Politician's Mother Makes Him Apologize for Calling Neil Gaiman 'Pencil-Necked Weasel

[Hellmark]

It wasn't a library that paid him, but rather an organization whose purpose is to bring speakers to libraries. And yes, he did speak. Gaiman performed his contracted duty, and spoke for 4 hours. He also donated all the money to charity. Also, according to him, the amount he was actually paid was $33,600, and not the $45,000 figure.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

It wasn't a library that paid him, but rather an organization whose purpose is to bring speakers to libraries. And yes, he did speak. Gaiman performed his contracted duty, and spoke for 4 hours. He also donated all the money to charity. Also, according to him, the amount he was actually paid was $33,600, and not the $45,000 figure.

^What he said. Gaiman also said later that he wouldn't have taken that much except the organization told him their budget was "use it or lose it" so he took the money but donated it.

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by odiakkoh

Meh moms can only go so far. Can't blame her much for how her 40-60+ year old son acts. By then they have a mind of their own and had enough time to work out any issues their parents made them have.

...and she apparently earned his lasting respect for her judgment and admonitions.

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Criticizing the payment itself it not at all unreasonable - I'd certainly be disappointed if my cash-strapped library spent enough to pay a librarian for a year on bringing in a speaker for 4 hours - even someone like Gaiman, whom I like.

But none of this is Gaiman's fault at all.

Agreed! As a conservative (and a pencil Necked geek - #2 Ticonderoga, last I looked) I'm against excessive or uneccesary governmental spending. However as a realist, if the money is going to get spent foolishly anyway, I might as well get in line!

Mr Gaiman, is not at fault for cashing a stupid-money check. Now, if he VOTED for that library board, he IS at fault.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

It wasn't a library that paid him, but rather an organization whose purpose is to bring speakers to libraries. And yes, he did speak. Gaiman performed his contracted duty, and spoke for 4 hours. He also donated all the money to charity. Also, according to him, the amount he was actually paid was $33,600, and not the $45,000 figure.

Again, no disagreement with Gaiman being paid for what he did.

But if this happened in my state, I would still prefer that we not bring in speakers at the rate of $8,000 or $10,000 per hour when the libraries are laying off staff. (And, yes, I recognize that this is a separate fund, etc. But that doesn't mean that this fund shouldn't be changed).

[elcreative]

From the discussion, it looks like it was an end of budgetary year "use it or lose it" deal where any funds not spent get reclaimed by parent organisation... usual stupidity but the real solution to this tends to be more in the political arena, if a group is funded then that's it but threatening reclaim if not spent by end of year results in things like this... at least, thanks to Neil, the money went into public usage as he donated to charity...

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Again, no disagreement with Gaiman being paid for what he did.

But if this happened in my state, I would still prefer that we not bring in speakers at the rate of $8,000 or $10,000 per hour when the libraries are laying off staff. (And, yes, I recognize that this is a separate fund, etc. But that doesn't mean that this fund shouldn't be changed).

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by elcreative

From the discussion, it looks like it was an end of budgetary year "use it or lose it" deal where any funds not spent get reclaimed by parent organisation... usual stupidity but the real solution to this tends to be more in the political arena, if a group is funded then that's it but threatening reclaim if not spent by end of year results in things like this... at least, thanks to Neil, the money went into public usage as he donated to charity...

I agree. I've never understood public "use it or lose it" budgets. It's just silly.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

I agree. I've never understood public "use it or lose it" budgets. It's just silly.

Actually, it's not. The idea is that they requested funds for a specific purpose. They can't just say: you know what, we don't need the money for that, but since you agreed to give it to us, we want to use it for something else. And it also means, in many cases, that they can't request this money next time.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Actually, it's not. The idea is that they requested funds for a specific purpose. They can't just say: you know what, we don't need the money for that, but since you agreed to give it to us, we want to use it for something else. And it also means, in many cases, that they can't request this money next time.

That's why I think it's silly. Without the use it or lose it portion Gaiman could have offered his services for free or reduced and saved whatever organization/tax payer some money to be reallocated to a better use. Saving money shouldn't be punished.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by elcreative

From the discussion, it looks like it was an end of budgetary year "use it or lose it" deal where any funds not spent get reclaimed by parent organisation... usual stupidity but the real solution to this tends to be more in the political arena, if a group is funded then that's it but threatening reclaim if not spent by end of year results in things like this... at least, thanks to Neil, the money went into public usage as he donated to charity...

The problem is that if you don't use all of your budget, you get less next time as TPTB think you don't need as much as you got before and cut your budget. The right way to do it is to take any money left over and use it as part of next year's budget so they get the same amount just that some of it comes from last year.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

That's why I think it's silly. Without the use it or lose it portion Gaiman could have offered his services for free or reduced and saved whatever organization/tax payer some money to be reallocated to a better use. Saving money shouldn't be punished.

Gaiman could have offered his services anyway. And it isn't saving money. They had a year to spend the money on multiple guest speakers and decided to sit on it. Inviting speakers would have brought more people to the library which would have meant a bigger budget cut next year. This situation was caused either by management incompetence, or involvement with the politician to get the law passed.