Public awareness of crime, sexual harassment in libraries, and inappropriate books and web sites in schools due to American Library Association policy. ⚖️
I have written so much on how the ALA misleads libraries that then lie to communities to mislead them to allow the libraries to act outside the law, and how local officials are totally bamboozled and expose their communities to significant liability. ALA was recently listed, for example, as one of the nation's leading porn facilitators. So I won't repeat all the details now. I am just noting that this story from Gering, NE, really provides a perfect little example of what I have been reporting is happening, complete with a smug smile from library director Diane Downer when she cites the ALA porn policy:
Smug Library Director Diane Downer Touting ALA Porn Policy
Parent Michael Onstott, contact me for how I can help.
Mayor Edwin Mayo, contact me for reliable sources showing that you have been misled and your town is exposed to significant liability.
Library Director Diane Downer, contact me if you have an open mind.
Reporter Kenna Nash, contact me for what may be even a bigger story than just this one library porn incident.
For educational purposes in line with Section 107 of the US Copyright Act, here is the unedited text of the article:
A panhandle father is fuming after his son catches a glimpse of a man watching pornography at the Gering Public Library.
"They were on the computers, checking out books, doing whatever, and my wife had noticed and my son had also noticed, that another person in the library was using one of the computers to view pornography," says concerned parent Michael Onstott.
Onstott's wife approached library staff about what she and her son had witnessed but was told the man wasn't breaking library policy.
"She was basically dismissed, saying there's nothing that they can do about it," says Onstott. "He wasn't doing anything illegal and that it's within their current policies not to do anything."
Library Director Diane Downer says the Gering Public Library's policy follows the American Library Association's guidelines.
"It doesn't specifically say 'no pornography'," says Downer. "Obscene? Yes, but what's obscene to someone is not always obscene to someone else."
Mr. Onstott wrote a letter of concern to city council after learning about the library's policy.
Mayor Edwin Mayo says he's sympathetic to the issue but says his hands are tied.
"On the adult side, the adult used computers, they can not have those filters on," says Mayo. "They are Supreme Court rulings that say you can not prevent someone from having access to these types of materials."
Onstott says he will do whatever it takes to get this policy changed.
"If I have to go to the state to get a law changed, I plan on riding this to the end,"
says Onstott. "I'm in it to win it. And I think everyone that has any values for their kids, their grand kids, nieces, nephews... they're going to understand. This has to be changed."
Mayor Mayo says this is a tough situation because if you block all access to all materials that people deem inappropriate, then they get complaints on the other side of it too.
NOTE ADDED 14 JUNE 2013:
More stories on this issue, likely because everyone knows the library director is wrong:
Here is one local media source ignoring the facts and the law to side with the porn facilitators, exemplifying the work Michael Onstott has cut out for him in deprogramming the ACLU/ALA propaganda:
A whistleblower has confirmed a library director has covered up a child pornography incident. Further, she confirmed the USA PATRIOT Act was used as the excuse for the coverup. Watch the video and read the story here: "Allegations of a Child Porn Cover Up at Local Library," by Matthew Campbell, CBS 3, 2 July 2009.
An assistant librarian blew the whistle on a patron who is accused of downloading child porn. But she didn't stop there. She speaks out against the higher-ups who, she says, tried to sweep the incident under the rug.
....
Assistant Library Director, Carla Wessels, alleges her boss tried to delete the images and keep the incident quiet, by not reporting it.
"She kept saying over and over, the police are going to want to know a name. And she told me to just relax," Wessels says.
....
And that's when she decided to blow the whistle. It was 3 days later on a Monday morning.
"First thing when I got in, in the morning, I went into her office, and said pretty much the same thing when I called her Friday night. And she gave me the same response that the police are going to want to know a name and she even brought up the Patriot Act saying that as a library, we need to keep patrons names and addresses confidential," Wessels says.
Fearing the incident would never be reported, Wessels called police. Holyoke's Cyber Crimes unit seized the computer.
Hours later, the images Maria deleted were resurrected. The photos were brought back to life and the man who allegedly surfed for them was identified.
....
"What about the allegations that you told the librarians not to do anything about it," we asked.
"That's what they're saying, I'm not going to say either way," Pagan says.
The Library Director still would not admit timing was an issue.
"The police was called, right," Pagan says. "The person was caught, so time doesn't matter," she states.
But Police Chief Anthony Scott says timing is everything.
"If they deleted files, it would've caused problems, but because of the actions of the assistant librarian, we were able to get the info and secure the computer," Scott says.
....
Our investigation discovered no changes at the library. Sex offender posters are not put up. There are no new firewalls in the library computers, nor are there any new policies for dealing with illegal activities.
Remarkably, I predicted both. See, emphasis in original:
"Citizens of Holyoke need to ask whether the library director is violating the public trust by looking the other way at criminal activity in the public library. That seems to be the case, at least as I understand what was reported."
"[I]t seems unavoidable to conclude that libraries actively thwart child porn investigations. And it seems this is motivated by the ALA's negative reaction to Bush Administration initiatives to keep Americans safe from terrorists!"
How much longer will Holyoke allow an apparent law breaker to run the library? Isn't there enough evidence to have Holyoke Public Library Director Maria Pagan arrested as an accessory to the crime of child pornography? Did you watch the video and see her continue her cover-up? At least that's my opinion.
Is opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act really a reason to allow child porn viewers to get off scot free? Is that what the community wants, or is that the American Library Association's radical agenda being quietly forced on local communities?
When will communities wake up? Wake up!
UPDATE 21 JULY 2009: Apparently, this community woke up a little. See "Holyoke Library Installs Anti-Porn Software in Wake of Michael Houle's Recent Arrest," by Mike Plaisance, The Republican Newsroom, 20 July 2009. Notice the story of the librarian's outing of the library director's actions to protect the child porn viewer is further expanded.
Here we go again, another public library supporting child pornography viewing. The Holyoke Public Library, MA, delayed three days before reporting the crime. "I'm just disgusted by it," the Police Chief said. "It should have been reported immediately."
Library Director Maria G. Pagan claims pornography viewing has not previously occurred. When she is told it has happened numerous times, she continues to deny it. "'There are going to be certain times in the day the computer room is not going to be staffed,' she said. As a result, 'It's the parents' responsibility to keep an eye on the kids.'"
Hey! Ever hear of CIPA-complaint Internet filters? Obviously, your optional filters DO NOT WORK!
"The Holyoke library does not allow patrons to view Internet pornographic material of any kind on its computers, [library director] Pagan said. 'If you're caught and it's offensive to somebody, you can't view it,' she said."
Oh yeah? CYA, anyone? We report from the links above, you decide:
"Waiting three days before reporting evidence of someone viewing child pornography on a library computer."
"Should have been reported immediately."
"Several incidents prior to that, and they were not reported."
"If you're caught."
"Certain times ... the computer room is not going to be staffed."
"A female library patron checking her e-mail on a library computer found child pornography still visible on the computer screen"
Remember, "The Holyoke library does not allow patrons to view Internet pornographic material of any kind on its computers, [library director] Pagan said." If it does not allow it but it turns a blind eye then fails to report it to the police, that essentially makes what the library director said a lie, does it not?
This is obviously not a safe library.
Citizens of Holyoke need to ask whether the library director is violating the public trust by looking the other way at criminal activity in the public library. That seems to be the case, at least as I understand what was reported. Contact your City of Holyoke government—it's a public library, not a child pornography library where anything goes because the American Library Association is dead set against Internet filters.
by Chris Halsne, KIRO 7 Eyewitness News 27 May 2009 Emphasis added
SEATTLE -- The City of Seattle has been cracking down on bad behavior at its libraries, and there doesn't appear to be any shortage of it.
KIRO Team 7 Investigative Reporter Chris Halsne discovered security has already ejected 432 patrons in the first four months this year for offenses like assault, drug dealing, intoxication and lewd conduct.
If that pace continues, it would far exceed any other year.
On Wednesday evening, the library board amended some of its "code of conduct" rules to better identify the most dangerous offenses.
They range from simple alterations -- like redefining the violation for "sleeping" to "appear to be sleeping"-- to more serious matters, like kicking out repeat offenders for two years.
Seattle's library employees just want to help people find books they love, but along the way, put up with being assaulted, threatened and spit upon.
Patrons see plenty of erratic behavior, too.
According to 2008 conduct violations reports obtained exclusively by KIRO Team 7 Investigators, security booted 113 patrons for being disruptive, 42 people for fighting or assault, 75 for making threats, plus 34 more for lewd conduct.
In all, 1,323 conduct violations were substantiated just in 2008, a disproportionate number at the Central Library branch.
Library users like Judy, who brought her granddaughter to story time, are surprised at that number.
“This is a place you bring your children and you don't want them to be exposed to that,” Judy said.
KIRO Team 7 Investigators documented776 cases in 2008 where someone did something serious enough to lose library privileges. In just the first four months of this year, 432 people have been kicked out in all branches, with 232 of those just from the Central Library downtown.
KIRO-TV hidden cameras found similar problems in 2005. Since then, the library hired more security, which led to an increased number of reported violations.
According to Seattle Library Administrator Marilynn Gardner, nobody has to worry about safety at any branch.
"Anyone can walk into a public library and we certainly welcome people from all kinds of backgrounds and I think they all expect it be a safe, comfortable space when they're trying to do library work," Gardner said.
Our cameras this week found sleeping is still commonplace, even though it's supposed to be banned. Bringing in huge bags -- as our video showed -- is supposedly banned, too. It’s a security issue and a way to keep homeless from camping out inside.
A new library board plan will create a sliding scale of punishment for low-end security issues like sleeping and oversized luggage.
Staff will now give verbal warnings first, then if the person won’t stop repeat offenders may be barred for a short time period.
Flinn Jofrey thinks that's a good plan.
“For the most part it seems pretty decent. I do see homeless people sleeping sometimes. It doesn't bother me as long as they are not bothering me, but I can see why the library wouldn't want that.”
When crimes are committed (like setting a fire or dealing drugs), new rules say patrons could lose privileges for up to two years. That’s up from the maximum one-year ban.
So, the four people recently caught for carrying weapons in the library wouldn't get to come back for a while.
Library users we spoke with think that’s a decent idea.
“I think if they're clarifying the rules, that makes sense, that they want to make things more clear for people, but no, it already feels like a good safe spot.”
Seattle library data indicated the number of trespassing and theft complaints have risen to record numbers so far this year, but cases of lewd conduct and verbal threats have gone down. Copyright 2009 by KIROTV.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. (Republished under Copyright Section 107 Fair Use.)
A library may have violated the rights of a Chinese American, according to Chin-Li Mou v. City of San Jose and San Jose Public Library Education Park Branch. Chin-Li Mou was banned for six months for using her husband's library card to obtain access to the Internet. She asked some children to simmer down given library policy on that issue. The library ordered her not to disturb the children despite their violating library policy. One of the children causing the disturbance followed her outside after the library kicked her out for trying to get the library to follow its own policy. Then the child beat her mercilessly. Unbelievably, when police arrived at the woman's call to 911, the assailant's school security intervened and prevented the police from speaking with the woman!
When the woman called the police another day after seeing the assailant in the library, this time the library staff intervened. Likely as a result of that intervention, the police were "rude and disrespectful" toward her. The police said the children "were born in this country and since [she] was not fortunate enough to be born here [her] rights were subordinated to their rights." She became an American eleven years ago. The police then warned her she would be arrested if she "so much as talked to the Independent high school students."
Did the library defend her freedom of speech? No. Did the library decry the police's unequal treatment based on her national origin? No. Has the American Library Association [ALA] taken any action? No. Instead, the library warned her to get permission before calling the police. Imagine--this is the same library that opposes asking librarians for permission to disable Internet filters and is recommending no filters at all.
Calling the police to prevent assault and battery? Get permission. Viewing child p()rn? No permission is needed. Freedom of speech for Chinese Americans? No. Freedom of speech for child p()rnographers? What do you think--has the Lindsay, CA, library employee fired for calling police on someone viewing child p()rn been rehired yet? No, and don't hold your breath.
Librarians in the Hartford Public Library, Hartford, CT, are subjected to daily harassment and a hostile work environment. An 11 year old girl is raped by three guys. Public drunkenness is condoned by library management. Patrons behave criminally and library managements shrugs shoulders. The situation is so bad librarians and even the librarian's union have been forced to go public to get attention. And there is so much more.
The facts as reported in "Hartford Public Library: A Study in Bad Behavior," by Tina A. Brown and Steven Goode, The Hartford Courant, May 18, 2008, are so egregious, you have to read this for yourselves to believe it.
A similar situation occurred in the Minneapolis Public Library and that resulted in the EEOC finding the library guilty of sexual harassment, and the settlement of the resulting civil claim amounted to $435,000. See Adamson v. Minneapolis Public Library.
I urge the Hartford librarians and AFSCME Local 1716 to sue the library management and Hartford itself to, at a minimum, force the removal of the American Library Association [ALA] policies as reshaped and reapplied by local ALA acolytes. Use Adamson as your model. The ALA promotes the "anything goes" policies your library management is apparently following; identify them and stamp them out. I will help if you ask. Sue Hartford itself as well for not stopping the library from exceeding its legal authority, which it appears to me from this article that it may have. Send the message that this is a public library, not the ALA's personal policy playground. Protect the citizens and the library employees from harm. It's easy to do if you can get the media and the public to filter out the usual ALA propaganda--that's the hard part.
Here is the full text of this unbelievable story, because you should not miss a single word and would not believe this otherwise:
Hartford Public Library: A Study In Bad Behavior
By TINA A. BROWN And STEVEN GOODE
Courant Staff Writers
May 18, 2008
A $42 million makeover has transformed Hartford Public Library into a gleaming expanse of glass and well-lit, open space that warmly welcomes visitors.
Measured by a dramatic increase in library visits, the invitation has been widely accepted. The changes inside the library's three floors went beyond adding space, reconfiguring the layout and increasing the number of books, DVDs and computers. It's become a busier place, noisier and more vibrant, something in which chief Librarian Louise Blalock — named National Librarian of the Year in 2001 — takes pride.
But it's also a place where the behavioral norms traditionally associated with libraries are often breached, according to interviews with staff members and internal library reports obtained by The Courant.
The reports document drinking and drug use, with staff members reporting that empty liquor bottles and drug paraphernalia are often left in the restrooms. Sexual activity has been reported on several occasions. The problems reached the point where the restrooms on the library's second and third floors have been locked, according to library staff.
Acts of violence inside the library, while infrequent, do occur: In January, a patron complained of being robbed at gunpoint inside a first-floor restroom; internal reports say a subsequent investigation by security staff was unable to determine what happened.
The library also has a theft problem. Without a security system in place, CDs and DVDs disappear with regularity.
Blalock says such incidents happen from time to time and she is reluctant to institute a more restrictive environment because the library is — and needs to be — a place that welcomes all, a view shared by several past and present members of the library board.
Stephen B. Goddard, a longtime board member and past board president, said the incident reports are "nothing new" and are minute compared to the half-million-plus visitors who use the library each year.
"In 24 years, from time to time there have been a handful of incidents," Goddard said. "I have chalked that up to what any public institution in a hyperactive environment is going to face in cities today."
"To Louise, things like the rights of patrons are paramount," Goddard said, adding that the board feels fortunate to have had Blalock at the helm for the past 14 years.
Blalock, who spearheaded the library's transformation, said she decided not to set rules of behavior or install security cameras or theft detection devices and instead emphasizes a free and open environment. She said she has directed her staff not to call the police if they can safely escort a patron out of the building.
As a draft statement of principle for the library puts it: "All customers have a right to use the library according to their life and learning style as long as it does not interfere with the right of others to use the library."
But some employees say Blalock has taken that philosophy too far and has failed to deal with the realities of running a library in an urban setting — something library officials in cities across the country are confronting as they grapple with homelessness, drug use, gang activity and other ills.
In the name of openness, they complain, patrons are forced to endure the misbehavior of others. The result, they say, is a chaotic workplace. Some staffers say conditions have gotten so bad they decided to go public with their complaints that the administration has failed to provide adequate security.
The inadequate level of security "has pushed us to a point that people feel that they have to go public with it," said David Ionno, vice president of AFSCME Local 1716, the union that represents library workers. "There's going to be an incident where a librarian is going to get hurt."
Drinking, Sex
The breaking point, for some, came with back-to-back incidents earlier this year. The first was an altercation outside the library that continued inside, then back outside to Arch Street, where a young man was stabbed. That was followed the next day by an incident in which an 11-year-old girl was picked up by three young men inside the library, taken to a city motel and raped.
Those incidents may have gone beyond the norm, but those who work at the library say it is the norm that is troubling. Staff incident reports reviewed by The Courant document 60 incidents — most occurring since January 2007 — of alleged acts of criminal or disturbing conduct. Library officials such as Blalock and Goddard say the number of incidents pales beside the visitation at the main branch, which is expected to reach 415,000 this fiscal year, ending June 30.
Drinking and drug use are particularly worrisome to library staff members, who say they are often forced to deal with intoxicated and belligerent patrons — a job for which they say they're not trained or qualified. Internal reports filed by staff members this year include several episodes, including one in which a patron was caught drinking in the bathroom and harassing a visitor.
For more than a year, library maintenance worker Leo Laffitte collected empty liquor bottles from the restrooms and took them to the third floor so managers could see that patrons were drinking alcoholic beverages inside the building. His efforts were met, he said, with shrugged shoulders and no attempts to stop it.
Finally, in April, Laffitte said he pulled empty 40-ounce beer bottles and liquor bottles from a trash bag and put them on public display while visitors were attending a manager's retirement party. He said he thought that if the administrators were embarrassed by the display, they might start addressing the issue. He never got a response.
At least eight acts of lewd or sexual behavior in the library have been documented by library staff since February 2007; only once, according to records released by the library, was an individual banned from the building for a substantial length of time.
Staffers said they've interrupted individuals masturbating and couples engaging in sexual acts in "the old fiction" section, in the media room and in the restrooms.
One worker overheard a young couple on the third floor last October talking about how they "needed to get a room," according to a report. Rather than go to a motel, the couple went into a third-floor bathroom. When they were caught there, they moved to a second-floor bathroom where they were found inside a women's stall, an incident report said.
Staff members also are concerned about who is using the Internet at the library. Ionno said that on occasion, staffers have reported seeing patrons viewing inappropriate material. The staffers have then checked the state's sex offender registry and found the person's photograph posted, he said.
After one incident in May 2007, the staff called police after seeing a man viewing child pornography on a library computer. The man told the officers "he just got of jail on Monday and was aware of the crime of watching child porn," according to the library report. The report does not indicate whether the man was arrested.
Later that month, a patron was caught viewing pornography in a public area when children were present. The security staff booted the man out of the library for three weeks, the incident report said. In October 2006, in an incident that generated widespread attention, Scott Murtagh, a homeless, convicted sex offender, was caught in the midst of a lewd act while viewing child pornography at the library.
Security Measures
What it all adds up to, library staffers say, is an atmosphere that is more chaotic than it needs to be were more stringent rules and security measures in place.
The library has one full-time security supervisor who is based at the main library and oversees a staff of 18 part-time security guards who are spread out among the main library and its nine branches. Library managers say there should be four guards on duty at the main branch during a regular shift; the security supervisor was instructed in late February to notify management when there are fewer guards available.
The library also has invested in Vocera, a voice-activated mobile communications system that staff members use by speaking into microphones they wear around their necks. "If they need backup, they can ask staff to assist them," Blalock said
Library staffers say they are concerned about dealing with situations they're not equipped to handle. One of the episodes that brought the issue to a head took place on Feb. 9, when a group of youths tried to attack a younger male inside the library. A staff member's incident report stated that three youths, aged 14 or 15, ran through the library yelling and swearing after the attempted assault.
"They continued to swear as I escorted them out the door," a female employee reported. "They were ranting against the 'witch' [me] as my husband was walking in. ... While I was dealing with this, there was another customer, a woman who was loudly complaining to our security guard that she witnessed two men viewing pornography on the machines next to her. She herself was causing a disturbance," the incident report said.
The employee, who has 15 years of experience, pleaded for help in figuring out how to handle such volatile incidents. "I feel that I am placing myself in an insecure and hostile environment. The training that would be best is if I could shadow a female manager. That way I would learn how to best handle aggressive, threatening behavior from people who are twice my size and thirty-plus years younger and stronger," the employee wrote in the incident report.
Another security deficiency, staffers say, is a lack of scanners that would alert staff when someone tries to leave with unchecked books, videos or music. Such devices are staples at most public libraries, but not at the Hartford main branch.
"In the old building if you went through the towers and if something hadn't been scanned, it would beep," Ionno said, adding that the smaller branches in Hartford continue to use them.
A $75,000 scanner system was ordered as part of the main library's renovation. When it arrived, Blalock had it installed, but then had it removed and sent back, partly because the system didn't fit with the library's new style and partly because it was ineffective, she said.
"There is nothing that is fail-safe," Blalock said. "At some point, we'll have something that works. ... We are investigating having cameras. There is no one thing that we can guarantee. ... The larger issue is things are taken out and not returned."
In West Hartford, where the main branch of the library recently reopened after a $9 million makeover, the usefulness and aesthetics of the monitoring system were not in dispute. There, to augment two existing sets of gates at exits, a third set, costing about $7,000, was installed.
"It goes off often enough that people know it works," said Glenn Grube, the library's director of technical services. "It deters the impulse."
In Hartford, the theft of media materials amounts to about 5 percent of the collection annually, Blalock said, but the library loses far more material from patrons who fail to return checked-out items.
"There is some theft," Blalock said. "We're trying to control it to the best of our ability. In the current climate it's the cost of doing business."
Blalock's Library
On the first floor of the New Haven Free Public Library, signs that say "Quiet" and "No Cellular Phones" are posted on almost every table.
In the Silas Bronson Library in downtown Waterbury, signs warn patrons of video surveillance cameras. Patrons are offered the choice of reading books and magazines or using the Internet, but one thing is clear from the signs taped to every workstation: eating, drinking and talking on the telephone are prohibited.
Such postings are what Blalock calls an old-fashioned strategy to create an artificial, controlled environment.
"The library isn't quiet anymore," Blalock said, pointing proudly to her library's participation in The Big Read, a reading promotion program funded by the National Endowment for the Arts. Librarians read aloud to homeless men and women twice a week on the main floor, and participants are offered candy bars and juice to attract them.
Asked what happens when her customers misbehave or violate library rules, Blalock said she advises her staff to walk a customer — they don't call them patrons — outside.
"Do we always call the police? No," Blalock said.
Blalock said, though, that she calls the police when she needs to. "We believe on one occasion we had people in here which belonged to gangs and were using MySpace to encourage other young people to join," she said. Blalock called the police.
She also said that security has been instructed to monitor the restrooms and that the second-floor bathroom was locked because of a ventilation problem. Unless patrons are caught in the act of using alcohol or drugs, there is nothing that the staff can do, she said.
"It's hearsay," she said.
"Ninety-nine point nine percent of customers who use the public library make appropriate use of library services and collections," she said in e-mail. "The Library is open to all and everyone is treated with respect and courtesy. Library customers have the freedom to use the library, but they do not have the freedom to interfere with others rights or to behave in an unacceptable manner. That is our policy and my philosophy.
"As staff we care for one another and take responsibility. When there is inappropriate customer behavior, staff must intervene.
"I know there are some employees who are fearful; the library has always had some who do not feel safe in an urban environment.
"But most of us thrive and want the challenge because we believe the work is important and we can make a difference.
"The Library is a great success story for the city of Hartford and it is recognized in the state and nationally for a comprehensive and inclusive program of service."
Tensions Elsewhere
The tension underlying the debate between Blalock and the staff — between openness vs. security — is something urban libraries across the nation are facing. The American Library Association held workshops during its annual meeting this spring in Minneapolis to discuss issues associated with crime and the homeless.
"The library is a wonderful place, and we think of it as a gateway to ideas. But when you walk in the door, human nature isn't suddenly changed," said Chip Ward, a former library deputy director in Salt Lake City, whose essay on what is happening in urban libraries, "What They Didn't Teach Us in Library School," is being made into a movie.
"When you face new situations, you have to do more problem-solving," he said. "I had a drug problem and I brought in an undercover cop. ... The best thing to do is to have good communications about what staff is experiencing and how the administration is handling it."
The library hired a security force and developed programs geared toward providing services to the homeless and teenagers who threatened the safety of patrons, Ward said. Librarians elsewhere have confronted similar problems and have used police and professional security.
"We have police officers in the branches all the time," said Maggie Killackey, spokeswoman for the Chicago Public Library.
Aside from issues of library philosophy, any additional security at the main branch would cost money. That is at a time when the city council is considering cutting the budget for Hartford Public Library by $500,000. The library has spent $8.4 million this year, exceeding its original adopted budget of $7.9 million. The city wants to see the budget restored to $7.9 million next year.
If the cut is adopted by the city council, board President Geraldine P. Sullivan said 23 of 120 staff positions will be eliminated in July. She said it would be Blalock's decision whether any of the security positions would be cut.
Sullivan said she wasn't aware of the full scope of the staff's concerns until The Courant started asking questions in March. She said, however, that the board has pushed since October for the library to create its own procedures and guidelines for handling behavioral problems. Those procedures and guidelines are still being finalized.
"It's a very delicate balance providing a welcoming environment, so everyone uses the library, and enforcing problematic behavior. ... People have different standards about what offends them. That's why there should be some guidelines," Sullivan said. "Two months ago, I might not have said that until I heard about staff concerns."
Ionno said the union would like to see the security staff professionalized and given the power to detain customers who break the law. He said the staff also wants young people to be kept away from the adult computer area so they aren't exposed to explicit content being viewed by some customers and they want pornography filters to be installed on computers in the children's area.
And lastly, Ionno said, the staff expects the administration to back them up when incidents do occur.
"Stop moving us to another branch when something happens," he said, referring to incidents when staff members have been transferred after reporting problems with customers. "It doesn't solve the problem and it makes us feel like we did something wrong."
Sullivan said Blalock has left an indelible mark on the library and continues to have the board's support. "Louise has improved the library by light years," Sullivan said.Sullivan said when she grew up in Hartford in the 1950s, she used the Camp Field branch, where librarians strictly enforced the rules.
"Maybe today's library isn't Mrs. Small saying 'be quiet, be quiet.' I don't want this story to make anyone feel threatened by using this public space."
The library director of the Ellisville Public Library in Ellisville, MS, has announced publicly what the American Library Association [ALA] tries very hard to downplay--ALA rules control the local public library she directs. In fact she seems proud of the ALA's control over her library and expects everyone to accept the subversion of local library law.
Library Director Michelle Rogers proclaims:
Just as our country is governed based on the Bill of Rights, libraries are also governed by a Bill of Rights. The Library Bill of Rights is a document that was created by the American Library Association (ALA). All American libraries are expected to follow the basic guidelines of the Bill of Rights to guide their services.
Do people in Ellisville want to enforce their local library law that excludes certain material such as pronography the ALA allows in? Too bad! "All American libraries are expected to follow the basic guidelines of the Bill of Rights to guide their services."
The library director does the usual two step by saying, "I’ll be the first to admit to you that there are a lot of materials on our shelves I totally disagree with." But then explains how the ALA rules require that she allow in what the local community would not: "However, I have to respect the rights of others who may want to view these materials."
A library is created by some instrument of law. That law may say what the library allows and what it does not allow. Usually such laws proscribe pronography either explicitly or implicitly. Libraries must act within those laws; allowing pronography is acting outside such laws, namely, illegally. When a library chooses to ignore local library law and instead follow the ALA's policy that anything goes, it is possible they may be illegal activity. In such a case, the government that created that law needs to step in to ensure the legal entity it created is acting lawfully.
In Ellisville, the government and the citizens have a distinct advantage over other communities. The library director has admitted publicly that the ALA's "Bill or Rights" must "guide their services," not the local instrument of law that created the library.
Often the ALA de facto controls local public libraries and no one publicly admits that it is doing so. Ellisville's library director, however, has chosen to admit the obvious.
The local government does not first need to determine IF the library is no longer controlled by local law. That has become an established fact. Another established fact is that the library director has allowed in material it would not otherwise allow but for the ALA's "Bill of Rights." Now the government needs to take action to enjoin the library from violating local law.
This message I am writing puts the Ellisville government on notice that its Ellisville Public Library may be acting illegally. If any of the library rapes or molestations occurring nationwide as a possible result of ALA policy occur in Ellisville, then significant liability may extend not only to the library but also to the government itself. The government knew or should have known that the library may have been acting illegally and did nothing to stop it--therefore punitive damages may be appropriate. This very blog will be found during discovery by the potential victim's lawyers.
Given the library director admits she follows ALA diktat, and given she admits the library contains material it might not otherwise have but for the ALA, she is implying that the library is ignoring local library law. The government must act to correct this or it too may be exposing the community to grave harm both physically and financially.
Ellisville has a proud history. It is even named for a descendant of Chief Powhatan, Pocahontas's father. Does anyone in Ellisville, or anywhere else for that matter, think Pocahontas would blithely accept the subversion of local laws to the ALA's "Bill of Rights" by an apparent ALA acolyte? Would Pocahontas accept the exposure of children to the harms experienced in other libraries controlled by ALA acolytes who flout local law?
This information is based on: "At the Library," by Michelle Rogers, Laurel Leader-Call, 28 April 2008. http://www.leadercall.com/peopleandplaces/local_story_119111734.html
Published April 28, 2008 11:17 am - At the Library
By Michelle Rogers
Greetings from the Ellisville Library. I want to take a moment to discuss something that has come up at the library lately. While this hasn’t occurred in Ellisville, there have been a few isolated cases at the Laurel Branch. So I’m sure by now you’re wondering, what is she blabbing about? I’m talking about complaints about materials on our shelves. While you may not agree with everything that is on our shelves, it is policy that we provide the public with a variety of materials on various subjects and viewpoints. Just as our country is governed based on the Bill of Rights, libraries are also governed by a Bill of Rights. The Library Bill of Rights is a document that was created by the American Library Association (ALA). All American libraries are expected to follow the basic guidelines of the Bill of Rights to guide their services. Among other important policies, the Bill of Rights states, “Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background or views of those contributing to their creation.” It goes on to say, “Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.” I’ll be the first to admit to you that there are a lot of materials on our shelves I totally disagree with. However, I have to respect the rights of others who may want to view these materials. As the Ellisville librarian, this is something I have to deal with on a daily basis.
For example, when choosing materials to add to our collection, I must consider what would be best for patrons. It is my duty to provide materials from different viewpoints and ideas despite what my opinion may be. We are all unique and have different reading tastes, so it is important that libraries have materials to suit every personality. We do respect your concerns and opinions, however, so if there are materials you find obscene or offensive please let Library staff know.
We will handle these situations on an individual basis.
Now that I’m off my soapbox I have some very exciting news! The Rural Development Authority has given us the green light to begin construction on the new library. The construction should begin shortly after some pre-construction details are completed. I know everyone is very excited and can’t wait for our new library. This has been a dream of the Laurel-Jones County Library System and the City of Ellisville for many years and finally that dream will be realized. The current discussion is that the project could be completed as soon as the end of this year or beginning of next year at the latest. So, in the meantime keep your fingers crossed. I want to mention something very important about the new library. Before the library can open we will need to have furniture and other supplies in place. Unfortunately at this time, we just are able to cover the cost of the construction with help from grants and other sources.
The library director in Burlington, Iowa, is misleading the public about Internet filters in the Burlington Public Library. At least as quoted, Library Director Rhonda Frevert sounds like someone mouthing the words of the American Library Association [ALA], a powerful organization that holds it is "age" discrimination to keep children from any material they wish.
In "Resident Advocates for Filters to Catch P0rn," by Darcie Hoenig, The Hawk Eye, 26 April 2008, Burlington resident Francis Hicks learned from a child that library computers in recessed stations were being used to view p0rnography. So he told the library's director who refused to do anything. Instead, the director said the library board already voted against filters. She then listed the exact same excuses the ALA advises local libraries to use. Paraphrasing for brevity's sake:
Internet filters are not reliable.
Internet filters underblock.
Internet filters overblock.
Internet filters often block health information, such as breast cancer.
Internet filters are turned off for a "good deal of time" based on her own mini survey.
Internet filters are easily foiled by "teens getting their kicks."
P0rnographic files have deceiving file names.
Internet filters create a "false sense of security."
Internet filters "imply to parents that children will not find inappropriate material."
Internet filters are not needed because in "only a handful of instances" out of 59,000 computer log-ins was "illicit material" "caught being viewed."
Internet filters are not needed because uses must first "accept the library's policy on proper Internet usage."
Internet filters are not needed because "library policies outline proper safety, behavior and electronic resources use."
Internet filters are not needed because the library "encourages children and families to use the facility together."
Internet filters are not needed because "it's ultimately up to parents to supervise what their children are doing at the library."
The truth is Internet filters are now extremely effective. Even health-related sites are no longer blocked. (See ACLU v. Gonzales.) And since no computer software of any kind will ever be perfect, the problem with overblocking, to the extent it still exists, is easily avoided by asking the librarian to temporarily disable the filter or unblock the site.
And all this is constitutionally approved by the US Supreme Court in the case of US v. ALA. The ALA lost big in that case on these very issues; it's no wonder the ALA tries, usually successfully, to get local librarians to reraise the same issues already asked and answered by the US Supreme Court.
As to her mini survey that filters are usually turned off, hogwash. Filters are used successfully in many, many communities nationwide, often without so much as a peep.
Now part of the reason for using Internet filters is to prevent criminals from having access to the material that gives them the impetus they need to commit that library rape or child molestation. It happens in library after library that refuses to filter effectively.
Iowans have direct experience with children raped in public library bathrooms as a result of ALA-engendered unfiltered Internet computers. Anyone remember the Des Moines case? I was directly involved in uncovering that, so even though I'm from New Jersey, I know whereof I speak. See "Media - Wake Up to Library Crime Source" for more.
So if part of the goal of filters is to not attract criminals in the first place, to cause them to move on to another community misled by the ALA, then many of the Burlington Public Library director's arguments are irrelevant.
Teens can foil filters? Irrelevant. Criminals are usually not the brightest bulbs. The filters will stop them.
Got a "false sense of security" that your child won't see anything bad? Irrelevant. Besides, isn't the library supposed to educate parents about the risks? Remember: "library policies outline proper safety, behavior and electronic resources use." Criminals are expected to respect that, but not parents?
Might Internet filters "imply to parents that children will not find inappropriate material"? Irrelevant. Besides, parents are supposed to be smart enough to "supervise what their children are doing at the library," so why are they considered so stupid as to think filters are 100% perfect or to get a "false sense of security."
Are you getting the point so I don't have to address each of the library director's false and misleading statements?
I can't resist adding one more--yes, the library director must think people actually are stupid because we are expected to believe that library usage policies or the need to "accept the library's policy on proper Internet usage" before using the computer will actually deter the child molesters and rapists. "Excuse me, Mr. Rapist, I know you might have your eye on my little toddler, but you did click the button on the computer to accept our usage policy, so please play nicely." I'm sure I don't need to say this but acceptable usage policies haven't stopped a single crime.
Let's look again at the library director's actions. Someone brings to her attention that people are accessing p0rnography at the recessed stations and children are seeing this. My reaction would be how, where, we have to stop it. I'll bet that's the reaction of the majority of citizens. I'll bet the law that created the library implicitly or explicitly excluded p0rn. (P0rn is perfectly legal to exclude under US v. ALA.) Instead, she makes at least fourteen excuses, essentially excuses for p0rnography in the public library, and totally leaves out anything about or in US v. ALA.
She even tacitly admits p0rnography should not be allowed--she said p0rnographic files have deceiving names. Deceiving names? Who's deceiving whom? Claiming p0rnographic files have deceiving names and get past Internet filters anyway implies p0rnographic images are not appropriate in the public library, and they are not (depending on the community and its laws), yet she merely makes excuses when such material is brought to her attention! Who cares about the kid when there are ALA directives to follow, right? Talk one way, walk another. I mean this lady is really an expert on spinning stories to make them look different than they are, a model ALA acolyte.
I am hereby putting the Burlington, IA, community and government on notice. Should any criminal activity occur as a result of unfiltered or improperly filtered Internet computers in your public library, you stand a good chance of a lawsuit that may result not only in consequential damages, but also punitive damages. If it is determined your library knew or should have known following ALA policy instead of local community interests and laws would result in harm, there may be liability. Further, if it is determined your government knew or should have known the library was acting outside the law that created the library but did nothing to require the library to adhere to that law, the government itself may be separately liable.
You know what's really sad? Remember I said the ALA holds it is "age" discrimination to keep any material from a child? Well that comes from the ALA's so-called "Library Bill of Rights." These "Rights" were first drafted in 1938 by Forrest Spaulding, director of the Des Moines Public Library. The word "age" was added in 1967 and "reaffirmed" in 1996. It's really sad that the addition of that word may have come back to haunt the toddler raped in the same Des Moines Public Library where the "Rights" originated. Does anyone think Forrest Spaulding would be happy with what has become of his "Rights"? Will the citizens of Burlington be the next victims lulled into complacency by the ALA acolyte's prepared excuses and misinformation?
If anyone know Francis Hicks who plans to attend the library board meeting May 22, please ask him to contact SafeLibraries. I will attempt to help him wake up his community to what's going on. "This isn't a fight I plan to give up easily," he said. "It's not just me, but I'm going to be the one to stand up and fight until the end."
Anybody have anything to say about this? Thank you.
Introduction Lies In the Media Lies In the Library Web Site Galling Contradiction of Library's Own Policy Conclusion Notes for Fact Checking Purposes
INTRODUCTION
Library Director Metta Lansdale uses lies and contradictions to stop political efforts to filter the computers at the Royal Oak Public Library in Michigan. [NOTE 1] Too strong a statement? Then what do you call it when the US Supreme Court in US v. ALA says Internet filters on public library computers do not constitute censorship, yet the director says they do? What do you call it when filters are so effective and no longer block out health-related web sites that even the ACLU testifies to this, the court in ACLU v. Gonzales found the Children's Online Protection Act to be unconstitutional precisely because of this, yet the director says the exact opposite? Worse, what do you call it when the library's own policy prohibits pornography but the director opposes filters that legally and effectively block it, then misleads people to decide as she would--against filters? A rose is a rose is a rose [NOTE 2], and a lie is a lie is a lie. Things are what they are.
LIES IN THE MEDIA
Lie 1:
"'[A]dults are adults and they have a right to look at what they want to," Lansdale said. 'It's [sic] is a form of government censorship when libraries put on filters.'" "Survey: Most Libraries Don't Filter Computers in Adult Labs," by Catherine Kavanaugh, (Royal Oak) Daily Tribune, 17 April 2008. [NOTE 3]
False. Read US v. ALA [NOTE 4] to see why this is false in several ways. I could say more but I want you to read the case then think for yourselves.
Lie 2:
"Filters are very arbitrary, blunt instruments that in some cases do more harm than good and I'm talking about adults trying to get legal information." "Library Seeks Input on Filters for Adult Computers; Director Urges Residents to Write, E-Mail Opinions," by Catherine Kavanaugh, (Royal Oak) Daily Tribune, 27 March 2008. [NOTE 5]
False. Read ACLU v. Gonzales [NOTE 6] to see why this is false in several ways. More recently, though after the director made some of her comments, independent studies show filters have improved even further still. [NOTE 7]
Lies 3, 4, and 5:
"'It's none of our business what people are doing on our computers. I don't want staff and passersby to have to look at what someone is looking at and I don't want people looking over their shoulder,' Lansdale said. Lansdale, who says she is appalled by what people find online, opposes filters because they block credible information about health and history and their mere use prejudges people coming into the library. 'What you end up doing is putting people in a situation where they have to come to a librarian and say, "I was doing a search that was blocked." It raises suspicions on you,' Lansdale said." "Libraries Debate Web Filters; Patrons' Privacy Rights Weighed After Many View Porn," by Jennifer Chambers, The Detroit News, 9 April 2008. [NOTE 8]
False. It is your business when illegal activity is taking place. Further, filters may be disabled or sites unblocked for bona fide reasons, not for the viewing of material that is illegal or that falls outside the bounds of the library's enabling statute or charter, etc., or its own policy, as we shall soon see. Adult pornography or similar constitutionally protected material may be implicitly or explicitly proscribed by the legal document that created the library in the first place. The library director has no right to exceed that authority. None. The government must step in if she does. Further, good filters no longer block health information. And "prejudging" people or "raising suspicions"? That too was asked and answered in US v. ALA in the context of embarrassment. Both US v. ALA and ACLU v. Gonzales prove the director is wrong here again.
LIES IN THE LIBRARY WEB SITE
Stepping beyond these public efforts to use the media to mislead the public into opposing library filtering, look now at the "Library Position" on the library's own web site [NOTE 9]:
"Filtering computers restricted to use by adults competes with the interest of right of access to constitutionally protected material. Filtering for adults raises questions as well as ire and occasionally lawsuits when filters are imposed on adult populations in public libraries."
False. I have already revealed how the courts have addressed that. And there will be no "ire" when the porn viewers move on to another community's unfiltered library. But see that scare line about lawsuits? Not a single lawsuit has been brought based on the Children's Internet Protection Act [CIPA] or the 2003 case of US v. ALA. There may be one or two filtering cases, but they are not the same issues as are being raised in Royal Oak. How that measures as "occasional lawsuits" is beyond me. Consider also that instead of lawsuits, numerous states have passed or have drafted legislation to bring the positive effects of CIPA to a statewide level. [NOTE 10]
"Students cannot complete homework assignments when sites are incorrectly blocked and adults cannot complete searches for health information or recipes. Internet filters often block material that should be allowed; objectionable E-mail attachments cannot be reliably blocked."
False, again based on the court cases I cited, among other things. By the way, those must be some recipes!
GALLING CONTRADICTION OF LIBRARY'S OWN POLICY
Even more galling is how the library director contradicts the library's own policies in her efforts to mislead or propagandize the public. Quoting from "Royal Oak Public Library Policies; Services Section 5.40 - Internet Access Policy" [NOTE 11]:
"In keeping with its stated mission to be an informational, intellectual and cultural resource, the Royal Oak Public Library offers access to a variety of information sources...." Pornography and the like is implicitly NOT part of the library's "stated mission." The director is exceeding her authority by either preventing the use of legal and effective Internet filters to meet that stated mission, or by misleading the public and governmental leaders into doing the exact same thing.
"Users of the Internet are expected to use this library resource in a responsible and courteous manner, consistent with the purposes for which it is provided.... Responsible, courteous use of the Internet includes .... using the library's Internet resources for educational, information, communication, and recreational purposes...." Bingo. Case closed. Pornography does not fit into the library's own written policy.
Now compare that library policy to what the library director said: "It's none of our business what people are doing on our computers." How does she expect to enforce the policy then? If it is not enforced, why even have the policy? Why not just be honest and change the policy to say there is no policy, anything goes?
The policy also says, "recognizing that both library-owed computers and patron-owned computers ... will be located in very visible locations and can be viewed by users of all ages, backgrounds and sensibilities, users should choose Internet-access activities accordingly." What could that possibly mean if not pornography and the like? Is this a useless statement to be tossed away by an aggressive library director who uses the media and the library's own web site to make people forget the library's own written policy?
"Library staff cannot consistently and effectively monitor the public's use of the Internet." No surprise, really, but although it is not being done consistently, at least it is done occasionally, right? So why should people believe the director when she says, "It's none of our business what people are doing on our computers."
CONCLUSION
Royal Oak Public Library's own written library Internet use policy makes it clear that pornography and the like is not to be allowed. Yet library director Metta Lansdale says, "It's none of our business what people are doing on our computers." She says other such statements in numerous media reports. In addition, her statements in the media and the library's own web site in opposition to library filters are entirely contradictory to US v. ALA and ACLU v. Gonzales. A careful reading of those cases will make that clear to anyone with an open mind. The library director is following a whole different set of rules other than those written by the Royal Oak community.
"Let's get people in a room, tell them what we are doing and why, tell them advantages and disadvantages of filters, and let them discuss it and give their opinion," Lansdale said. Does anyone think the library director misleading the public further can be trusted for honest information in compliance with the library's own policy? Can there be any result other than what the library director wants, instead of what the law and the library's own policy require?
