Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Library WiFi Ended by Porn Fine in West Bend Community Memorial Library; Acceptable Use Policies are Absolute Failures

Boots & Sabers exposes
porn/fines shut down
WiFi at WBCML.
A library has shut its WiFi service as a result of downloaded porn and copyrighted material and the federal fine that resulted.  Remarkably, this is the West Bend Community Memorial Library, West Bend, WI, [WBCML] that vigorously defended pornography in the past and opposed using Internet filtering, choosing instead to follow the guidance of the American Library Association [ALA].

This is the very ALA that effectively controls a third of American libraries, according to the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act.  This is the same ALA that made personal appearances in West Bend to sway the public.  This is the same ALA that made factually false statements to emotionally shape people into refusing to use legal means to protect community members.  The University of Wisconsin-Madison joined in that propaganda effort.  This is the same ALA that attacked everyone who sought to apply legal means to control porn in the WBCML or who sought to assist them, like myself.  This is the same ALA that quietly, without public statement, granted $1,000.00 to one community member to sway the events that occurred in that community; that's called astroturfing.

At least one community member recognized the problem and stood up to try to do something about it.  As a result of her work the local government refused to reappoint a number of library trustees.  The board president herself was removed as well.

That said, the ALA propaganda was effective on the library board as constituted at the time, so the community remained exposed to harm it would have been legal to control.  And here we are today, with pornography flowing over the library's WiFi system so much that the federal government fined the library:

Remarkable, especially given this WBCML library's history of defending its anything-goes policy:

Due to illegal downloads and fines,
the West Bend Library is eliminating wireless access
to all laptops and mobile devices.
When a practical solution can be implemented
we will resume wireless service.
Our other 13 internet stations are still available for use with your library card [sic]

Source:  "No Wireless," by Unnamed, West Bend Community Memorial Library, 28 August 2012.

Will the community finally jettison the harm done by the ALA?  Maybe the WiFi fine will provide some motivation.  I call upon the library to publicize the letter advising the WBCML of the federal fine.


"Acceptable Use" Policies are Absolute Failures

By the way, this matter illustrates once again the absolute failure of library "acceptable use" policies.  WBCML had a "Wireless Internet Access" policy: "Users are expected to comply with the Library Acceptable Internet Use Policy."  Did that work?  No, and that's why the library got fined.  You see, the ALA advises libraries to use acceptable use policies and not Internet filters.  Given the ALA's heavy involvement in this community and quiet grants, perhaps the ALA should pay the fine.

"The Library is not responsible for the content of websites or email accessed through the Library network."  Given the federal fines, that statement is patently false.  As are many of the library's other policy statements.

If your library is relying on policies instead of filters to control illegal activity, your community may be next up for a federal fine.  You don't have to sit back and let that happen.  Contact me or Safe Schools, Safe Libraries Project if you would like assistance in restoring local control to your public library.


NOTE ADDED 30 AUGUST 2012:

Two additions of note.  First, a comment on the Boots & Sabers blog from one of the library's trustees in response to the blog and quoting another comment.  Second, an email to a radio personality from the person who raised the alarm many years ago.


Comment by WBCML Board of Trustee Member Matt Stevens:

According to the Daily News, it is a porno production company claiming $200 x 2 for because someone downloaded two copyrighted pornos.  Also claiming there could be more to pay for legal expenses, etc.  I hope the library ignores this - I suspect the porno company is used to getting their payments because the downloader doesn’t want anyone to know it.  Kind of like a form of legal blackmail.  Anyway, the library should just blow it off & see what happens.
We are paying the fine per recommendation of the city attorney.  My understanding is that charter verified the download took place.  The addition of the webfilter is two-fold.  Stop most users from doing anything illegal, and give us logging capabilities so we can verify something took place should this come up again (and depending on the filter, possibly give us the ability to identify the offender).
Article also notes that Library Board member Matt Stevens will donate his services to help set up the web device that will reduce the chances of this happening, so that this outage of access will not be unnecessarily longer than it needs to be.  A big shout-out for that!
Thank you.  The library is important to me, which is why I'm on the board in the first place.  I think the library could find volunteers for other various needs as I know there are many who care about the library too.

In addition, we also were able to almost 0 balance our budget last night thanks to the fantastic work of Sue and her staff.  They worked hard, came up with ideas, and we approved a plan that will balance the FY2013 budget save maybe a few thousand dollars, which will come out of the reserve fund.  That's far better than the $60,000+ deficit we started with.  I'm guessing another article in the daily news this week will cover the details, but we were able to make the adjustments without cutting services or eliminating any positions.  We did increase the late fees slightly, the copy fees slightly, etc as well, but the fees are all still very low and in-line with other libraries in the area.

Posted by Matt Stevens on August 30, 2012 at 0821 hrs



Comment by Ginny Maziarka of West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries:

They're at it again.  The West Bend Library has been busted for illegal porn downloads on their WiFi.

This is exactly what West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries predicted, and fought against.  Why did we lose?  Because bully outsiders, people who don't live in our community and by our community standards, came to West Bend and shouted down the local parents and taxpayers to get their way.  People like the wealthy, uber-liberal American Library Association, Wisconsin Library Association, Office of Informational Freedom and, of course, the biggest crybaby bully of them all, the ACLU.

Now we have perverts using our taxpayer-funded WiFi to download porn in West Bend.  Nice.  Guess what?  They're looking at it on the hardwired taxpayer-funded computers, too.  How do we know?  Because we filed an ORR three years ago and have copies of police reports and complaints.  No surprise here, though.  This is the now the standard, the norm, instead of a rare occurrence.  These stories are in the paper all the time across the nation because goons like the ACLU and the ALA insist that folks like us shouldn't get to say what we will and will not pay for, and put up with, in our local communities in the glorified name of censorship.

Three years ago the citizens of West Bend said NO.

We asked for filters on the computers in our library - the library board said "no."

We asked for gay kiddie porn to be removed from the young adult section of the library - the library board said "no."  To this day we still have the same young adult librarian, Kristin Pekoll, pushing the same garbage onto our shelves.

I've included an article (with the link) below for you that was written by Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries, a national organization that exposes the American Library Association for what it is - a porn-pushing, liberal,  immoral, George Soros buddy of an institution that intimidates and censors small-town folks.

The West Bend Library now has a new board headed by Chris Jenkins, a supposed conservative in the area.  Wonder if he'll take the initiative to push the board towards investigating what goes on at the hard-wired computers?  Wonder if he'll take another look at the crap that's being shoved down our kids' throats in the Young Adult section.  Better yet, wonder if he'll size up Kristin Pekoll and take note that she wants nothing more than to indoctrinate our kids with gay porn through the back door of our (cough, cough) "family-friendly" library.  I wonder....

West Bend is better than this, and it is a sad reflection on the morals and values of the folks who live here.  But don't let it be said that we didn't try.  We did.  But they came, they bullied, and they won.

Ginny Maziarka
West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries

LINK TO SAFELIBRARIES ARTICLE:  http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2012/08/LibraryWifiEnded.html

Article in entirety below:
....




NOTE ADDED 31 AUGUST 2012:

In a big win for the community and a restoration of local control after the ALA debacle three years ago, the library will now install web filters:
The filter is to stop "illegal" downloads.  I see no mention of legally stopping legal porn.  Could this be a problem waiting to happen, or will the library legally block legal porn as well?  For those who did not know, the following may be useful:


21 comments:

  1. I'd like to point out several things.

    1) Almost all of the links provided in this blog post as evidence, if you will, are links to other blog posts on Safe Libraries by Dan Kleinman. Hardly objective or investigative examinations of the facts, nor our they viewpoints from a variety of sources.

    2) Back in 2009, Ginny did not request anything concerning filtering WiFi usage. Her lone request concerning internet usage was asking the library to "provide protection to protect minors from internet porn on PUBLIC computers" (my all caps)

    3) This is about people using personal devices to make illegal downloads using the library's WiFi. Let's not lose sight of that fact; the content is not really an issue, and it was not made available to the public.

    4) Above, Ginny says she asked for the library to remove kiddie porn from the YA section. Really? I *thought* it was about sexually explicit material?! It's not surprising Ginny has trouble keeping her story straight.....it pretty much changes with every telling.

    5) Ginny should really stop targeting respected employees of the library. And she should realize that those of us in the community that support ALL library patron's rights, including those that are minors, are not indoctrinating anyone into anything. Read what you want to read, Ginny, and let others do the same.

    6) WBCFSL/Ginny did not "lose" because of outside influence. They lost because her requests were unreasonable, and because changing policies or labeling or moving material in the way that she wanted would trample on the rights of other patrons, and surely make the library the subject of multiple lawsuits, as well.

    7. I hope to clarify for the FINAL time that the $1000 grant bestowed to my group, West Bend Parents for Free Speech, was not used to "sway" events. In fact, only a small portion of it was ever used (less than $200) and it was used to pay for an Open Records Request concerning the Common Council's communications about the library challenge and removal of library board members. Not one penny of it was used for public promotion of West Bend Parents for Free Speech or its viewpoint.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maria, thanks for writing here. So people know, Maria is the one who got the quiet "grant" from the ALA and went on to give speeches on the topic at ALA conventions while the ALA turned down Ginny's offer to speak as well.

      Maria, I kept the personal battles out of my blog post. In all my years of doing what I do, only those in the West Bend matter have so viciously harassed me and especially Ginny even all these years later. It has cost me big money to defend. You are not one of harassers, but you set the tone, as you have done again here. As I read what you wrote, targeting people as usual instead of issues, I had to cringe more and more. Your statements show you really have not changed. Truly, I am sad for you and I hope you can release the hate and live in peace.

      That said, I agree with you that Ginny's efforts to improve the library were at times over the top, unfocused, changing. But the ALA has been honing its false "censorship" message for over forty decades. Meantime, when local citizens are confronted with these issues, they always act in ways that are not professionally honed over the years. The ALA takes advantage of that to attack the people and ignore the issues, as you have done then and now. A responsible organization would attempt to find the kernel of truth in the unfocused complaint and attempt to resolve the issues, like a judge would when he/she gets an unfocused complaint from a plaintiff who cannot afford a lawyer. The library never did that. And you, as a paid ALA flack in the past, are continuing to press your perceived advantage. There's a saying that if you don't have anything nice to say, you don't say anything. You could have made your statements without the attacks, without the asterisks/attitude. Saying she can't keep her story straight is simply not honest debate. You know she was speaking informally. You know she does not really mean "kiddie porn."

      Maria, you are generally right about paragraphs 2, and part of 3.

      And I love this: "Hardly objective or investigative examinations of the facts…." I remember now how you would mislead people. You're doing it again. Exactly the opposite of what you said, I helped create and I linked an extensive timeline that links multiple documents sourced to Ginny's open public records request of the government of West Bend, like the document that finally revealed your "grant" from the ALA. And so on. Had it not been for that, you would not be admitting to receiving any ALA funding. People need to know the ALA will hand out quiet money in communities. You, actually Ginny, provided that example. Besides, my own writings link to various primary sources and it is simply easier to provide the links I did rather than copy and paste all those primary sources into this blog post. And you know that. But by attacking me, you divert attention from the real issues, and you know that too.

      Continue to write here, Maria, but please avoid using this space to attack Ginny further. If you want, you can have a guest post and I won't add any of my own commentary. I'd love you to write about that ALA "grant," for example, but you can choose the topic.

      The issues are that the library acceptable use policy is evidently useless, as they all are in stopping crime, and that the library will have to use some kind of filtering, just as Ginny asked for many years ago, even if inartfully.

      That said, it appears, as least from the comment of current trustee Matt Stevens that I published above, that the library is on the right track with the right leadership and will do the right thing, not the thing the ALA paid you to promote. I'll bet the library is on the right track precisely because Ginny brought the problems to light.

      Delete
  2. Dan:

    I stand by my comments in my initial post, and they are neither attacking nor misleading. I am discussing, and always have discussed, this topic from the standpoint of Ginny's viewpoint, not her personally/her character.

    In any case, my first point was simply that most bloggers, when presenting a viewpoint, include links to other sites/authors that provide backup or more info pertaining to the opinions or information presented. Your blog is the only one that I have experienced that almost exclusively uses itself/you as a footnote/link/source. I find that very odd. And disturbing. Especially when you often present yourself as a casual or objective observer.

    I'm assuming your issue is with the part of my comment labeled #4. You yourself agree that Ginny's campaign was unfocused and changing. This comment simply refers to that. People can read Ginny's own blog as a timeline and see this clearly. Her first posts discuss removing the books with gay characters/situations and call them propaganda. Later, she says she wants to remove sexually explicit material...yet she never asked to remove or relocate any YA books that had supposedly sexually explicit material/situations between heterosexual characters. It was amusing to see/read her admit, even if, as you say, she was speaking informally, that her mission was to remove homosexual material.

    By the way, I think it would be up to Ginny to decide if she feels my comments were attacking in nature. If she believes they are, my apologies, Ginny. (Also, Ginny and I have had discussions about this kind of stuff in the past, and she's always seemed to think that I've done a good job of focusing on the issue of the challenge/her viewpoint and not attacked her personally.)

    I'd be happy to write a guest post about the ALA grant, Dan, if you would agree to finally put the matter to rest and stop trying to paint me as a "paid ALA flack." As I have discussed ad nauseam, I did not receive any money from this grant. Another member was reimbursed around $180 for the ORR I mentioned previously. And it's amusing that almost immediately after chastising me for supposed attacks on others, you call me a paid flack. The opinions I shared during the challenge and since are my own, and I am not a press agent for the ALA, nor have I been paid by them.

    As someone so geographically far away from West Bend, it's funny how you imagine this supposed influence the ALA had on the outcome of the challenge. The nine members of the library board unanimously decided not to move materials/change policies. They all spoke and discussed different reasons for doing so. None mentioned ALA pressure or influence, and the ALA did not make the decision. About 60 members of the community spoke, pretty much equally split on their viewpoints. They were not influenced by the ALA; they were sharing their personal opinions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maria, I won't argue the petty points with you. Instead, I'll get to the issues. And yes, you are welcome to write something now and in the future.

      Since three years ago when the ALA effectively controlled West Bend with false arguments, personal visits, and quiet money, times have changed significantly.

      Ernest Istook, author of the Children's Internet Protection Act, the very Act the ALA spend a huge amount of money to oppose and lost, stated that the ALA effectively controls a third of American libraries. So no more is it Ginny saying this or Dan supposedly citing his own work to support this, now it comes directly from the number one person in the USA at the top of the issue. I have not, as you say, "imagine[d] this supposed influence the ALA." The ALA controls about a third of American libraries, and three years ago it controlled WBCML. Let's hope the current crop of trustees are not similarly controlled:

      "CIPA Author Exposes ALA Deception; Ernest Istook Who Authored Children's Internet Protection Act Calls Out American Library Association for Using Legal Tactics to Claim First Amendment Protection for Public Library Pornography Viewing, Causing Librarians to Be Indifferent and Leave Children Unprotected"

      Dean Marney, library director of a Washington State library, has won Internet filtering cases on both the federal and state levels, including the Washington Supreme Court, and the ACLU dropped any appeal of the federal case. Dean Marney now advises libraries about the ALA's "dogma" that I often call propaganda:

      "Library Porn Removal Roadmap; NCRL Director Dean Marney Details How to Legally Remove Legal Porn from Public Library Computers and Advises that the ALA Relies on Outdated Dogma"

      Dean Marney even got the ALA to admit that Internet filters work and old excuses like breast cancer being filtered out are no longer truthful:

      "ALA Admits Library Filters Work; Barbara Jones Bursts Her Own Breast Cancer Bubble"

      Are you listening, WBCML trustees? It is perfectly legal to filter out legal porn, not simply illegal material.

      If you, Maria, or others, including WBCML librarians who have also lectured for the ALA at ALA conventions, are still advising that filtering out porn violates the First Amendment, then you are flat out lying. If you, Maria, are using your position as Friends of the Library creator to promote that dogma, then you are harming your community in exchange for promoting the political interests of the ACLU/ALA, likely why you received quiet money from the ALA.

      Delete
    2. By the way, since writing this and after your first response, I notice the harassment appears to be picking up again. My Twitter account was successfully hacked and I was forced to changed its password. In the past, hacking attempts occurred only while I was addressing West Bend matters, among the other harassment that began occurring and never really stopped. Then commenters on various blogs regarding the West Bend matter boasted about the hacking attempts and other harassment (of me and Ginny). Let's recall how the vitriole was so bad over this matter that your local paper even wrote about it. I don't recall your ever asking people to stop the harassment, being the leader that you are of enforcing the ACLU/ALA dogma within the WBCML, but it was about three years ago so I may have forgotten.

      Further, while I'll assume it's just a technical glitch to be fair, the Facebook page and posts of WBCML's children's librarian are invisible to me. That only happens if someone blocks someone else. No biggie, really, but curious given the circumstances.

      Delete
  3. Dan, this is from the West Bend Parents for Free Speech website (mission statement/policy tab) and has been there since 2009.

    "West Bend Parents for Free Speech does not endorse personal attacks on anyone, and requires all participants to act in a professional, courteous manner. Members of the group are not authorized to speak on behalf of the group; any statements made by participants should be treated as statements from private citizens/individuals, not as statements for the collective group. Any official statements for West Bend Parents for Free Speech will come from the founder, Maria Hanrahan."

    I can say that, whenever I've been out in public to defend our viewpoint, I've asked people to speak about the issue/their viewpoints and not make personal attacks. In fact, after the library challenge was settled, a large group of people protested against Gov. Walker's budget bill. At one point, Ginny was in front of me with a pro-Walker sign. Some other ladies made a few comments about how she shouldn't be there, but I said she had as much right as anyone to be there and express her opinions.

    Please find an example of where I have said that filtering porn violates the First Amendment. I have said very little about filtering; my focus has always been the YA novels and non-fiction books that WBCFSL tried to remove, move, or label. I do not believe that it is the library's job to protect my children from internet material that I may find objectionable, however. That's my responsibility. If I was concerned about my kids using library computers for internet access, I would either prevent them from using the library's computers or monitor their use of them. And I would take the same precautions with personal devices using WiFi at the library or other sites, like local restaurants and retailers with WiFi access.

    ALA and personal visits to West Bend: Two, that I am aware of. Presenting info at the library Read-In (that was organized by Jake Jurss, a college student from West Bend, not by WB Parents for Free Speech) and the library vote in June 2009.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maria, most of your comments focus as usual on me or otherwise sidestep issues raised or mislead on those issues. So I'll skip responding.

      One of your responses is disturbing however as it evidences the style of misinformation that is your trademark. "ALA and personal visits to West Bend: Two, that I am aware of." You are attempting to minimize the ALA/WBCML connection. In reality, there is a deep and continuing connection. Like ALA leader Barbara Jones pictured with Michael Tyree at an ACLU awards dinner where you were honored for the action taken before the West Bend government dumped half the library trustees for following ALA policy instead of local interests. Like you, Maria, listing on your LinkedIn page the "honor" of being part of the "West Bend Activists for Free Speech." Yet you say, "ALA and personal visits to West Bend: Two, that I am aware of." The implication being there really is nothing to the ALA's control of the WBCML at that time. In really, you brag about the connection on your own LinkedIn page. So your statement was clever, but dishonest when people know the full circumstances.

      Clearly you are still part of "West Bend Activists for Free Speech," based on your comments here. But it is not "free speech" to allow or excuse pornography on public library computers. The US Supreme Court says the exact opposite in US v. ALA. Only the ALA couldn't slip quiet money to the Supreme Court.

      Delete
  4. The two visits I mentioned were the only two that I am aware of that preceded the library board vote concerning the book challenge. Your comments have made it sound like the ALA was a continuous presence in West Bend during the challenge.

    If you would like me to address an issue you raised, please be specific. I am, logically, responding to your comments and trying to clarify things or call your attention to something you seem not to know about. For example, you said "I don't recall your ever asking people to stop the harassment" and I provided one example in which I clearly did so. These are issues and topics that you are bringing up, so forgive me if I felt that they called for further discussion. I don't think it's realistic to call that "focusing on you"; I am focusing on the points you are raising in your comments.

    If you'd prefer to continue discussing the issues in another manner, such as via email, please do so to mariahanrahan at att dot net. I would also welcome discussion about what more information you want about the grant.

    Your continuing personal attacks on me (paid flack, quiet money, etc.) just negate all of your cries of so-called personal attacks I've reportedly made on others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The difference being your attacks are false, while my pointing out the ALA granted you quiet money is accurate and truthful. Further, the matter was only exposed when Ginny made an open public records request and I helped her create a timeline of events that included the smoking gun. Only then, after being caught by Ginny, did you reveal the situation and try to spin it as no big deal, and you continue to do so.

      Its a major deal, not only as to your inability to tell the whole truth, but also as evidence of one more means by which the ALA controls local communities, namely, with cold, hard cash. I have no doubt you are kicking yourself for sending the library director that email about the "grant" that Ginny discovered, and I'll bet the ALA is advising future recipients not to send such emails. Manipulating people into not using legal means to protect their citizens from harm is a dirty business, so the ends justifies the means. You're just angry you got caught using such means.

      Delete
  5. And the spin continues.... I'm inclined to comment, but only for the purposes of affirming what Dan is saying as truth. It's obvious nothing has changed here, and the timeline speaks for itself. I believe the last time I spent my valuable time responding to Maria I stated it was my "last" time. That being said, I'll consider this post as commentary to the general public. When Dan helped me build that timeline, we knew that it would put an end to the rhetoric of the ALA, OIF, WBCFFS, the so-called "Friends" of the WB Library, et al. Pages and pages of "factual" information from ORRs confirm the ALA's involvement and eventual shut-down of West Bend's taxpayers and parents. It also confirms what Dan is saying above, that being, the extrapolation of information that would have otherwise been kept undercover, i.e., the ALA "grant money" that "bought" who knows what - really? Maria's claim to the William Gorham Rice Civil Libertarians of the Year 2010 (West Bend Activists for Free Speech)speaks volumes. Just as the baker can take an average cake and cover up anything that shouldn't be seen with frosting, so the ALA proceeds to "win" their communities with government dollars paid for by, um, us? Gay books, heterosexual books, porn, explicit material, filters, no filters.....we could go on, couldn't we? Truth be told, and certainly have timeline evidence of this, the West Bend Community wants computer filters, wants explicit material labeled and/or moved out of the reach of children, and parental respect. Slowly, change is taking place with a new board and a new director (none of which served at the time of the library controversy.) As for Maria, we see through the smoke screen, and I seriously doubt anyone is listening. Really.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dan - "Quiet money" sounds like hush money, or money gained as payment for something illegal. "Smoking gun" means incriminating evidence or evidence of crime. My group, West Bend Parents for Free Speech, was designated the recipient of a grant from the Freedom to Read Foundation. WBPFFS did not obtain any type of banking account or collect funds from any parties, private or corporate/organizational. When we were offered money to support our cause, we suggested potential donors make donations to the WB library instead. As discussed TWO YEARS AGO in August 2010 via my Daily News Guestview, the grant notification was made to me in early May 2009, several months into my involvement in the book challenge. The notice also came about 3 weeks prior to the library board public meeting in which the vote re: the book challenge took place. The only portion of the grant that was utilized was about $180 for reimbursement to another party for Open Records Request fees. This covered the cost of copies of emails sent to/from Common Council members concerning the book challenge and I believe their discussions about the removal of library board members.

    You believe the ALA controls communities with "cold, hard cash." I cannot speak for other communities, but are you saying West Bend was controlled at the pricetag of $180? And it was controlled by someone being reimbursed for a photocopy expense, someone who did not have any connection to the library board or influence on the votes of the board members? And it was covert and manipulative or a bribe when the reimbursement came AFTER the library board voted? Seriously? I didn't even receive the $180 reimbursement, yet I am the recipient of a bribe (according to Ginny and her Guestview that preceded mine)?

    I did not manipulate anyone, and I did not use any resources other than my own blood, sweat and tears (and printer ink and paper) to promote my viewpoint. WBPFFS was a grassroots effort, a group effort of seeking community support through word of mouth, a modest (and free, I might add) website/blog, and public gatherings. We did not take out any newspaper ads. We did not print out hundreds of flyers; we did not have any expenses other than those that were paid by myself and other members by way of using their own money/resources to print copies of letters and petitions or make signs, etc.

    Dan and Ginny have both called me a liar, in the past and again here in these comments. Ginny says she doubts anyone is listening and I agree; Dan and Ginny seem to be the only two people on Earth concerned about the Freedom to Read Foundation grant. THREE YEARS after the fact. AND as I informed Dan in 2010 (see http://fearandloathinginwestbend.blogspot.com/2010/08/here-we-go-again.html), the grant WAS disclosed in June 2009 by way of an announcement in a Freedom to Read Foundation newsletter (http://www.ala.org/groups/sites/ala.org.groups/files/content/affiliates/relatedgroups/freedomtoreadfoundation/ftrfinaction/ftrfnews/vol34No2.pdf). It is also currently listed on the Freedom to Read Foundation website in their list of previous grant recipients (http://www.ftrf.org/?page=Recipients), although I do not know the creation date of this site.

    Ginny talks about the ALA winning communities with "government dollars paid for by, um, us?", but the FTRF is a private corporation, not a government entity, and neither is the ALA.

    Finally, I listed the William Gorham Rice Civil Libertarians of the Year award on my LinkedIn profile (thanks for hunting me down!) under Honors/Awards because it is an award I have received. Ginny has also posted awards she's received (such as from the Eagle Forum) on her blog (although I don't know if she has a LinkedIn page or what she may have on it.) I imagine she listed her award(s) for the same reason I did; that she is proud of it/them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. I looked up that document, thanks to your link. It is a document I suppose was sent to members of the ALA's FTRF. It is not an announcement in main stream media. The ALA regularly uses MSM to make various award and grant announcements. That did not occur in this case. This time it was done quietly.

      Further, the announcement of the grant was buried deep in the flyer, last page actually, then deep in the story, last sentence actually. Very quietly, actually.

      Further, the announcement merely said, "The Freedom to Read Foundation Trustees agreed to make a grant to that organization in support of its efforts to ensure open access to information in the West Bend library." No mention of the amount. You revealed the amounted to WBCML, then Ginny revealed your having done that via the open records request. Once again, that's quiet money.

      It seems the ALA may have "granted" other communities money since you said another got a "grant" in your comments above and since they seemed to have learned not to announce the amount of such "grants" and only to announce them internally. But this was new for you so you announced the amount, quietly, in a letter to the WBCML library director. You were silent about it until Ginny revealed the truth.

      So you have advised us that the "grant" was announced 1) in an ALA internal document--not MSM like other awards and announcements, 2) buried deep, and 3) without even the amount disclosed.

      The irony is this quiet money was for "efforts to ensure open access to information." Remarkable, isn't it? Open access for kids to inappropriate material but no open access for the ALA "granting" you and at least one other in West Bend money. It's another ALA double standard that has become the hallmark of the ALA.

      It's one more way the ALA manipulates communities, you are a cog in that wheel, and you helped reveal the insidiousness of this.

      Thanks, Maria. Truly, thank you. Communities need to know how the ALA operates, and I'll make it public at a time, place, and manner of my choosing, though it seems you have already done that.

      Delete
  7. Thank you for again choosing to ignore most of the information I shared. Once again, if it's still unclear, I did not receive $1000, nor did WBPFFS. It was a grant on paper; WBPFFS could submit receipts to the FTRF for possible reimbursement of expenses. I/we did not do so, with the exception of the ORR fee reimbursed to another party. And there are not two separate grants, one announcement specifies the name of my group and the other uses a more general reference, but they are both referring to the same FTRF grant to WBPFFS.

    You continue to make it seem like I received $1000 and am a paid "cog" and was insidious in my actions.

    I cannot control how the FTRF, a separate entity from ALA, releases information about grants. I did not publicly announce the grant because IT WAS A NONISSUE, not because I was trying to hide anything. Do you think if I was really trying to hide it I would have sent that email to the acting library director at his library/city (and therefore public record) email address? Sharing the information with him was logical; he had become a personal friend during the book challenge and he was my primary contact at the library concerning the challenge and my/WBPFFS's efforts re: the challenge. It was also shared with other members of WBPFFS.

    You now say the announcement in the FTRF newsletter was internal, although I point out that it was readily available to me when I did a search using my name TWO YEARS ago in August 2010 when we discussed this topic on the Fear and Loathing in West Bend blog noted in my previous comment. At that time, you said "As to an apology, I will admit I missed that ALA article you found. I am happy and quite impressed you found it." You also indicated the ALA site (on which this was found) can be hard to navigate and I tend to agree, but at that time you seemed to be satisfied with the disclosure (never mentioned it was "buried deep") and made no accusations of insidiousness or manipulation. Why is that the case now, THREE YEARS after the book challenge and TWO YEARS after we last discussed it? Two years ago, when we discussed the grant issue and I wrote my Guestview in the Daily News, I was not trying to "spin" the grant as "no big deal." Then and now, I was/am defending myself against veiled accusations of taking a bribe or being paid off by the ALA. Ginny's Guestview used the word BRIBE. But it's not a personal attack because it came from Ginny, right? It's OK to insinuate another community member took a bribe in the local newspaper......who cares what damage or hurt that might cause?!

    I'm glad to see that nothing has changed and you and Ginny continue to see "covert" conspiracies where there are none. If you really think that another party being reimbursed for fees that total less than 6% of a $1000 grant *AFTER* the library challenge was already settled with the June 2009 library board vote is insidious, covert, and manipulative, I feel very sorry for you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "[W]ith the exception of the ORR fee reimbursed to another party" - Who was the other party?

      "FTRF, a separate entity from ALA" - That is false. Even the FTRF site is or was on ALA.org, for example.

      "I did not publicly announce the grant because IT WAS A NONISSUE, not because I was trying to hide anything." - That is false. Ginny and I specifically made it an issue and you specifically denied it--before you knew we had the smoking gun.

      "I was/am defending myself against veiled accusations of taking a bribe or being paid off by the ALA." - That is true. Further, that ALA "grant" was not a "bribe" and you were not "paid off by the ALA." Indeed, so far as I can tell, you are 100% not responsible for the actions of the ALA. The problem is the ALA, not you. You merely helped reveal one more means by which the ALA wields influence in local communities, namely, with quiet money.

      And you're only collecting a small portion of the grant does not minimize its significance. That's you're doing, not the ALA's. Frankly, you obviously acted admirably by only claiming only what you needed.

      Delete
  8. The FTRF IS a separate entity from the ALA. "The Freedom to Read Foundation was established in 1969 as a First Amendment legal defense organization affiliated with the American Library Association. FTRF is a separate corporation from the American Library Association, working in close liaison with the ALA." (This is from the FTRF site that's still part of the ALA site, Affiliated with and working with the ALA, certainly, but a separate corporation with a separate fund/budget.

    I said I did not announce the grant because it was a nonissue, and you claim this to be false. How can you presume to know what my reasons for doing/not doing something are/were? And how can you claim my reason(s) to be false? You can certainly believe them to be false or question my motives or reasons, but you cannot CLAIM them to be false. In doing so, you are calling me an outright liar, which is a personal attack. You are quick to claim personal attack on behalf of yourself or Ginny, but are continuously and repeatedly silent when it is pointed out that the language you use gets to the point of personal attack. Curiouser and curiouser....

    If you would be so kind as to accept, if only for a moment, that $180 was the total amount of the grant that was used, that it was used AFTER the vote by the library board to keep the YA collection as it was, and it was reimbursement of ORR fees, not used to promote a viewpoint or agenda, please explain how this grant is an example of wielding "influence" in this community.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All will be explained when I make the effort to write a full blog post about the ALA's quiet grants. I will also show exactly where the "grant" became an issue and where you denied the existence of such. That would be a fact, not a lie. I do not make up the evidence. Your own words will, if I recall correctly from years ago, form the basis for evidence of same.

      It is not a personal attack when someone points out where you were lying. For example, it is not a personal attack to point out where someone has plagiarized someone else's work.

      Delete
  9. I look forward to your blog post. And I look forward to FINALLY hearing from you about what more you want to know about the grant. You have offered to publish a guest post from me concerning the topic, but you have as yet to tell me what more you want to know. (Again, you are invited to email me with input on this.) What I have said here about the grant repeats what I said two years ago on the Fear and Loathing blog post in which the grant was also discussed in the comments.

    "It is not a personal attack when someone points out where you were lying." Well, I gleefully look forward to you illustrating how I am not, as I shared in those blog comments, really lactose-intolerant. Perhaps you have a scandalous photo of me enjoying some ice cream.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You have offered to publish a guest post from me concerning the topic, but you have as yet to tell me what more you want to know." The two are separate.

      You (and others) may write on any library-related topic, without restriction or requirements by me (besides typical requirements any blog might require, like no spam, etc.).

      Delete
    2. Maria, you can write on any subject. It does not have to be the "grant." It could be something you might like to write about.

      Like exactly how Ginny went wrong in making her complaints. Don't attack her, just be factual. Like she started out with x complaint, switched to y complaint, complained about m number of books, amended that to n number of books, etc., stuff like that. Essentially an anatomy of how a library challenge should not be conducted. I think such a thing may help libraries and challengers at the same time, and I do try to provide balanced information.

      Use the timeline Ginny and I produced or anything else. Feel free to use anything on my sites without the need to provide attribution. If you want anything added to the timeline, let me know and I will try to add it. I think the library itself may have relevant information.

      I will add graphics and maybe section headers and the like, perhaps edit for grammar, but really this will be your show. My site gets a lot of views so your writing will not be in vain.

      Another interesting topic might be how the ALA had you speak at its conference, the ACLU award you got, the experience of building a community organization, etc., whatever.

      Given the level of ALA involvement in West Bend as well as your own, your insight might be very interesting/instructive for future activists of all stripes.

      Delete
  10. I neglected to mention that the timeline is also available through the Wisconsin Historical Society.

    ReplyDelete

Comments of a personal nature, trolling, and linkspam may be removed.