview, Hazelwood, the West End and Lawrenceville, merge the Carrick and Knoxville branches and move the Mt. Washington branch from Grandview to Virginia Avenue.

“The Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh said they used a study they have as yet not released,” said RAD Executive Director David Donahoe. “The issue that has been raised by people is why these branches.”

Among the criteria used in selecting branches, Carnegie Library spokeswoman Suzanne Thinnnes said, were the closness to other libraries, access to public transportation, outreach efforts and the condition of the buildings.

Firms interested in doing the audit must respond by Nov. 10. The special auditor must complete the report by the end of March 2010.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.