The West Bend library may have effectively violated its community's trust. It holds out a policy to allow citizens redress, allows the process to get underway, then snatches it away in a possibly illegal manner. Remember, libraries are intentionally autonomous from political control, yet here the library allowed political control when it was convenient.
Offering the citizen the option of filing dozens of requests to replace the one stopped midstream does not cure the possibly illegal activity. Had the library wanted individual requests, it had the opportunity to say so before allowing the citizen to go through months of now useless activity.
Read how the library defers to the city attorney for yourselves, followed by today's newspaper story:
From: Michael Tyree <mtyree@west-bendlibrary.org>
To: ginny4him2@aol.com
Sent: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 6:02 pm
Subject: Library BoardDear Mr. & Mrs. Maziarka,I spoke with our City Attorney this afternoon about the Request for Reconsideration of Library Materials form which you submitted on February 12, 2009. The original compaint [sic] objected to all books in the "Out of the Closet" category listed in the Young Adult section of the Library website. It did not object to specific books, only to the genre of books. Since the cancellation of the March 3, 2009 meeting, you have stated to the media, in blogs and to the City Attorney via email that you do not want to ban all of the books in the "Out of the Closet" category. The City Attorney interprets this to mean that your original complaint has been withdrawn. Ms. Schanning's analysis of what has been in the media, in blogs and what you have emailed to her is that you are now objecting to specific books within the genre.For the Library Board to fully understand your Reconsideration Request to be addressed at the Board meeting, you will need to file individual requests about specific books that you object to and state reasons for your objection. These complaints will go through the normal reconsideration process which involves two meetings with Library staff before your requests can go before the Board. Thus, in order to provide time for the new Reconsideration Requests to proceed through the process, the Library Board meeting will not be rescheduled at this time. Instead, the Lib rary [sic] will wait for the complaints to move forward before the meeting is scheduled.Regarding the other issues that you raised in your initial complaint (such as relocating books within the Library, adding books to the collection from the perspective of ex-gays and removing or password protecting the website link), the City Attorney stated these are issues that do not necessarily require action on the part of the Library Board. Under normal Library procedures, requests such as these are handled by the library staff and library director. We can meet again to discuss your concerns on these issues and I can report the outcome of these discussions to the Library Board. Should the Library Board wish to comment upon any of these subjects they can request that I have these issues added to a Board meeting agenda.Essentially, what is being requested is that you clarify your complaint and work through the existing process regarding any specific books which you object to.Personally, it's important that I contact you with this information before you heard it from any other person or source.Sincerely,Michael Tyree
Michael Tyree, Library Director
West Bend Community Memorial Library
630 Poplar Street
West Bend, WI 53095
Voice: 262-335-5151, ext. 125
FAX: 262-335-5150
Publication: APD - West Bend Daily News;
Date: Mar 21, 2009;
Section: Front Page
Page Number: A1
Meeting on Gay-Themed Books Postponed; Library Board Asks That Complaint Be Further Clarified
By DAVE RANK Daily News Staff
A meeting to discuss a citizen complaint on the inclusion of gay-themed books at the West Bend Community Memorial Library is being postponed, the library director said Thursday, until the complainants clarify which books they object to.
On Feb. 12, Ginny and Jim Maziarka of West Bend filed a formal request for reconsideration of library materials complaint, objecting to all books in the Out of the Closet category listed in the Young Adult section of the library’s Web site.
A March 3 meeting of the Library Board at which the complaint was to be discussed was postponed at the request of the West Bend Fire Department because more people were in the City Hall’s Common Council Chamber than its 265-person capacity.
That meeting had been rescheduled from the library to City Hall in an effort to accommodate an anticipated larger crowd.
The library was looking for a larger facility to hold the meeting.
In an exchange of e-mails Thursday and Friday also sent to the Daily News, Library Director Michael Tyree, following consultation with City Attorney Mary Schanning, informed the Maziarkas that public statements they made since filing their original complaint indicated they wanted certain books banned, not the entire category.
Because of that, Tyree wrote, the Maziarkas “will need to file individual requests about specific books that they object to and state reasons for their objection. These complaints will go through the normal reconsideration process which involves two meetings with library staff before their requests can go before the (Library) Board.”
“Essentially, what is being requested is that the Maziarkas clarify their complaint and work through the existing process regarding any specific books which they object to,” Tyree told the Daily News.
In their responding e-mail Friday morning, the Maziarkas called Tyree’s decision “the library board’s attempts to unilaterally withdraw our appeal without our permission and duck the issue that has now garnered much public attention so as to maneuver the issue out of the public eye and scrutiny with delay and the use of more private meetings with staff.”
“They know what is in these books and they know they will be shamed by any public airing of it,” Ginny Maziarka wrote to the Daily News.
“We would like to clarify that our original request stands,” the Maziarkas wrote to Tyree.
The Maziarkas said they initially sent a letter protesting the inclusion of “homosexual materials in the library as well as on the (library’s) web site.” They complied when Tyree told them they needed to fill out the formal request for reconsideration of library materials and discuss it with Young Adult librarian Kristin Pekoll before the Library Board could act on it. They then followed library procedures and talked to Tyree, after which the complaint was added to the Library Board agenda.
The letter and the formal complaint should be sufficient to trigger a hearing, the Maziarkas wrote in their e-mail. “We have been through this process once now and we have not withdrawn anything. All we have done is respond to your requests for clarification and more specifics, which we have done carefully and thoroughly.
“We insist on our appeal rights as we feel your withdrawal of our complaint is in gross error. We wish to proceed with the staff decisions that have already been fully discussed.”
The Maziarkas wrote that they feel “there is no point in breaking up the request into sub requests” and starting the process all over.
Tyree said the Maziarkas’ original complaint objected to all books in the Out of the Closet category and not to specific books.
“Since the cancellation of the March 3, 2009 meeting, Mr. and Mrs. Maziarka have stated to the media, in blogs and to the City Attorney via email that they do not want to ban all of the books in the ‘Out of the Closet’ category. The City Attorney interprets this to mean that their original complaint has been withdrawn. The Attorney’s analysis of what has been in the media, in their blogs and what the Maziarkas e-mailed to her is that they are now objecting to specific books within the genre.”
Library Board meeting is normally are held on the first Tuesday of the month but that will not happen next month. Tuesday, April 7 is the spring general election.
Tyree said he is still working on putting together a meeting in front of the Library Board.
.
I agree with the city attorney and library officials that Ginny Maziarka's public statements (in the print media, during interview for TV and radio, and her personal blog) negate (and therefore withdraw) her original complaint, which I have seen as it is now a matter of public record. You cannot make an official complaint, and then keep amending it with different demands; this is what the Maziarkas have done. I invite anyone that questions this to take a look at the complaint documents and her blog and decide for him/herself.
ReplyDeleteMaria Hanrahan, thank you for commenting here.
ReplyDeleteYou may be right that Maziarkis has made differing public statements, but that is not the issue I am raising. I am suggesting the governmental interference in the library's affairs, or the library acceding to this governmental pressure in the first place, may have been improper, to say the least.
Imagine if the city attorney directed the library to remove certain books and the library did so as a direct result without following proper procedures already in place. I'll bet that would not be acceptable to you. And neither should what happened in the Maziarkis case, if the facts are as they appear to me.
You may oppose Maziarkis, but you have to do so in a proper fashion. It's popular to say the ends justifies the means, but that does not lead to truth, justice, and the American way.
Off the top of my head, the proper action could have been for the library to take the city attorney's advice under advisement, then seek clarification from Maziarkis before acting one way or another. That's reasonable, is it not?
The Maziarka's may be having a lot of discussion regarding the books in the West Bend Library system, but a formal complaint was filed. She never withdrew that complaint, never dicussed removing the complaint.
ReplyDeleteTo assume she has is just that, an assumption. That's like assuming the library is a safe place for minors. HA!
You know what happens when you assume.
Unless she officially removed her
"I am suggesting the governmental interference in the library's affairs, or the library acceding to this governmental pressure in the first place, may have been improper, to say the least." I don't think asking for legal advise regarding whether or not the Maziarkas nullified their complaint by making public statements contrary to their complaint could be considered "interference." Who should the West Bend Library seek legal advise from if not the city attorney? If you are suggesting another legal source should be brought in for a second opinion, say so; don't make the accusation of governmental interference. And the attorney did not "direct" the library to take action, but simply offered a legal opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe original "Reconsideration of Library Materials" form has a question which asks, "What do you believe is the purpose of this material?" The Maziarkas responded "Propaganda. Negative influences on impressionable children. Encourages and normalizes illegal behaviors." (This was addressing the "Out of the Closet" category within the young adult section as a whole.) The form has no mention of sexually explicit material, which they later brought into the debate.
On 2/24/09 in her blog, Ginny Maziarka states (about her library complaint) "We further asked for the removal of any book in the youth section of our library, i.e., children's, young adult/YA Zone, that contains perverse and pornographic language." In a post dates 2/26/09, Maziarka states, "We also told him that we are requesting a "ban" on The Perks of a Wallflower book." In the press (radio, TV and print), Maziarka DENIES asking for any books to be banned/removed from the collection even though she clearly DID ask for this. On 3/16/09 in her blog, "I did not say anyone should ban or burn or throw away any books. Move them, yes." They can't keep changing their tune in the hopes that their new angle will give their complaint some validity.
The Anonymous poster says:
"but a formal complaint was filed. She never withdrew that complaint, never dicussed removing the complaint." In my view, and apparently in the eyes of the law, her contradictory statements and her actions nullify and therefore withdraw her complaint. It is unfair and unjust to think that a library patron can lodge a complaint (Reconsideration of Library Materials form) and then continually amend it by adding new complaints or demands. The Maziarkas have supplied lists of titles they object to, then added more titles, then submitted new lists which added still more titles and omitted others they had previously submitted. That leaves the library unclear about which titles they are objecting to, so the process must start over and, to my understanding, the Maziarkas have been asked to complete a form for each title.
Maria Hanrahan, thanks again.
ReplyDeleteLook, I'm no expert in this area precisely because the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom blocked me from taking a class on library law and how lawyers may support libraries. The ALA argues children should have access to anything despite the law, which is largely why West Bend is currently experiencing the current effort to remove the influence of ALA policy, but it blocked me from attending this class. So if my message is not perfectly clear, it may be due to the ALA's possibly illegal activity, let alone hypocritical, but otherwise has nothing to do with reality.
The reality is there is a possibility that there was wrongdoing of some kind here, and that should be considered. You apparently wish to brush that aside because you agree with the outcome, but that doesn't really make the problem go away, does it.
Look carefully at what I am saying. I am not making any statements regarding the veracity of what Maziarka is saying. Rather I am pointing out a potentially serious problem with the procedure used to evaluate Maziarka's claim. Library procedure. Most of your comments were directed at Maziarka's claims made in different places and times. That is not relevant to what I am saying, except to the extent those differing claims were used as the excuse to violate library procedure, if that's what happened.
As I said before, the proper action could have been for the library to take the city attorney's advice under advisement, then seek clarification from Maziarkis before acting one way or another. That's reasonable, is it not? Please answer that. Is that not reasonable?
"As I said before, the proper action could have been for the library to take the city attorney's advice under advisement, then seek clarification from Maziarkis before acting one way or another. That's reasonable, is it not? Please answer that. Is that not reasonable?"
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree the library *could* have done this, I do not think they are required to. I think the library took the attorney's advice under advisement and made the determination that the complaint had changed or needed clarification. It is clear to me personally that their complaint was about many issues, and the complaints about specific titles has repeatedly changed. As I said in my previous post, I do not believe it goes along with library policy (at least my understanding of it) to fill out one of these Reconsideration forms and then continually change it, by adding new issues and/or objecting to revised lists of books. If the Maziarkas are concerned with different issues and different books, they need to submit a Reconsideration form for each book. How can a library or the library board address a complaint or issue if it becomes unclear because of the complainant's actions and contrary public statements?
You clearly find fault with the ALA, but using this particular blog post and comments section to discuss an issue you personally have with the ALA is reprehensible. That issue has absolutely nothing to do with this West Bend issue, and in my eyes does nothing but further lessen your credibility.
Perhaps the procedures should be examined and clarified, if need be. I am certainly not familiar with all of the library's policies and procedures, but I am going to offer to help to make them more understandable to other library patrons.
Thanks again, Ms. Hanrahan.
ReplyDeletePlease reconsider rephrasing what you have said. I am not sure if you realize this but your message comes across as personal attack.
In the midst of what ultimately is a freedom of speech issue, you called me "reprehensible" for exercising my freedom of speech. I presume you have done that because I may have pointed the finger of blame to the responsible party, the American Library Association [ALA], and you feel your personal attack will distract people from making that connection. Indeed you tell people that I have "lessened my credibility" by addressing the ALA, so you clearly are using ad hominem argument to distract people from real issues.
The ALA may indeed be responsible for the problems in West Bend, even if only indirectly. It is the ALA that leads the charge in libraries nationwide to claim it is age discrimination for librarians to keep children from any material whatsoever. The US Supreme Court said in a case the ALA lost big in 2003 that it is legitimate and even compelling to keep minors from inappropriate material, but the ALA said despite this, its policies will remain unchanged. Then it does what it can to ensure its policies are applied in local community libraries and schools nationwide.
Now, those policies are being questioned in West Bend. Does your community follow the ALA that acts in its own interests and despite the US Supreme Court, or does it follow local interests that are more interested in legitimate and compelling efforts to keep minors from inappropriate material, as is quite legal to do.
During an examination based on those competing interests, your library appears to have jettisoned any interest in following policy in place, thereby furthering its apparent interest in forcing ALA policy on West Bend citizens--just one more local community in a string of ALA successes carried out by local librarians.
As you say, "If the Maziarkas are concerned with different issues and different books, they need to submit a Reconsideration form for each book." You know what, I agree that may have been appropriate, but that was not what happened here. Maziarka brought a complaint. It was rejected and she was directed to follow procedure and file a complaint. She filed the complaint. The complaint was accepted. She met with a librarian about the complaint. Then she met with the library director about the complaint. Both times were about the substantive issues of the complaint. Neither person complained about the form of the complaint, and neither required her to resubmit. The evaluation was well on its way. Then, based on the excuse of the city attorney's view of Maziarka's public statements on the issue, among other things, the library dropped the complaint without giving Maziarka a chance to say word one. That is the procedural problem I have raised. That is what is unfair.
You complained I am critical of the ALA. The ALA does not advise libraries to drop complaints midstream as a delaying or harassing tactic, or for any reason whatsoever. The procedural problem here is not the result of ALA policy. It is purely the result of the West Bend library. The ALA is not at fault in the slightest that the West Bend library may have violated its public trust by unilaterally dropping a materials review process already well underway in a manner that looks like pure stalling, among other things. True, the ALA promotes the filing of a single complaint form per single item, but that did not occur in West Bend and is not an issue now. Now, the West Bend library needs to own up to its failure to follow through on its own policy it holds out to the public as the single means for redress of citizen complaints on issues such as these.
Ms. Hanrahan, no amount of personal attack or issue misdirection will make the issue go away. Your community public library has probably failed to live up to its promises to one of your community, and that cannot be brushed aside because of anyone's disdain for Maziarka or the issues she has raised.
Thank you, by the way, for admitting the library could have spoken with Maziarka first. Confirming if her public statements were intended to withdraw or amend her complaint as filed would likely have avoided the procedural deficiencies about which I have written. It would also have been common courtesy.
Finally, in support of the freedom of speech, let me add some current information:
****FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE****
PORNOGRAPHIC BOOKS IN THE WEST BEND LIBRARY MEETING BACK ON CALENDAR
THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 6:30 P.M.
SILVERBROOK MIDDLE SCHOOL GYMNASIUM
Monday, March 23, 2009
WEST BEND, WI: Though the West Bend Community Memorial Library director, Michael Tyree, has cancelled the meeting to discuss pornographic books in the Youth section of the library, concerned West Bend citizens will still be holding the meeting at the same place, same date and same location.
Excerpts from the explicit, graphic, and pornographic materials will be read and displayed for parents and other taxpayers to see what is in the West Bend Library. Parents are strongly urged NOT to bring children to this meeting. We will be explaining what has taken place and what we are asking for in a very clear and concise manner.
Open mic time will be provided for any community members who wish to express their viewpoints, both for or against our complaint with the library, that being the offering of explicit, graphic, pornographic books for minor children. Time will be limited to 3 minutes.
For more information call 1-866-910-2840 or visit http://wissup.blogspot.com.
Jim and Ginny Maziarka
West Bend, WI 53095
SafeLibraries said "Please reconsider rephrasing what you have said. I am not sure if you realize this but your message comes across as personal attack.
ReplyDeleteIn the midst of what ultimately is a freedom of speech issue, you called me "reprehensible" for exercising my freedom of speech. I presume you have done that because I may have pointed the finger of blame to the responsible party, the American Library Association [ALA], and you feel your personal attack will distract people from making that connection. Indeed you tell people that I have "lessened my credibility" by addressing the ALA, so you clearly are using ad hominem argument to distract people from real issues."
I do not think my comments need rephrasing at all. A personal attack? Certainly not. I can disapprove of your actions without personally attacking you, and this is what I intended. If you took it as an attack, I apologize. My definition of reprehensible: "adjective - deserving of reproof, rebuke, or censure; blameworthy." I strongly believe the statement you made was deserving of rebuke. The issue you brought into the conversation (the ALA blocking you from taking a class) has nothing to do with this issue.
Are you a resident of West Bend? No. Do you know how much or how little influence the ALA has in the West Bend library? No. There is no substantiation of your assertion that the ALA is even indirectly responsible for how this issue unfolded.
SafeLibraries said "As I said before, the proper action could have been for the library to take the city attorney's advice under advisement, then seek clarification from Maziarkis before acting one way or another. That's reasonable, is it not? Please answer that. Is that not reasonable?"
I am not going to comment on what the library could or couldn't do, or should or shouldn't. That is for the library staff and library board to decide. I could have blue eyes, but I don't...it's neither here nor there. I stand by my previous comment; the Maziarkas nullified their own complaint, whether they meant to or not, by way of their public statements and actions. An attorney has made this determination and the library has responded accordingly.
Thanks again, Ms. Hanrahan.
ReplyDeleteListen, you have to stick with the topic. I'm not the topic. What the library did is the topic.
Further, you have to be consistent. Previously you admitted the library could have spoken with Maziarka first. Now you say, "I am not going to comment on what the library could or couldn't do, or should or shouldn't." It's almost as if you are amending your previous statement, something which you denounce Maziarka for doing. And it suggests you may be hiding something, namely, what you already admitted, namely, that the library could have avoided this with simple common courtesy.
As to the ALA's influence in West Bend, it is apparent to me that you are not even aware of that influence, or that you are under the influence (it's a propaganda technique called "conversion"). Either way, it explains a lot about your style of writing and your need to address the messenger instead of the message.
The ALA blocking me from taking a class is entirely relevant:
1) How can the ALA be considered authoritative on issues of intellectual freedom if it is literally in the business of denying intellectual freedom? And that extends to areas not under discussion in West Bend, like how the ALA would like jailed Cuban librarians to drown.
2) How can attorney's advising communities to apply ALA policies be taken seriously when ALA attorney training seminars are closed to those the ALA thinks will not advance ALA policies in local communities?
3) How can a local library's possibly illegal action be taken seriously when the ALA itself takes possibly illegal action to block people from attending its own classes on the relevant topic?
4) Less importantly, it's also relevant to state the ALA has blocked me from learning library law when people like you go personal and challenge my knowledge of library law. Don't you think it a little unfair to be mocked for a lack of library law which I would have had but for the ALA's "Office for Intellectual Freedom" blocking me from its classes on the topic?
Back to the topic at hand, the potential that some wrongdoing may have been done by the West Bend library needs to be evaluated by a group including independent thinkers, not only ALA acolytes.
Let me add this:
ReplyDeleteI am aware the West Bend library appears to have little connection to the ALA.
One of my libraries also claims no ALA membership and claims independence. But its policies are those of the ALA, sometimes even naming the ALA as the source of its policies.
Any library that opposes a community to say it will not keep children from inappropriate material likely got the idea to do that from the ALA because not protecting children from harm goes against the natural interest to protect children from harm. Libraries used to do that until the ALA changed that decades ago when no one noticed -- and people still haven't notice.
The ALA is the chief proponent of "anything goes" in public libraries. The ALA continues to promote this despite what the US Supreme Court said in US v. ALA about the legitimate and even compelling interests regarding keeping children from inappropriate material.
Why is your library following ALA policy instead of the common sense US Supreme Court policy? Likely because of the ALA, whether the library director admits it or not.
Besides, here's just one example of how the ALA directs what goes on in the West Bend library: "Young Adult Zone":
"At the Best of the Best preconference, held during the Annual ALA Conference, librarians selected the one hundred titles they consider to be the best books for young adults from the last half of the twentieth century. Titles were chosen from the Best Books for Young Adults Booklists published from 1966 to 2000. The following titles are those selected as the top 100."
The ALA is the organization that recommends pervasively vulgar books containing graphic oral sex scenes as the best books of the year for children as young as twelve. The ALA provides no notice as to the content of the books in this regard. I personally got an award-winning author to admit he would not even give his own award-winning book to his own twelve year old if he had one. See "Porn Pushers - The ALA and Looking For Alaska - One Example of How the ALA Pushes Porn On Children."
Along comes the West Bend library directing people to use the same source for recommending books for children. Would you make a blanket recommendation of oral sex books for children without advising people of the contents in this regard?
Are efforts to restore community control to community libraries immediately suspect because the speaker, usually a community citizen, is not as polished as decades of teams of ALA employees and acolytes devoted to a honed message of "anything goes"?
SafeLibraries said "Listen, you have to stick with the topic. I'm not the topic. What the library did is the topic."
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly agree, which was my reason for admonishing you for entering "the ALA blocked me from taking a class" into the conversation.
"And it suggests you may be hiding something, namely, what you already admitted, namely, that the library could have avoided this with simple common courtesy." Why is it so important to you that I say the library could have seeked clarification from the Maziarkas? Sure, they could have. They also could have come to the determination that the complaint had been nullified; this is what they ultimately did. The director could have stood on his head and recited the ABCs. I could've had a V8. Lots of things could have happened. The original complaint was about books in a category perceived by the Maziarkas as being pro-homosexual, and how they felt the category was imbalanced. The current complaint is about supposed inappropriate, sexually explicit books in the YA section. Totally different complaint. Ginny Maziarka states in her blog on 2/24/09 that she asked the library to remove books with "perverse and pornographic language." On 2/26/09, a blog post says she "told him (library director) that we are requesting a "ban" on The Perks of a Wallflower book." Then on 3/16/09, she contradicts herself and says "I did not say anyone should ban or burn or throw out any books." I don't think I need to comment much on the fact that she has publicly (print and other media interviews) said that this is not an issue/complaint about homosexuality, but then only attacks books in the library that she considers "pro-homosexual."
If the West Bend library and other libraries are adopting policies that are similar to or based on the ALA, perhaps it is merely because they think they are sound policies, not because of any subversive influence!
"1) How can the ALA be considered authoritative on issues of intellectual freedom if it is literally in the business of denying intellectual freedom?" I believe the ultimate authority on issues of intellectual freedom is the US Constitution Bill of Rights. The Maziarkas complaint and the demands that go along with them infringe upon MY rights as a library patron and a parent to decide what material is appropriate and/or acceptable for my children. I do not and will not relinquish that right to another citizen, a community group, the government, the ALA or anyone.
"2) How can attorney's advising communities to apply ALA policies be taken seriously when ALA attorney training seminars are closed to those the ALA thinks will not advance ALA policies in local communities?" The city attorney did not advise the library to apply a policy. The city attorney simply provided legal advice concerning whether the complaint was nullified (unintentionally or not) by way of the complainant's public actions and statements.
"Either way, it explains a lot about your style of writing and your need to address the messenger instead of the message." I do not have the need to address the messenger, and I believe I have clearly addressed the message. In fact, with this comment I remove myself from this particular conversation. This should in no way be viewed as defeat or acceptance of any of SafeLibraries past or future comments. I think my viewpoint should be clear to anyone that reads these comments, but in case they are not:
I do not believe the library committed any error, nor did they go against policy by coming to the determination that the Maziarkas complaint was nullified by their public statements and their efforts to constantly change and amend the complaint. I also believe the Maziarkas complaint has no merit.
The potentially illegal activity by the library has just gotten worse. The library has written a letter stating they are dropping the issue, though in much fancier language.
ReplyDeleteSee the letter here:
"West Bend Library Board Shuns Public Hearing Over Porn.
Here is the comment I added there:
I have never seen a letter like that one from the library. It basically says go away. It basically says West Bend children will continue to be exposed to inappropriate material despite the law and common sense and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.
The library accepted a review under existing policy, then rejected it after it was already underway, and now refuses to discuss it. Perhaps it is time for judicial involvement for public employees who have exceeded their authority, among other things, and deprived citizens of redress under existing library policies.
Based on that letter from the library and the surrounding facts, if I were a judge, I would entertain a motion on an emergent basis for some sort of equitable relief. The letter is a polite way of saying the library refuses to address the issue further, and that appears at the very least to be a violation of the public trust, at least under the circumstances as I believe them to be.
Did you ever play Scrabble and get to the point where it's impossible to make any words and you have to dump all the tiles and take new ones? Right now, West Bend's got a losing hand at Scrabble.