Orland Park Public Library Still Covering Up Child Porn

The Orland Park Public Library (link) is the scene of the latest effort by a library to cover up its literally criminal ways, in this case award-winning criminal ways.  It did so by having published a letter to the editor of the Orland Park Prairie (link).  That prompted a response by the citizenry to expose the misinformation in the hope enough pressure is brought to bear to force the library board to change its anything-goes, law breaking policy.

Presented side by side are two letters to the editor, the first by elected library trustee Diane Jennings, pictured as right, and the second a response by library patron and child porn whistleblower Kevin DuJan.  Both were printed in the Orland Park Prairie:

Letters to the Editor February 19, 2015 Library Staff Cares About  Child Safety Dear Editor, As an Orland Park resident, library trustee and avid library user, I respond to recent letters questioning the Orland Park Public Library's commitment to child safety. Specifically, some writers worry about patrons using the OPPL's computers to access inappropriate material on the Internet. A review of current OPPL policies and procedures at www.orlandparklibrary.org should dispel such concerns. They are stricter than those recommended by local and national library associations, and stricter than those followed by many Chicago-area libraries, including several nearby suburban libraries. Consider the following. The OPPL's first-floor collection and the activities held there are for children only. Adults are not allowed here, unless accompanying a child. All Internet access in this area is filtered. The OPPL's teen collection is in the southwest corner of the second floor. All computers provided for teen use are filtered. Computers accessible to adults are in the northeast corner of the second floor, with the adult collection. These computers are not filtered, but staff constantly monitors the area. No one under 18 may enter this computer area for any reason, and all users must first surrender to staff a picture ID containing their name, address and proof of age. Non-residents without an OPPL library card are allowed just one hour of use per day, for which they pay a fee. The OPPL's policies in no way promote the viewing of child pornography. Instead, they expressly state that viewing child pornography or any other illegal material is prohibited. Violations may be reported to the police and subject to criminal prosecution. The policies ban even legal material that offends others within viewing distance. The OPPL meets the needs of all its patrons. Children are kept safe, while adults are able to exercise their constitutional right to access information on the Internet without the interference of filters that block legitimate searches and sites along with those deemed "undesirable." The OPPL's award-winning balancing of these interests makes our library both a family- and a user-friendly place. We can continue to rely on the professionalism and common sense of OPPL employees, as they serve everyone. Judging from the steady increases in visits, circulation and program attendance that the OPPL has enjoyed for many years, it seems that the majority of Orland Park residents agree. Diane I. Jennings Trustee, Orland Park Public Library Board - See more at: http://www.opprairie.com/letters-editor/letters-editor-feb-19-2015#sthash.W1xfJM7N.dpuf [Note: paywall]

Letters to the Editor March 5, 2015 More to the Story About  Adult Computers at OPPL Dear Editor, I write in response to a letter to the editor published Feb. 19 that was written by a trustee of the Orland Park Public Library. Entitled, "Library staff cares about child safety," I feel it was misleading in the way it described the teen and adult computer areas of the OPPL and the problems therein. No walls separate the OPPL's second floor adult computer area from the teen area. Both are open spaces bordered only by bookshelves, with only about 60 steps diagonally between them. While it may be true that library staff don't allow teens to use the adult computers and adults to use the teen computers, the OPPL's local history, political science, and Illinois studies sections are all located on bookshelves that form one of the boundaries of the adult computer area. Specifically, all of the Chicago history books and the books about Orland Park itself are on shelves that directly face the rows of adult computers. This means that teens needing these books for school reports must stand in unobstructed view of the adult computer area, with nothing but air separating them from the rows of adult computers. Since the OPPL is adamant about keeping the adult computers unfiltered and pornography is accessible on unfiltered computers, adults who become sexually aroused while viewing pornography at the OPPL would be in close proximity to teens who come to this area to find their history and political science books. This is like butterflies being drawn into spiders' webs, because the OPPL has chosen to locate books the teens need for school reports right by the adult computers. Because the adult computer area is an open space without walls, teens must also pass right by the rows of adult computers on their walk to the second floor study rooms. This is something else that was not noted in the Feb. 19 letter from the OPPL trustee. Adults using unfiltered computers to view pornography would come in contact with teens in this area, and they would also be using the same restrooms as the teens on the second floor. Pornography is not an intellectual stimulant. It is a sexual stimulant. Sexual arousal and its resultant behaviors are neither appropriate nor safe in a public library. It is bad policy for the OPPL to ignore the many interactions between teens and adults on the second floor. Kevin DuJan - See more at: http://www.opprairie.com/letters-editor/letters-editor-march-5-2015#sthash.h5QEDNq5.dpuf [Note: paywall] © Copyright 2015, 22nd Century Media, LLC. All rights reserved.  Reused under Fair Use provisions.

Can you see the issues there?  Let me now provide my comments.

"questioning the Orland Park Public Library's commitment to child safety":

This is a library that serves up child pornography then covers it up—watch Diane Jennings admitting in public on 18 August 2014 that the library allowed and covered up child pornography (link).  This is a library where the public relations employee Bridget Bittman, knowing it serves up child pornography and covers it up, declared the library to be a "safe library" (link).  So now elected official Diane Jennings is worried about people "questioning the Orland Park Public Library's commitment to child safety."  Funny, in a sad way.  By the way, watch both Diane Jennings and Bridget Bittman attacking Kevin DuJan for being gay (link), and these are supposed to be the people telling us this public library is a safe library.

Let me add this.  A year ago and a half ago, when the child porn whistleblowers Megan Fox and Kevin DuJan began to become the target of the library's "crisis management" efforts for simply asking questions, the library was much less safe for children, let alone adults.  While the library refuses to use Internet filters that would be the best way to improve safety and become compliant with the law (link), it has quietly and without acknowledgement implemented nearly all of Fox's and DuJan's suggestions for improving safety.  This list is too long to enumerate here.  To the extent the library has effective child safety practices and procedures in place today, most have been thanks to Megan Fox and Kevin DuJan, no thanks to Diane Jennings and the rest of the library board.  It has taken all this time and many Illinois Attorney General and expensive court decisions to force the library to get to the point where we are today.  The only "commitment to child safety" the library has is to do as little as possible so as to placate the public while keeping the child porn flowing per American Library Association diktat.

"current OPPL policies ... are stricter than those recommended by local and national library associations":

A library that allows and covers up child pornography in no way has policies strict in any way.  Instead it has an anything-goes policy.  Further, the library allows unfiltered Internet access on the "adult" computers.  The library associations of which she speaks recommend libraries allow unfiltered Internet access, so the library is not "stricter."

I really think she has gone unchallenged or protected by the media for so long (link) that she feels she can make statements that are simply not supported by reality.  Think about it.  She makes blatant, anti-gay statements anyone can see in that video linked above, admits to the police she made such gay slurs (link), and yet she remains on the library board instead of being kicked off as the hater she is.  So naturally she feels there are no consequences for her statements because—there are no consequences for her statements.

"These computers are not filtered, but staff constantly monitors the area":

Wow.  Staff monitors the area.  And when they are sexually harassed by patrons who have been viewing porn, they are told by library director Mary Weimar that if they don't like it, they can leave.  Strong statement?  Well I'm just reporting.  Listen for yourselves to library employee Linda Zec in that very library describing how she was sexually harassed and told to get out if she didn't like it (link).  By the way, what happened to that employee and at least one other in that library is called "constructive discharge (link)," even if they don't realize it.  Indeed it took almost a decade for Linda Zec to even speak publicly about the harassment.  So much for "staff constantly monitor[ing] the area."

Besides, even if they "monitor[] the area," they are trained by the American Library Association to ignore criminality, so what Diane Jennings said is intentionally misleading:

Libraries and librarians are not in a position to make those decisions for library users or for citizens generally.  Only courts have constitutional authority to determine, in accordance with due process, what materials are obscenity, child pornography, or "harmful to minors." 

....  

As for obscenity and child pornography, prosecutors and police have adequate tools to enforce criminal laws.  Libraries are not a component of law enforcement efforts naturally directed toward the source, i.e., the publishers, of such material. 

Source: "Guidelines and Considerations for Developing a Public Library Internet Use Policy (link)," by Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, 26 March 2013, emphasis in original.

And there's the main reason the library allows and covers up child pornography.  Maybe ALA should be called the American Child Pornography Association.

Speaking of sexual harassment of librarians, I raised that issue in that community per the mission of SafeLibraries to provide balance for people to become fully informed before making up their own minds instead of being misled into a single choice—ALA's choice—no filters—unfettered access despite the law.  I said, "She completely leaves out that libraries that do not filter really do face years of litigation and significant legal expenses for librarians who are sexually harassed as a result of unfettered porn viewing occasioned by library policy direct from the ALA (link)."  Apparently I was effective because just eight days later ALA saw fit to appear before that community to retrain the minds of the public that sexual harassment never happened in that library, in any library in the past, and likely will never happen in the future (link).

As a result of this blatant and heartless fraud, I and Kevin DuJan created a new publication called, "Sexual Harassment of Librarians (link)."  We are the only source for gathering information for librarians sexually harassed in libraries that place following ALA diktat above following the law.  We know we have already helped librarians still being sexually harassed to this day.  Others may be intimidated by ALA; we are not, not even if ALA is involved in a federal lawsuit to silence us, arising in part out of Diane Jennings homophobic behavior while representing the Orland Park Public Library, no less (link).  Apparently, not only are "computers ... not filtered" in Orland Park, neither is Diane Jennings.

"all users must first surrender to staff a picture ID":

Hahahaha!  This one is so funny that Saturday Night Live starring Lady Gaga made a joke about it (link)!

"Non-residents without an OPPL library card ... pay a fee":

Just like viewing porn at porn shops!

"The OPPL's policies in no way promote the viewing of child pornography":

What Diane Jennings leaves out is that it follows American Library Association diktat to allow and take no action when child pornography is showing because, get this, librarians are not judges and may not decide what is child porn; only judges may decide and only for each one of the millions of porn websites (link).  So the library may not promote child porn viewing per se, but Diane Jennings leaves out that it is trained not to recognize what is child pornography.  Remember, this is a library that has already admitted to allowing and covering it up.  The very same people are still there to ensure a continued flow of unfettered child pornography since there were no consequences for the last incident of aiding and abetting child pornography or any other criminality.

"Instead, they expressly state that viewing child pornography or any other illegal material is prohibited":

Right, and I just discussed that librarians are trained by the American Library Association to overlook child pornography.  Many libraries follow but some do not follow ALA advice and instead preserve evidence and report criminality to the police (link).  Orland Park has the kind of library that follows ALA diktat to the letter, so much so that ALA uses the library's personnel to train other librarians and library trustees how to thwart child porn whistleblowers and cover up evidence, even allowing homophobic statements to be made during that training then rehiring that trainer for the next training (link).

"Children are kept safe, while adults are able to exercise their constitutional right to access information on the Internet without the interference of filters that block legitimate searches":

No.  Children have seen porn on the adult computers and the adults have acted out as a result of the porn and the library has did nothing.  But there is so much more wrong with this statement.

See that "interference of filters that block legitimate searches"?  Diane Jennings leaves out that ALA itself admits library filters work (link) and that the Federal Communications Commission has more recently said library filters are very good and past opposition to them is no longer relevant (link).  So if there's "interference," it's caused by the library itself to fool people into thinking filters don't work, a tried and true trick used in Illinois year after year to defeat library filtering legislation (link).  This is a library that spends huge sums of money on legal fees to silence the child porn whistleblowers then raises taxes to obtain more funding for litigation (link), so certainly they have the wherewithal to get good filters like those the FCC mentioned.

And the claim that people may "exercise their constitutional right to access information on the Internet" as the reason to allow porn, now that's a good one.  Diane Jennings intentionally misleads people on that because the US Supreme Court ruled, twelve years ago now, there is no First Amendment right to porn in public libraries (link).  Porn may be "constitutionally protected material" that one can buy anywhere, but it simply is not protected in public libraries.  Case closed.  So why is Diane Jennings misleading on this?  And since when is porn considered "information"?  Librarians sound like "smut peddlers" when they say porn is "information."  "If this is the hill librarians want to die on while they pretend they're protecting free speech, then so be it" (link).

"The OPPL's award-winning balancing of these interests makes our library both a family- and a user-friendly place":

This statement is really unbelievable, but I have to tell you first some background before you can see just how in your face is this statement.

Yes, the library won awards.  The awards were for protecting "intellectual freedom" by maintaining a policy of allowing access to Internet pornography despite Illinois law (link) and despite the efforts of child porn whistleblowers Megan Fox and Kevin DuJan.  The awards were granted on the recommendation of ALA itself; ALA got the awards granted to the library that it uses as a model library on how to thwart child porn whistleblowing.  One of the awards was granted based on the passing of an anything-goes policy at a hastily arranged public meeting on Lincoln's Birthday: "After two customers voiced opposition to the policy, the Orland Park Library Board of Trustees voted in February 2014 to continue unfiltered Internet access for adults, an action which 'challenges censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment' as stated in the ALA Library Bill of Rights (link)."  The meeting was hastily arranged in that the media and the public were never informed of the meeting in a timely manner.  At the meeting, patient Megan Fox was not allowed to speak in violation of the law; she was rudely waved away and the meeting was adjourned while she was still speaking (link).  The free speech to speak to a public board to oppose its illegal policies is not the kind of free speech the child porn enablers have in mind.

The matter of the multiple violations of the Open Meetings Act was brought before the Illinois Attorney General.  In its defense the library director signed and the library attorney provided a falsified affidavit claiming the public was properly notified of the meeting (link).  The Illinois Attorney General determined that the Orland Park Public Library meeting violated the law and the policy was declared void ab initio (link).  The library board went on to break the law further in a literal crime spree but the Illinois AG ruled that illegal as well (link).  So this "award-winning" library as Diane Jennings puts it got the awards, but consider:

1. ALA arranged for the library to win the awards to promote its own pro-child porn policy, 
2. the February 2014 board meeting named in the award was ruled to have occurred illegally and the policy was void ab initio, 
3. the library went on a crime spree to force this pro-child porn policy on the community in an illegal fashion and was caught again, although it eventually wore out the system and the policy was imposed and is in place today (link) showing crime does pay,
4. the public was not allowed to participate in violation of the law, 
5. the public was not notified of the meeting in violation of the law, and 
6. the library defended its actions by submitting a falsified affidavit.  

So this "award-winning" library was literally awarded for acting illegally and unethically.  I say again, this "award-winning" library was awarded for breaking the law repeatedly.  That's why this statement of Diane Jennings about "OPPL's award-winning balancing of these interests" is really unbelievable.  It's literally an award-winning, law-breaking library, winning those awards for breaking the law.  Maybe I should give an award to the library too, only I'd call it USA's Most Homophobic and Law Breaking Public Library.

And Kevin DuJan attempted to attend a public meeting at the 2015 ALA Midwinter Conference lauding the library for its award-winning law breaking and silencing of Megan Fox and Kevin DuJan, only to be turned away at the door when the greeter found out it was Kevin DuJan trying to obtain access to a meeting certain to be in part about him.  The Orland Park public paid for its library personnel to attend and speak at that celebratory occasion but the subject of that occasion and library patron Kevin DuJan was persona non grata.  These are the "free speech" and "equal access" people.

"We can continue to rely on the professionalism and common sense":

There is no professionalism nor common sense in allowing and covering up child porn, elected officials calling people "asshole" (link), crowing about awards won for breaking the law, submitting falsified affidavits to the state attorney general in possible violation of attorney ethics, using homophobia to attack child porn whistleblowers, misleading people about library law, lying to the media (link), and constructively discharging sexually harassed employees.  No professionalism nor common sense at all.  None.  Actions speak louder than words.

As to what Kevin DuJan said, it is 100% accurate to the extent I can see, for example I did not count the number of steps.  And this is a real danger: "This is like butterflies being drawn into spiders' webs, because the OPPL has chosen to locate books the teens need for school reports right by the adult computers."  Internet filters are the means to choke off this danger, but this library refuses to do so and, as Diane Jennings illustrates, freely uses flat out false and misleading information and criminality, even homophobia, to keep the public misinformed.

It's only a matter of time before the next criminal incident occurs.

I asked at the beginning of my comments, "Can you see the issues there?"  How about now having read what I wrote and looked at the sources I linked.  Can you see the issues now?

See also:

• "Orland Park Library's Diane Jennings Lies to the Public," by John Kraft, Illinois Leaks "Edgar County Watchdogs," 24 August 2014.

NOTE ADDED 8 MARCH 2015:

Here is a substantially similar situation in Canada, where the library claims it's "very child-friendly" but actions speak louder than words:

• "Internet Pornography Is Welcome At Our Local Public Library," by Lea Z Singh, Culture Witness, 5 March 2015.

I left a comment there saying the following:

Right! There's a library I just wrote about that touts its being a "safe library" and that it is very concerned for "child safety." Yet it allows and covers up child pornography and uses repeat criminality and homophobia to defend it, and is given awards by the state library association and a local library school for this criminality, only it's called "intellectual freedom." See:  

"Orland Park Public Library Still Covering Up Child Porn"
http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2015/03/OPPL-still-covering-up.html  

While not connected directly to your situation, there is a hidden link to Canada. The link is this. In that post you can see how the American Library Association pushes child porn on communities by training librarians that they are in no position to determine what is child pornography. Only a court can do that, supposedly. And only on a one-off basis for each of the millions of porn sites. So that's a problem in America.  

The hidden link to Canada? The very same people at ALA pushing the child porn into libraries that I wrote about in the above piece are now providing training to Canadian libraries on how to push child porn into Canada. Look:  

Intellectual Freedom Training Workshops in Toronto  

Barbara Jones, Director, OIF, and Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Deputy Director, OIF, traveled to Toronto, Canada in late February to conduct a series of intellectual freedom training workshops for the staff of the Toronto Public Library (TPL). Approximately 150 staff members turned out to consider and discuss how to manage challenges and the impact of intellectual freedom on collection development policies. Staff response was excellent, and the TPL administration said it is looking forward to inviting OIF staff back to Toronto to conduct further training sessions.

NOTE ADDED 8 MARCH 2015:

"The OPPL's policies in no way promote the viewing of child pornography. Instead, they expressly state that viewing child pornography or any other illegal material is prohibited. Violations may be reported to the police and subject to criminal prosecution":

Megan Fox alerted me to this.  She says:

Do you see the problems with this?  She says they MAY report child pornography and other illegal activities to the police.  They MAY do that.  Not that they will do that.  They MAY do that. 

That's very important.  It's also sick and wrong.  They SHOULD ALWAYS REPORT THIS TO THE POLICE.  Not that maybe they will do it and maybe they will not.  That's a big problem here.  There should be no question of whether they are going to report the child porn and illegal activity to the police or not.  There should never again be Mary Weimar choosing not to call the police. 

URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2015/03/OPPL-still-covering-up.html

On Twitter:  @ECWDogs @HillBuzz; @IlAttyGeneral;  +Megan Fox @IntolerantFox; @OIF; @OPPrairie; @OrlandPkLibrary; @VillageOrlandPk

Follow @SafeLibraries

Response re Orland Park Public Library Request for Review - PAC 27987 - Open Meetings Act

Dan Kleinman

---

Response re Orland Park Public Library Request for Review - PAC 27987

---

Safe Libraries	Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:04 AM
To: publicaccess@atg.state.il.us Cc: ssilverman@atg.state.il.us, EKFriker@ktjlaw.com, DGWalsh@ktjlaw.com, nhealy@orlandparklibrary.org, "Mary K. Weimar" , bgierach@orlandparklibrary.org, clebert@orlandparklibrary.org, djennings@orlandparklibrary.org, jcraig@orlandparklibrary.org, dryan@orlandparklibrary.org, DDrew@orlandparklibrary.org, maryshepherd.ala@gmail.com, pevans@alplm.org, ihunt@alplm.org, officials@orland-park.il.us, manager@orland-park.il.us Bcc:
Dear Ms. Pratt and Tola Sobitan, I have received the letter from Tola Sobitan dated 19 March 2014 captioned “FOIA Request for Review — 2013 PAC 27987.”  It invites me to comment on the Orland Park Public Library responses. I note the letter I received did not contain the stated attachment.  Therefore, please excuse me if I make any errors as a result, but I’ll make comments regarding a letter dated 14 March 2014 I received a day or so ago from your office written by Dennis G. Walsh of Klein, Thorpe and Jenkins, LTD [KTJ] captioned, “FOIA Request for Review — 2014 PAC 27987,” and also a letter dated 3 March 2014 written by the same person of KTJ captioned, “OMA Request for Review 2014 PAC 27771; OMA Request for Review 2014 PAC 27713.”  A violation of the Open Meetings Act is a very serious matter.  Indeed March 16-20 is Sunshine Week ( http://www.sunshineweek.org ) where “open government is good government.”  Sadly, as one source explains, “There’s no downside for public officials to violat[e] the Open Meeting Law.”  “Sunshine Week: Most Public Boards Aren't Fined for Open Meeting Law Violations” ( http://waltham.wickedlocal.com/article/20140322/NEWS/140328659 )   In the current matter under review, as I explained in my original Request for Review ( http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/02/OPPL.html ), the library refused to allow me to speak at a regularly scheduled meeting, actively removed my name from a speakers list on that day, wrote a library policy that specifically excluded me from participating in future meetings, quickly rushed together another meeting without adequate notice to the public to pass the policy to block me and to allow porn on public library computers despite that being against state and local law and even the library’s own policy, set the meeting for a legal holiday, and refused to allow the public to speak.  To this day the library and its attorney continues on as if such behavior has no consequences.   The library is essentially getting away with illegality that enabled it to pass an illegal policy (Internet porn in Illinois libraries is precluded by Illinois library law, etc., let alone common sense and community standards).  It did this on a legal holiday without public comment precisely because it knew the community is in large measure opposed to the illegality and the harm it had already wrought in the community, including sexually harassed library workers who were and are told they can quit if they don’t like the porn, unreported sex crimes including child pornography, people who refuse to use that library while porn runs rampant, etc.  The library has shown no interest in complying with the law in the future either.  It is you and only you, the Attorney General of Illinois, who is in a position to put an end to this, to stop the illegality, to restore open government, to restore good government to Orland Park, Il.  Only you can do this.  To that end, you began an investigation.  You specifically asked the library to respond.  They is only fair, after all, and it’s the law.  The library did respond.  It responded with a number of responses from Dennis Walsh, Esq., who is a member of the KTJ law firm hired by the library. Let’s look first at the first KTJ response dated 3 March 2014. Given the seriousness of the matter including the total violation of the public trust, and given you are investigating this matter as required by law, you received a response from the library dated 3 March 2014 that is entirely without substance.  Instead, the response was a continuation of the library’s and the law firm’s efforts to besmirch Megan Fox and Kevin DuJan for bringing sunshine to the matter of unreported crimes including child pornography in a library that is violating the law and allowing porn despite the law.  To cover this over, the library is besmirching Fox and DuJan (for example on its home page http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/12/LibraryShamesPatrons.html or by making false claims with the police http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/01/OPPLharassesMeganFox.html ) and attempting to pass a policy that would specifically allow Internet pornography, and doing so in an illegal fashion that violates the Open Meetings Act.  The library’s response to you is an attempt to carry on with that very goal as it makes only ad hominem argument and completely ignores the substantive issues in an apparent attempt to obfuscate its illegal actions. Now look at the specific lawyer who wrote that library response.  Look at his law firm.  It is Dennis Walsh.  The firm is KTJ.  Why is this relevant?  It is relevant because Dennis Walsh literally wrote the book on sunshine laws.  The book is actively sold by the Illinois Municipal League for $12 ( http://www.iml.org/page.cfm?key=2558&parent=1168 ).  KTJ holds itself out as experts in library law.  It claims to have over 50 library-related clients ( http://www.ktjlaw.com/display.asp?id=275 ), but it also make this claim at least five years ago ( https://web.archive.org/web/20080813162937/http://www.ktjlaw.com/display.asp?id=275 ).  So it likely KTJ has many, many more library clients. KTJ points out that it wrote library legislation ( http://ktjlaw.com/pdf/NEWLEGISLATIONANDPENDINGBILLAFFECTINGILLINOISLIBRARIES.pdf ).  KTJ trains library trustees ( http://www.ktjlaw.com/display.asp?id=849 ).  KJT holds “Ask the Library Lawyer” meetings ( http://www.ktjlaw.com/display.asp?id=851 ).  KTJ teaches at the Illinois Library Association a class called, “FOIA, Open Meetings and Mock Library Board Meeting” ( http://www.ktjlaw.com/display.asp?id=853 ).  KTF presented, “An Overview of State and Federal Laws Affecting Libraries: What Library Directors and Trustees Need to Know” at the Illinois Library Association (http://www.ktjlaw.com/display.asp?id=1063 ).  I could go on with many more examples where KTJ details its depth of knowledge and expertise in library law and associated municipal law, and instances where KTJ is held out by other organizations as experts in library law and municipal law. KTJ even publishes on it web site the text of and commentary on Illinois library law ( http://www.ktjlaw.com/display.asp?id=620 ), the Freedom of Information Act (http://www.ktjlaw.com/display.asp?id=626 ), and the Open Meetings Act [OMA] ( http://www.ktjlaw.com/display.asp?id=627 ). Regarding the OMA, KTJ specifically says, “library board meetings must be conducted in accordance with the Open Meetings Act.” ( http://www.ktjlaw.com/display.asp?id=620 ) So Dennis Walsh and KTJ literally hold themselves out as library law experts who literally wrote the book on sunshine laws that the Illinois Municipal League has for sale, and they represent maybe a hundred or more library clients across the state.  They even admit on their own web site that OMA must be followed. The point is, there is no way Dennis Walsh and KTJ are not intimately aware of matters relating to sunshine laws and municipal compliance therewith.  There is no way the library’s 3 March 2014 response written by Dennis Walsh and KTJ was not specifically drafted to attempt to obfuscate the illegality and turn the focus to Fox and DuJan and make them the issue.  The library’s non substantive response from such a leading law firm that actually wrote the book on sunshine laws and represents a hundred or so library clients displays a complete and total disregard for the law and disrespect for the process of undergoing OMA investigations.  Worse, it evidences that the library intends to continue to carry on with the illegality.  Worse still, it evidences the library’s law firm will continue to support the library in carrying on with the illegality in its failures to follow library law and sunshine laws, including those currently under investigation.  Worse, the law firm has many, many clients it will advise similarly if it gets away with illegality here.  It is in a position to update its manual sold by the Illinois Municipal League and train at the Illinois Library Association that libraries may effectively pass unpopular and illegal policy by quietly holding meetings during state holidays to which few receive notice and those who do speak up may be immediately silenced, as was done to Megan Fox when she spoke up at the Lincoln’s Birthday holiday meeting that I believe she only learned about that very day from the Chicago Tribune ( http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-02-12/news/chi-orland-library-considers-new-internet-policy-20140212_1_bridget-bittman-adult-computers-library-computers ).  Notice no other media source reveals the meeting.  Further, for regularly scheduled meetings there is plenty of press coverage that is in the spirit of the OMA.  A single newspaper on the same day announcing a meeting on a legal holiday during which the IL Attorney General’s office is closed precluding emergent relief is definitely not in the spirit of the OMA.  Not open government.  Not good government. That’s right, the Lincoln’s Birthday library board meeting was effectively announced to the public the same day it occurred.  Megan Fox has for months been tracking every move the library makes as it suffers no consequences for not reporting child pornography and other crimes that happened as a direct result of unfiltered Internet access that violates Illinois law and library policy, until the library attempted to use the Lincoln’s Birthday meeting to explicitly allow porn despite the law.  No way would Megan Fox have missed this meeting announcement had it been made in a timely fashion.  Further, although she found out the same day, she still attended, and they cut her off when she finally spoke up at the end of the meeting apparently when it was obvious they were not allowing the public to speak.  She tried to speak and they cut her off, shouted her down. You can see this in the video I believe she linked. And it is my belief there is credible inside information that the pro porn library board members colluded to have the meeting on Lincoln’s Birthday with the express purpose of cutting off Megan Fox and Kevin DuJan’s right under the Open Meetings Act and rushing through the illegal porn policy.  In the video you can even see other board members saying it’s wrong to hold a meeting on a holiday, especially with the regular meeting only a few days away, but they were effectively overruled by the pro porn trustees and, notably, by the library’s attorney. Given the non substantive nature of the library’s response, we must look elsewhere for what the library and its attorneys might do if the Attorney General does not put a stop to this.  Fortunately, the Chicago Tribune sheds light on this.  It makes it apparent the library, supported by its law firm, will continue on with the illegality unabated: “Trustees Say No — Again — to Filtering Library Computers,” by Dennis Sullivan, Chicago Tribune, 18 March 2014 ( http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-18/news/ct-meeting-orland-library-tl-ssw-0320-20140318_1_special-meeting-board-nancy-healy )   Notice the effect of the illegality and lawlessness already apparent.  For example, the reporter reports that Beth Gierach is a library trustee even though she was “appointed” during the illegal meeting then “re-appointed” at the next meeting.  Her “re-appointment” was “ratified and confirmed,” but something illegal cannot be “ratified and confirmed”; it was illegal in the first place or void ab initio ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_(law) ). Yet the media reports it as a fait accompli.  The significance being the “ratification” vote was 3-2, and since Beth Gierach is not yet a library trustee under the law, only by illegal fiat, then the media should at least have reported the “vote” as 2-2, a tie.  And even though the “vote” itself is fatally flawed, at least the media could have presented the public with a somewhat more accurate picture. From the same story we see, “Walsh, responding in a letter dated Monday, contends the meeting was legal. He had written to Assistant Attorney General Tola Sobitan, arguing these points, there was no problem with the day because Feb. 12 is not a legal holiday, the board gave legal notice prior to the meeting and, the board did deny public comment, but there is no requirement that public comment be allowed during a special meeting.”  So the man who wrote the book on sunshine laws and likely represents a hundred library clients said a legal holiday is not a legal holiday.  Lincoln’s Birthday, no less.  In Illinois, no less.  For someone with his knowledge and experience, he is simply lying.  And the library knows full well Lincoln’s birthday is a legal holiday as that is the very reason the meeting was planned then, the purpose being to suppress public comment, and that is exactly what they did, and even Dennis Walsh admits that.   And his saying the board gave legal notice is conclusory.  I am certain the Attorney General is investigating this and will conclude otherwise.  Please consider what I said about about the Chicago Tribune being the only paper to announce the meeting, and even then only on the same data as the meeting, on Lincoln’s Birthday.  Contrast that with other meetings where there is complete and legal coverage as intended by the OMA. As for his claim public comment may be precluded at special meetings, it appears that only applies to closed meetings.  That someone who wrote the book on sunshine laws, teaches an the Illinois Library Association, and advises a hundred clients on sunshine laws could claim cutting off free speech is acceptable is truly unbelievable.   I am concerned by the article I quoted at the top and by the library’s obfuscation and ad hominem argument that justice will not be done.  Given the experiences of the law firm including its having written the book on sunshine laws that’s sold by the Illinois Municipal League, it is apparent to me there has been a deliberate effort to skirt the law.  The article concerns me because it details that most OMA remedies are merely slaps on the wrist.  And if the library gets a slap on the wrist, the library’s attorney will be free to recommend denying public comment to its many other library-related clients, and worst of all, Orland Park will be left with a library policy that allows computer porn despite the law that precludes porn in libraries and despite the law that defines open meetings. Turning now to the second KTJ response dated 14 March 2014, the library finally addresses substantive issues.  The points made are truly unbelievable.  Who would believe an Illinois attorney would argue an Illinois state holiday is not a holiday.  Here’s the kicker, the lawyer knowingly and intentionally made false statements designed to mislead the Attorney General specifically and all of Illinois generally.  The smoking gun?  The lawyer’s own book.  That’s right, the lawyer’s own book contradicts what he is saying to the Attorney General to justify why a library may meet without notice on Lincoln’s Birthday to pass a policy that allows illegal porn in the library.  Walsh argues to the Attorney General, “Had the legislature intended to have certain prescribed legal holidays or the holidays found in the Bank Holiday Act apply also to the Open Meetings Act, it could and would have done so as it has in other statutes. ….  Suggesting now that the Orland Park Board of Library Trustees violated the Open Meetings Act when it conducted business on February 12, 2014 is without any statutory support in the Act and ignores the fundamental principles of statutory construction.”  But Walsh writes in his book, and in violation of attorney ethics rules, does not disclose to the Attorney General, “the Bank Holiday Act (205 ILCS 630/17(a)) does set out a list of ‘legal holidays.’ A special meeting on such a legal holiday would not be convenient to the public.”  See more at “Dennis Walsh (Klein, Thorpe & Jenkins) – Contradicts His Own Book…” ( http://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/2014/03/dennis-walsh-klein-thorpe-jenkins-contradicts-his-own-book/ ) And recall Walsh of KTJ now argues, per the 14 March 2014 letter and per the Chicago Tribune, that there is no requirement to allow public comment during a special meeting.  Again, his own book contradicts him.  It reads, “A special meeting on such a legal holiday would not be convenient to the public.”  If there is no requirement to allow public comment at a special meeting, why does his book say a special meeting on a legal holiday would not be convenient to the public? I also object to the statement that “Ms. Fox and others had already repeatedly and consistently ‘addressed’ those issues (among others)….”  The reason I object is that is a factually false assertion.  “[A]llowing public participation at all of its regular meeting without fail”?  False.  My first Request for Review that was consolidated into the one under review now stated that I was denied the ability to speak, that I was removed from a speakers list, and that the Lincoln’s Birthday meeting approved a policy specifically designed to silence me.  No one heard what I had to say and the author of the Children’s Internet Protection Act called me a “trusted source” on the misinformation libraries use to promote porn despite the law ( http://tinyurl.com/ErnestIstookInterview ).  I was going to speak on how the American Library Association misled the community at a previous meeting ( http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/12/BarbaraJones.html ).  The library board violated its own speaker rules to allow the ALA to speak, but it blocked me and passed a policy to block me permanently.  One way ALA misled the community is by saying I was wrong when the Chicago Tribune quoted me as saying no library had ever been sued for blocking porn.  That is true, but ALA said the Camdenton case was about blocking porn.  Actually, no, it was not.  It was about blocking LGBT content, not porn.  The ALA literally made up the false claim about Camdenton even though in the past the very same person said the exact opposite. ( http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/11/NeverBeenSued.html )  Even the library itself produced a document it had from ALA that said Camdenton was about blocking LGBT content.  Remarkably, asserting known false claims is the same technique KTJ/Walsh used to say one thing now when they said something different in the past.  Apparently, the technique of changing things on the fly to fool people is a useful and popular one.  The means justifies the ends.  I am hoping the Attorney General sees this for what it is.  Had I had a chance to speak at the meeting, I could have provided accurate information.  And I would have spoken on other issues not previous raised.  So no, the issues had not been “already repeatedly and consistently ‘addressed.’” Taken alone, the library’s arguments have been effectively refuted by me or others.  But taken together, the library’s comments lead to the inescapable conclusion that the library knowingly and intentionally violated the law and violated the public trust.  It told the public over the months it would wait to vote on the filtering issue until the board was fully constituted.  It then colluded to, without adequate notice, hold an illegal meeting on a legal holiday where it reconstituted the board, then, without discussion as promised, voted to allow porn in violation of the law, and it did so by cutting off public comment to the point of shouting down Megan Fox when she finally attempted to speak. And this is a library that supposedly holds free speech and equal access paramount, so much so that it allows illegal porn and does not report child pornography, claiming a First Amendment right to “constitutionally protected materials.”  The library is so zealous to promote porn that is does not reveal that the US Supreme Court ruled while porn may be “constitutionally protected material” outside a public library, libraries have always blocked porn so using Internet filters to do so did not violate First Amendment rights ( http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html ). In summary, the actions of the library go directly against the OMA law and were designed to stifle free speech and public debate and even public knowledge of actions taken to allow illegal porn.  Open government is good government.  All evidence shows the library intentionally hid its most significant decisions from the public.  Closed government is bad government.  The help of the Attorney General is needed to restore open government as the library has not evidenced any willingness to comply with the OMA nor to correct its past illegal actions. I respectfully request the Attorney General void the February 12 meeting from the start and necessarily void every action taken at that meeting and all subsequent meetings that “ratified and confirmed” that which was void ab initio.  Actions void ab initio cannot be “ratified and confirmed” or otherwise foisted on the public.  Respectfully speaking, the whole matter needs to start from scratch, I must be allowed to speak, the issue of the unreported child pornography and other sex crimes must be discussed in public as that needs to stop, and the library must be held under the full weight of the powers granted to the Attorney General under the OMA as this matter of the library pushing illegal porn on a legal holiday in violation of the law has got to be one of the most egregious violations of the OMA ever, and in a manner that directly threatens the wellbeing of both library patrons and library employees. I can’t imagine what might be more of a violation.  And it’s a series of violations of different meeting dates, no less.  It is clear to me the violations will continue. The icing on the cake is the library’s attorney intentionally misleading the Attorney General by, among other things, saying Lincoln’s Birthday is not a legal holiday when his own book he wrote on the law that the Illinois Municipal League sells says essentially the exact opposite.  If ever there was a time to refer an attorney for disciplinary action for any number of reasons, this would be it, especially since this KTJ law firm has many library clients and repeatedly teaches sunshine laws to librarians at the Illinois Library Association.  The harm this law firm may be doing positioned as it is as attorneys for maybe a hundred or more library clients and as trainers for the Illinois Library Association makes me shudder.  The only thing worse is the American Library Association teaching all new library trustees nationwide the opposite of the law so they think libraries must allow Internet porn ( http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/08/LibraryAssociations.html ), but the Attorney General can do nothing about this.  At least KTJ’s teaching the opposite of the law is confined to Illinois. -- ---------- Dan Kleinman, Library Watchdog SafeLibraries Email:               SafeLibraries@gmail.com Blog:                 SafeLibraries.blogspot.com Twitter:             twitter.com/SafeLibraries Facebook:        facebook.com/SafeLibraries About Me:        tinyurl.com/AboutSafeLibraries

URL of this page:  safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/03/OMA.html

On Twitter:  @HillBuzz @ILAttyGeneral @IntolerantFox @OIF @OrlandPkLibrary @VillageOrlandPk

.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Open Meetings Act Violations by the Board of Library Trustees of the Orland Park Public Library

Sarah Pratt, Public Access Counselor
Office of the Attorney General
500 S 2nd St
Springfield, IL 62706
publicaccess@atg.state.il.us

     Re:     Request for Review for Violation of OMA

Dear Ms. Pratt,

I hereby submit this Request for Review by the Public Access Counselor (PAC) regarding possible Open Meetings Act (OMA) violations by the Board of Library Trustees (BLT) of the Orland Park Public Library (OPPL), Orland Park, IL, on both 16 December 2013 and 12 February 2014.  I am submitting this Request within the required time limit for both dates.

Overall Summary:

BLT-OPPL meetings were held 16 December 2013 and 12 February 2014.  I was not allowed to speak at the December meeting, even having my name removed from the speakers list by the BLT, then the February meeting occurred with inadequate notice to the public, during a legal holiday, public participation was not allowed, and, over the objection of at least one BLT member, a policy was approved to silence me specifically and the public generally, and that discriminates against the disabled and the financially challenged in a manner that enshrines unequal access, none of which is reasonable nor consistent with the intent of the OMA.

Legal and Factual Background:

OPPL was created by Village of Orland Park Ordinance No. 77 issued 14 July 1941 stating “That a free public library and reading room be established for the use and benefits of the inhabitants of the Village of Orland Park … in accordance with the provisions of the Libraries Act, Chapter 81, Illinois Revised Statutes….”  ( http://www.orlandparklibrary.org/documents/policies/ord77.pdf )

The Illinois Local Library Act is codified at 75 ILCS 5.  ( http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=990&ChapterID=16 )

Sec. 1-3 states, “Every library established under this Act shall be forever for the use of the residents and taxpayers of the city, village, incorporated town or township where located, subject to such reasonable rules and regulations as the library board may adopt in order to render the use of the library of the greatest benefit to the greatest number of such residents and taxpayers.”

Sec. 2-2 states, “To provide local public institutions of general education for citizens of Illinois, the citizens residing in a village, incorporated town or township without local library service may establish and maintain a public library for the use and benefit of the residents of the respective village, incorporated town or township as herein provided.”

Sec. 2-7 states, “Dissolution for failure to perform duties.  (a) If the board of trustees of a public library established under this Act has failed to perform its duties and functions under this Act, then a petition for dissolution … may be filed…. The petition must … (iii) set forth sufficient facts establishing that, within the 3-year period immediately prior to the filing of the petition, the board of trustees: … (3) failed to perform the duties and functions imposed by law.”

Sec. 4-1.1 states, “Term of office; removal.  ….  (b) The mayor may remove any trustee in the manner provided in Section 3.1-35-10 of the Illinois Municipal Code.”

Sec. 4-7 states, “Each board of library trustees of a … village … shall carry out the spirit and intent of this Act in establishing, supporting and maintaining a public library or libraries for providing library service and, in addition to but without limiting other powers conferred by this Act, shall have the following powers:  1. To make and adopt such bylaws, rules and regulations, for their own guidance and for the government of the library as may be expedient, not inconsistent with this Act;….”

Sec. 4-7.2 states, “The board of library trustees shall establish, and review at least biennially, a written policy for the selection of library materials and the use of library materials and facilities. No employee may be disciplined or dismissed for the selection of library materials when the selection is made in good faith and in accordance with the written policy required to be established pursuant to this Section.”

Sec. 4-9 states, “[T]he board of trustees may require the treasurer or custodian to secure for the library an insurance policy or other insurance instrument that provides the library with coverage for negligent or intentional acts by library officials and employees that could result in the loss of library funds.”

The Illinois Municipal Code is codified at 65 ILCS 5.  Sec. 3.1-35-10 states, “Mayor or president; removal of appointed officer. Except where otherwise provided by statute, the mayor or president may remove any officer appointed by the mayor or president under this Code, on any written charge, whenever the mayor or president is of the opinion that the interests of the municipality demand removal.”  ( http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=006500050HArt%2E+3%2E1+Div%2E+35&ActID=802&ChapterID=14&SeqStart=39900000&SeqEnd=42800000 )

OPPL Bylaws of the Board of Library Trustees, Policy and Procedure Manual Section A 3 last updated 17 May 2010 states, “The Orland Park Public Library was established by Public Referendum on April 30, 1941 and will be conducted as a public library, in accordance with statutes of the State of Illinois for the use and benefit of the Village of Orland Park. …. The Orland Park Library Board of Library Trustees recognizes that the implementation of library facilities shall include three basic goals: 1. The provision of materials suited to the needs of the community as they become evident, designed to provide information, entertainment, and personal development; 2. The encouragement within the community of intellectual and cultural pursuits through the direction and active participation in suitable programs for all age groups; and 3. The maintenance and development of adequate facilities and personnel to accomplish the first two goals. ….  Meetings: Board meetings will be held on the third Monday of the month in the meeting room of the library. Notice will be posted in the library and published in local newspaper as prescribed by law. All meetings are open to the public. …. Special meetings may be called by the president of the Board of Library Trustees to consider one or more items of business specified in the call of the meeting. Notice of time, place and exact purpose of the meeting must be sent to the members and posted in the library as prescribed by law.” ( http://www.orlandparklibrary.org/documents/policies/board_bylaws.htm )

In or around October 2013, OPPL patrons Megan Fox and Kevin DuJan learned the library allows Internet pornography.

Subsequent research by Megan Fox and Kevin DuJan revealed OPPL suffers from multiple sex crimes caused by the porn viewing, including child pornography, and that a portion of these crimes are not reported to the police. ( Child Porn Accessed At Orland Park Public Library, Staff Doesn’t Believe Witnesses; Not Even Child Pornography Moves the Orland Park Public Library to Notify Authorities http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/11/01/child-porn-accessed-at-orland-park-public-library-staff-doesnt-believe-witnesses/ )

For many months OPPL sought to silence Megan Fox and Kevin DuJan so as to continue to make pornography available.

For example, the library maligned them on the top of its home page on the Internet.  ( Library Publicly Shames Patrons Who Report Porn http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/12/LibraryShamesPatrons.html )

The library even made up supposed crimes and reported these to the police. ( To Harass and Punish: Library Uses Police Against Megan Fox for Reporting Library Porn http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/01/OPPLharassesMeganFox.html ) ( Library Uses Police to Censor and Intimidate Mom for Advising Librarians to File EEOC Complaints for Unfiltered Porn Resulting in Sexual Harassment http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/11/LibraryUsesPolice.html )

BLT-OPPL invited the American Library Association (ALA) to speak at its November 2013 meeting.

Despite BLT-OPPL policy, ALA was allowed to 1) speak over the time limit and 2) have two speakers speak.

The first ALA speaker was Barbara Jones.

She materially misled the BLT-OPPL and the general public, basically by implying blocking Internet porn from libraries violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution.  ( ALA Misleads on Internet Pornography in Libraries http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/11/ALAMisleads.html ) ( Barbara Jones Transcript: ALA and FTRF Mislead Orland Park Public Library http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/12/BarbaraJones.html )

United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003), ruled, “public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights….”  ( http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html )

What ALA advised BLT-OPPL and the public generally is the exact opposite of the holding of US v. ALA.  ALA was the losing party in US v. ALA.  There is no way it can be ignorant of the law it failed to defeat.

The US v. ALA Court based its decision on a number of findings.  1) Libraries have traditionally blocked porn, so using computer filters to block Internet porn raises no constitutional alarms.  2)  Libraries are not open public fora where anything goes.  Rather, they are limited public fora so the government has every right to restrict certain speech that may otherwise be unlimited in open public fora, and that includes Internet pornography.  3)  Internet filters are the best means to curtail porn.  Other potentially less restrictive means such as moving furniture or using privacy screens not only do not work to stop porn but they actually make the problem worse.

After making the above determination that applies to all public libraries throughout the USA, the Court then examined the issue of whether the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was constitutional.  Based on the above, the Court found the law was constitutional.  Therefore, libraries obtaining E-rate funding under CIPA must comply with CIPA and filter all computers.  Libraries that do not receive such funding need not filter, but such filtering would not violate the First Amendment whether or not the library accepts E-rate funding under CIPA.

The CIPA legislation was written by Ernest Istook and signed into law in 2000 by President William J. Clinton.

CIPA’s author explained in detail how ALA intentionally misleads local populations to choose not to filter out porn from library computers, and he named me as a “trusted source” on the misinformation the ALA uses to convince communities to continue to allow porn in their public libraries and inappropriate material in their school libraries.  ( CIPA Author Exposes ALA Deception; Ernest Istook Who Authored Children's Internet Protection Act Calls Out American Library Association for Using Legal Tactics to Claim First Amendment Protection for Public Library Pornography Viewing, Causing Librarians to Be Indifferent and Leave Children Unprotected http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2012/02/cipa-author-exposes-ala-deception.html ) ( Children's Internet Protection Act Author Ernest Istook Interviewed http://tinyurl.com/ErnestIstookInterview )

Because ALA appeared at the November 2013 BLT-OPPL meeting and materially misled the community, I thought it would be fair that I appear at the next meeting, December 2013, to advise on the issues so the BLT-OPPL and the general community could hear another point of view that would allow them to make an informed decision for themselves based on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I reside in New Jersey.  I lack the funds needed to attend the December 2013 meeting in Illinois in person.

On 14 December 2013, I emailed OPPL Director Mary Weimar requesting permission to speak at the upcoming meeting, saying, “I request permission to speak at Monday's library board meeting. I wish to speak via Skype as I am located in New Jersey. I am Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries named as a ‘trusted source’ on various library filtering matters and how the American Library Association misleads communities by Ernest Istook, the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act. As ALA spoke last meeting and made materially false factual and legal statements having the effect of stating the opposite of the law, a true inquiry into what's legally doable in the library should include someone with knowledge to counter the false information. The point is people should make a decision based on accurate knowledge of the law, not based on a false view by the losing party in the case that allowed libraries to filter out porn without violating the First Amendment. I can provide that balance. Please grant my request to speak at the meeting. Please allow me to speak for the same length of time as ALA spoke, namely, Jones and Caldwell-Stone.”

On 15 December 2013, I emailed the library director again, this time providing her with more detail about what I would say.

On 16 December 2013, the library director responded, “The library is unable to accommodate your request.”

On 16 December 2013, I emailed the library director requesting reconsideration of her decision and advising that I had contacted the technical people within the library and had been told the library was in fact able to accommodate my request, indeed it would be easy.  I added my further involvement in this matter, including my appearance in the Chicago Tribune and the Examiner, and how ALA, one of the very speakers at the November 2013 meeting, had directly responded to me in the Examiner by fabricating facts in response to me being quoted as saying no library has yet been sued for blocking pornography. ( ALA Admits Libraries Have Never Been Sued for Blocking Porn http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/11/NeverBeenSued.html )

On 16 December 2013, the library director responded, “The library is not going to accommodate your request.”

At the meeting, I was attending via Skype on Megan Fox’s iPhone, so I would not have consumed any of the library’s resources were I to speak.  For example, I was introduced to Linda Zec, the OPPL former employee who after years of silence finally revealed how the library allowed porn, how porn viewing patrons treated her, and how the library director said if you don’t like the porn policy, you could simply quit.  ( Liars and Tigers and Porn... Oh My! http://itsjustlinda.blogspot.com/2013/11/liars-and-tigers-and-porn-oh-my.html ) ( Liars and Tigers and Porn, Oh My! http://itsjustlinda.blogspot.com/2014/02/liars-and-tigers-and-porn-oh-my.html )  So all the BLT-OPPL had to do was simply listen to me for the time I would have been allowed to speak.

I was added to the list of speakers at the December 2013 meeting.  I do not know by whom but it is likely by Megan Fox or Kevin DuJan.

BLT-OPPL had my name removed and replaced with Thomas Kusmider of Orland Park who “expressed his beliefs that the library is a very safe place and the number of obscene/criminal incidences over the years is very small when looking at the millions who have been in the library. He also questioned what steps the Board will take to ensure the rights of patrons who have been photographed or defamed without their knowledge while on library grounds.” ( http://www.orlandparklibrary.org/documents/trustees/minutes12_13.pdf )  They replaced someone who would say the truth that the law says blocking porn does not violate the First Amendment with someone who praised the BLT-OPPL and minimized the reported and unreported sex crimes.  If a library allows porn, naturally crimes will occur, and one way to hide that from the public is simply to not report the crimes to the police.  Thomas Kusmider fit that narrative well, so BLT-OPPL removed me and replaced me with him.  Another way to hide the harm done by porn in the library, by the way, is to destroy the computer evidence of crimes occurring, and OPPL destroys such records on a regular basis.

I was not allowed to speak at the December 2013 meeting.

To my knowledge, no other person before or after that meeting attempted to speak at meetings via electronic means, other than the trustees themselves.

The 12 February 2014 meeting occurred without adherence to OMA notice requirements nor BLT-OPPL policy.  The entire meeting can be viewed on YouTube, courtesy former library employee Linda Zec ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjm_A0ozVmM )

As a result of the lack of notice in violation of the OMA, I was not able to attempt to attend the meeting, whether in person or via electronic means.

BLT-OPPL would not accept public comment at the February meeting from anyone, let alone me.

BLT-OPPL Policy and Procedure Manual Section A 3.1 last updated 12 February 2014 states, “The following rules shall govern speakers who address the Board: … All public comments must be given in person. No telephone, video conferencing or other electronic means will be accommodated. …. Village of Orland Park residents will be given priority to speak.”

As I am the only person to have attempted to speak electronically who was not a trustee, it is evident BLT-OPPL created that new policy to block me personally from speaking by requiring, “All public comments must be given in person. No telephone, video conferencing or other electronic means will be accommodated. …. Village of Orland Park residents will be given priority to speak.”

BLT-OPPL has created policy to principally address a single person, me.

A policy that prevents electronic participation, in a time when electronic participation is easy and even the library’s technical staff admitted as much, violates the spirit and letter on the OMA law, in my opinion.

The policy suffers from the following possible defects and perhaps more.  1) It is was created to preclude attendance by a single person, namely, me. 2) It provides unequal access to those who do have the financial means to attend in person.  3) It discriminates against those who are disabled and cannot otherwise attend in person.  4) It gives priority to local residents although OMA makes this an inappropriate goal.

The Board specifically wrote the new rule on the advice of their lawyers, likely because the lawyers saw that the Board should not have blocked me from speaking in December 2013 and should not have removed my name from the speakers list and replace it with someone who supports porn in the library.

Further, that the new policy precludes electronic participation necessarily means such participation was not previously precluded by policy.  I should have been about to speak in December 2013.  I was blocked from speaking in December 2013 by the failure to follow policy and the failure to comply with the OMA.  It appears now I will be blocked from participating electronically forever.

I am the nation’s leading expert on how ALA misleads communities, according to the author of the CIPA, Ernest Istook. ALA spoke in Orland Park at the previous month’s Board meeting and implied porn is a First Amendment right in libraries.  Yet ALA itself lost on that very point when the US Supreme Court ruled the exact opposite in 2003.  I cannot afford to make personal appearances like ALA does and did in Orland Park.  My only way to participate is electronically.  I view the new policy as directed at me specifically and the public generally.  It represents unequal access where those who can afford to appear in person are allowed to speak but those who cannot afford to appear in person may not.  One would think hearing from experts on issues should outweigh policy that limits free speech to only those experts having sufficient financial resources to make personal visits, particularly in a day and age where electronic attendance is so prevalent that the means for such attendance exists on nearly everyone’s smart phone.  Indeed, at the very meeting that created the new policy that blocked my future participation, one of the trustees was attending the meeting via teleconference.  I doubt the OMA allows a Board to invent rules to target an individual.

Had BLT-OPPL allowed me to speak in December 2013, I would have been able to advise the Board and the community that local and state law precludes Internet pornography in Illinois libraries, including the OPPL, and that the Village government has the right and duty to intercede.  I believe this is why BLT-OPPL silenced me and removed me from the speakers list at that December meeting in violation of the OMA.  The local ordinance that created the library, the state code defining libraries, and the library's own policy all preclude pornography, especially when viewed in conjunction with US v. ALA.  All talk about the "use and benefit" of the library.  As US v. ALA pointed out, libraries have always blocked porn; clearly porn is not part of the "use and benefit" of a library.  The state law says “Each board of library trustees … shall carry out the spirit and intent of this Act in establishing, supporting and maintaining a public library [and] shall have the ... power[ to set policy], not inconsistent with this Act."  Pornography is inconsistent with the Act and the Board lacks the power to allow porn, except to the extent it can mislead people into thinking it is a First Amendment right.  The BLT-OPPL is acting outside the law by allowing Internet pornography.  The law gives the Village the power to act to force the library to come into compliance with the law.

I am not making that argument here nor using this forum to make that argument.  I am saying that here to support my Request for Relief under the OMA law as is illustrates why BLT-OPPL blocked me, to prevent my saying just that and more.  Just as BLT-OPPL blocked information about sex crimes from reaching the police, it is now blocking information about the illegality of pornography in Illinois public libraries and OPPL specifically from reaching the public, only this time it is a violation of the OMA.

I even offered to attend via a means that would not have utilized any library resources whatsoever, namely, via FaceTime on the iPhone of Megan Fox.  Rules made up in February 2014 to preclude my speaking in December 2013, and rules that prevent participation in a manner that blocks the disabled or blocks equity of access based merely on the financial means of the speaker are neither reasonable nor consistent with OMA intent.

Also, I am certain OMA prohibits boards from giving speaking preference to Orland Park residents. The Vermillion, for example, said residency cannot be used as a point of reference ( AG Confirms Vermilion County Board Violated Open Meetings Act http://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/2014/01/ag-confirms-vermilion-county-board-violated-open-meetings-act/ ).  So a “Public Comment Policy” that states, “Village of Orland Park residents will be given priority to speak” violates the OMA.  My being removed from the December 2013 speakers list to be replaced with an Orland Park resident violates the OMA.

Further, the preclusion of electronic participation discriminates against the disabled.  OPPL has an “Americans with Disabilities Act Statement” but precluding electronic participation would likely violate the ADA.  That is further evidence that the library has violated the OMA as OMA would not abide public accommodations violating the ADA.

So the library director, in repeatedly denying me the right to speak at the December meeting, made an immediate arbitrary decision, putting unestablished and unrecorded rules in place for public comments, stating that I would not be allowed to speak.  As I informed the director of exactly what I was likely to say (about it being perfectly legal to block porn from public libraries), I believe the director was intentionally stifling my speech to prevent people from hearing the exact opposite of what she and the Board has been misleading the community into believing, namely, that people have a First Amendment right to porn in public libraries, which they do not.

The OMA at 5 ILCS 120/2.06(g) provides, "Any person shall be permitted an opportunity to address public officials under the rules established and recorded by the public body."  There was no language preventing electronic participation in December 2013.  The library director made an arbitrary and extemporaneous decision to not follow the rules established and recorded by the BLT-OPPL.  The policy was later amended in February 2014 to permanently preclude me from participating electronically, evidencing that I was improperly blocked in December 2013 or no new policy would have been needed.

Further, the 12 February 2014 meeting occurred without adherence to OMA notice requirements nor BLT-OPPL policy.  Policy states, “Meetings: … Notice will be posted in the library and published in local newspaper as prescribed by law. All meetings are open to the public. …. Special meetings may be called by the president of the Board of Library Trustees to consider one or more items of business specified in the call of the meeting. Notice of time, place and exact purpose of the meeting must be sent to the members and posted in the library as prescribed by law.”  Notice was not posted in a timely fashion nor as required by law or by BLT-OPPL policy.  I could have used that notice to prepare for the meeting.  It turns out BLT-OPPL refused public comment anyway.  Then it passed its policy permitting the illegal Internet pornography.

Also, I believe the OMA forbids special meetings scheduled on legal holidays.  The special meeting occurred on 12 February 2014.  In Illinois, the Land of Lincoln, 12 February 2104 is a legal holiday, namely, Lincoln’s Birthday.  ( http://www2.illinois.gov/cms/employees/personnel/pages/stateholidays.aspx ) Therefore, the whole meeting was illegal.  Perhaps every decision should be nullified.  Holding the meeting on that date, especially combined with how it was hastily assembled in violation of the OMA, took away the ability to request an injunction from the PAC.  I believe the meeting was held on that date precisely to thwart having a meeting complaint with the OMA.  The pornography push was rushed though, in other words.  More evidence of this is that the new trustee member seated for the first time that day also voted to continue to allow illegal Internet pornography that very day without having any time at all to consider the issues.  And two trustees wanted to take more time to consider the matter but they were overruled.  On a legal holiday, BLT-OPPL rushed through a policy to permit illegal porn and preclude electronic participation without public comment and without compliance with the OMA and without the ability of anyone to seek emergent injunctive relief from the PAC.  I feel the policy was drafted in response to me personally and my failed effort to attend electronically in December 2013 to answer to ALA’s appearance and misinformation in November 2013.

Relief Sought:

I am asking for a determination that the Orland Park Public Library Board of Trustees violated the OMA in December 2013 and in February 2014 in what are essentially separate though related instances.  In no case did the BLT-OPPL act in as an “open, honest and accountable government, the cornerstone of a democracy.” ( http://foia.ilattorneygeneral.net )  If possible, other relief may be appropriate, such as a finding that a policy created February 2014 that precludes electronic access violates the OMA and may even violate other rules about equal access, the ADA, or the like, or such as a finding that I be allowed to speak on the topic.

Yes, the Board has already decided, but it did so during what may itself be another violation of the OMA.  If that February meeting is found to have violated the OMA law due to not announcing the meeting as required by law or due to the meeting’s having occurred on a legal holiday, I may yet get a chance to speak at a rescheduled meeting, but only if the PAC helps in this regard as the library itself will do anything, even break the OMA law and perhaps ADA, to prevent me from advising that the US Supreme Court ruled that blocking porn from public libraries does not violate the First Amendment, that local and state law precludes allowing Internet pornography in the OPPL, and that the Village of Orland Park has the authority it needs to force the library to come into compliance with the law.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

Dan Kleinman, Library Watchdog
SafeLibraries
641 Shunpike Rd #123
Chatham, NJ 07928
973-610-8296
http://tinyurl.com/AboutDan

URL of this page:  safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/02/OPPL.html

On Twitter:  @ILAttyGeneral @IntolerantFox @OIF @OrlandPkLibrary @VillageOrlandPk

Follow @SafeLibraries