There have been some large numbers thrown around about the amount of overdue fines that were waived, so let’s hear from Woodson Hughes on this subject…
In response to that $1400 number, Woodson Hughes says…
The $1400 waived was for the ENTIRE SYSTEM over the period of time discussed. It looks like it’s being made to sound as if I waived that much. Actually, I didn’t wait desk all that often in recent years and couldn’t have waived too much at all. Also remember that Rhonda’s system of charging for the books after a short time and the staff having to waive the cost of the book and the processing fee when the book was returned created a deficit when weighted against a $2 fine (the processing fee alone was that much) so it was remarkable that the library was breaking even at all.
We hope this clears up some misunderstandings.
So if he wasn’t at the desk much, he was not the one in particular to waive the fines. So does this mean that he was let go because he did not uphold the policy? If the employees in his charge did not collect fines, it’s his management skills that are actually in question, maybe? Then how in the WORLD was he slandered with the accusation of embezzlement?? It’s bad enough that it’s the lack of money involved, not the misappropriation of money collected. But then to realize he is taking the fall for his fellow employee’s acts… so sad.
Editor’s Note: The word “embezzlement” was used in an email from Griffin to the staff. She did not mention Hughes by name in that email, so there’s no defamation of Hughes. – BruceH
This stinks, and I don’t like it.
I know the context it was used in now. I read the links a little more thoroughly since my last post. However, we all now how the grapevine works. Regardless of how it was used, we know that this word will be attached to this incident, and to Mr. Hughes, for a long time….
The fines are to get people to return books on time.
The taxpayers pay for the books, taxpayers check out the books, so you are fined for checking out books that belong to the taxpayers!
Leave the guy alone, give him his job back, demands from a taxpayer!
Rhonda Griffin did not use the words “embezzlement” and “Woodson Hughes” in her initial email to the staff, but both were used in the statement allegedly written by Carol Beadles (but obviously penned by Mrs. Griffin) and read before the Library Board last Tuesday. The implied connection is more than clear.
And as Woodson rightly points out, there is a lot creative juggling of numbers being done. As Curtis Brauda underscores out in a recent letter to the News & Record: “[Rhonda Griffin] speaks to $1400 in fines being waived over a three month period, which seems like a lot on the face of it. When you consider the accounting method used, daily fine + processing fee + replacement cost of the book = total fine, the $1400 actually accounts for significantly fewer incidents of fine waving than it appears. That figure itself may actually be largely a phantom number since when a reportedly lost book is later found and returned the replacement cost of the book is waived and, as I understand it, this remains on the accounting books as a waived fine even when the maximum fine and processing fee have been paid.”
Dear Woodson,
I heard and verified that you were recently hired by BlockBuster for 15 hours a week. I also heard and verified that you got the job because you knew a manager there.
Learning this bothers me at many levels. Foremost you are still on your severance or a matter of days departed from your severance, and through a connection you got a coveted job.
You may not understand why I am using the word coveted. The fact is that there are many unemployed people in this community that are seeking jobs that offer a level of dignity and status. BlockBuster happens to be one of them. Typically people await with great patience and preparation for notices of jobs in the newspaper or the VA ALEX VEC and undergo a very specific and non-flexible word-for-word, skill-by-skill process to determine their eligibility and then a process to determine their behaviorial eligibility. The process is debasing. Without favoritism, could you have succeeded in that process? Do I think that you may have benefitted in enduring through that process?
Secondly I just wonder how dire your circumstances are. Compared to other people seeking work at BlockBuster… It is a discussion of relative need. If one is widely read there is plenty of ethical discussion about how people explore jobs. Does one have children? Does one have disabled children? Does one have a spouse or partner that is already employed? Does one have property inherited? Does one have an actually strong support system that could readily absorb a member through long unemployment?
And the third aspect is the most demanding of one’s character. Unemployment is very scary. If it goes on for a long time, the very essence of that person is challenged. The event of rejection is nothing. It is in the face of that rejection that one needs to re-invent one’s self.
At this writing I see that you are still seeking to have your job at the library restored. Perhaps your position at the library will be restored yet would it be interesting and instructive if you actually valued this time to understand the members of your community that have long been unemployed…..
I didn’t seek the difficult aspects of my life, but I am actually extremely grateful for them…
All the best,
You know me and my kid, and we have loved you a lot. You have been an example. And frankly my kid wants to see how you will continue to be an example.
For now, just CovetedJobs because I also have to care about other people of really terrible circumstances in my community
Reply to Liz McGurty Re: Coveted Jobs – the above post. Liz get your facts right and stop assisting by assuming for the benefit of your alliance with the Library Director. Before you post information, verify with the people that are the basis of your attacks. This would be akin to your posting this information in order to gain employment with the Library. Now if I don’t know this for a fact, then I should not post it. There are counselor that may be able to help you. You poor sick child.
Ms McGurty, you may have “heard and verified” that Woodson was hired by Blockbuster and that you “heard and verified” that this was because he “knew the manager” (though who would be doing all this verifying is beyond me). But you quite simply don’t have your facts straight. But, as I’m beginning to learn, facts evidently aren’t your long suit. And, frankly, the whole idea of you creeping around checking up on people’s private lives is more than a little disturbing.
I hope about eleventy zillion people show up tonight at the Board of Supervisor’s meeting at Mary Bethune in support of Woodson! Curtis Waskey has a great letter he’s going to read…it’s really brilliant. He’s timed it to fill precisely three minutes so he won’t get cut off in mid-sentence like he had been at the Library Board meeting.