How To Remove Drag Queen Story Hour From Libraries, Part 1: FOIA Library Law

Existing library law and policy can be used to remove so-called "Drag Queen Story Hour" from public libraries.  First get the law by filing a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request (using model state FOIA requests from NFOIC and my example below).  Then read the law to see how it applies in your community to prevent harmful activities in your libraries—introducing gender theory to young children is a harmful activity.

Below is the second FOIA request I filed with St. Mary's County Library, and it's to obtain the library law.  Use it as a model for your own FOIA requests.  My first FOIA request to the library and the library's responses thereto can be seen here: "Fulfilling FOIA Requests Is 'Disruptive,' Says Public Library Director."

A major way to know finding and applying existing library law and policy to remove DQSH is effective is that DQSH activists stay intentionally silent on that very point.  Not even the American Library Association discusses this.  DQSH activists completely leave out any mention of existing law and policy that may apply in a library, completely ignoring what the US Supreme Court ruled about the First Amendment in public libraries.  Instead they repeat over and over and over that the First Amendment controls so anything, absolutely anything goes.  See, "Maryland County Punishes Library for Hosting Drag Queen Story Hour, but Atheist and LGBTQ Organizations are Fighting Back," by American Atheists, American Atheists, 30 July 2019, emphasis mine:

• "The Commission’s action of partially defunding the Library ... raise[s] serious First Amendment concerns."
• "The undersigned write to advise both the Commission and the Library of their obligations under ... the First Amendment."
• "Moreover, the partial defunding ... ha[s] a chilling effect on the expressive activities of SMASH and PFLAG of Leonardtown. A government agency violates the First Amendment when it takes a regulatory or proscriptive action that creates 'a non-speculative and objectively reasonable chilling effect' sufficient to deter '[a] person of ordinary firmness' from engaging in disapproved expressive conduct."
• "As a center of knowledge and haven for freedom of speech, it is essential that the Library not be pressured into censoring events held in spaces open to the public."
• "The First Amendment does not permit a 'heckler’s veto.'"
• "The First Amendment prohibits the vesting of such unbridled discretion in a government official."
• "When the government targets not subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant."

That's a lot of First Amendment arguments—so it must be true, right?

Here are the American Atheists arguments about the law that defines the library and the duties of the library board of trustees to properly manage the library, and the right and duty of the County Commissioners to ensure the library board acts within the law, perhaps by charging the library for its excesses that have occurred as a result of a failure to comply with the law and their own policy:

• Nothing.
• Silence.
• Don't look at the law, instead, look over here: First Amendment, censorship, freedom of speech, heckler's veto, and more First Amendment.  This is America!

The First Amendment does not apply to harmful activities that violate library laws and policies.  As to the law and the policy that does apply, the American Atheists won't even mention that.  That's on purpose.  They don't want people to know existing law and policy can be used to block or remove drag queen story times from public libraries if only people and their governments become aware of those laws and actually applied them.

By the way, it does not help the American Atheists already false arguments to flat out lie to St. Mary's County Commission in its 29 July 2019 email. American Atheists, a tiny business in a light industry industrial park in Cranford, NJ, on the side of the New Jersey Parkway, inflated its membership 100 times to appear like a significant organization.  Its letter says it has "more than 350,000 members and supporters across the country," but its 2017 Form 990 says, "THE ORGANIZATION HAS OVER 3,500 MEMBERS IN ALL 50 STATES OF THE USA."  To be thorough, I checked the American Atheists Inc 2016 Form 990 and it too lists 3,500 members, 2015 Form 990 = 3500 members, 2014 = 3500, 2013/3500, 2012/3000, 2011/3000, 2010/3000.  Before that no numbers are reported.  So they are misleading the Commissioners about their membership numbers by saying 350,000 instead of 3,500.  And isn't it odd membership numbers only changed once over the course of eight years?  How can this organization that misleads the Commissioners and appears to mislead the federal government about membership numbers be trusted to assert knowledge of First Amendment law, or anything for that matter?

And one of the signers of that letter, Samantha McGuire, made a public admission that drag queen story hour is not about literacy, it's about "normalizing abnormal behavior" with flat out false information—remember, libraries block any positive material at all about ex-gays or reparative therapy because librarians view that as flat out false, but someone saying there are an unlimited number of genders, which is flat out false, somehow is supposed to have a First Amendment right to "sneakily" push that false view on children in public libraries:

T-Bone: What do you say, what do you say to people who say this, what you're trying to do is trying to legitimize or, for lack of better word, normalize abnormal behavior?  

Samantha McGuire: So I would argue it's not necessarily abnormal behavior, firstly. Um, and I would say that yes, I am trying to normalize it. I'm trying to normalize the idea that there are, um, infinite versions of human beings on this planet and why is that wrong?" 

Source: "T-Bone and Heather With Samantha McGuire," Conversations With T-Bone and Heather, YouTube, 18 July 2019 at 16:39.

Here is my second FOIA to St. Mary's County Library that can be used as 1) a model for filing your own FOIA for library law and that 2) explains how library law and policy should run local libraries, not the American Library Association that specifically trains librarians to circumvent communities and laws so as to target children:

---

Second FOIA Request:

FOIA Request - St. Mary's County Library - #02

From: Safe Libraries Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 3:47 AM

To: smclboard
Cc: csmc@stmarysmd.com, Michael Blackwell , info@stmalib.org

Dear St. Mary’s County Library Board of Trustees,

This is a FOIA request.  Under the Maryland Public Information Act Title 4, I request copies of public records, specifically, the statutory basis for St. Mary's County Library.  I ask that they be made available to me via electronic means such as attaching a PDF document in a response to this email.

Please waive all fees since the disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest and will contribute significantly to the public’s understanding of how the library is managed and whether it acts in compliance with the law and its own policies, as I will explain further below.  This has become a concern ever since the County Commissioners have acted to require the library trustees to pay for police services provided to the library board at the so-called “Drag Queen Story Hour” on June 23, 2019.  It raises the issue that the library may have acted outside the law, and the County Commissioners may have acted to force compliance with the law.  I have been reporting on libraries violating various laws and policies for almost two decades and this request is related to news gathering purposes.  This information is not being sought for commercial purposes.  Should you refuse to provide free records to the media for disclosure to the public in a noncommercial fashion, then if there are any fees for searching or copying these records, please inform me if the cost will exceed $25.

The Maryland Public Information Act requires a response to this request within 30 days.  If the records I am requesting for ultimate public disclosure will take longer than this amount of time, please contact me with information about when I might expect copies of the requested records.

If you deny any or all of this request, please cite each specific exemption you feel justifies the refusal to release the information and notify me of the appeal procedures available to me under the law.

Thank you for considering my request.

Here are the documents for which copies are requested.  Keep in mind I am attempting to determine what the law says about the scope of what St. Mary's County Library may do legally.  For example, it may be unlawful for the library to present or allow to be presented to the public programs that are harmful to the public.  If the library acted outside the law, then the County Commissioners are not constrained by the library's autonomy to act within the law, and indeed may have a duty to act to restrain the library trustees to act within the boundaries of the law that created the library.  If that is the case, the County may not only have had the right to charge the library for the police security fee, but it may have a duty to stop the library from acting outside the law by any means it deems fit.  And if the library is acting outside the law, then all First Amendment arguments are fruitless.  There is simply no First Amendment right to violate the law that created the library—for example there is a First Amendment right to Internet p-rn-graphy but the US Supreme Court ruled it may be legally blocked from public libraries.  Similarly, there is a legitimate and even compelling concern that "Drag Queen Story Hour" is a harmful activity, harmful to the children attending the event, harmful to the LGBT community itself, and harmful to the County by allowing itself to be exposed to liability for actions that may fall outside the law, some of which are exemplified in, "Parents Explode As Republicans Refuse to Defend Kids From Library Drag Queens”: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/parents-explode-as-republicans-refuse-to-defend-kids-from-library-drag-queens   And having parents who wish their children to attend such events is not a reason for the library to violate the law that created it—the parents can simply go to a bookstore or public park or other venue that is presenting "Drag Queen Story Hour." For right now, it is important for the public to see the law that created the St. Mary's County Library.  Therefore, please provide:

1)  Copies of public records that comprise the statutory basis for St. Mary's County Library, including the powers or duties of its Board of Trustees and its Library Director.  In other words, I seek a copy of the most recent statute or statutes that created St. Mary's County Library at its inception, including a copy of the most recent statute or statutes that lists the powers or duties of St. Mary's County Library Board of Trustees and St. Mary's County Library Director.

That is all I seek in this MPIA/FOIA request.

Here I wish to report that correspondence from the Library Director to me within the past two days has been unprofessional and he has even stated he will ignore further emails from me, "In the interim, I shall not respond to communications from you."  My understanding is he is the designated FOIA officer and as such he may be acting illegally by threatening not to read my emails and perhaps even by not responding to this FOIA request for the law that instantiated the library.  Please ensure that MPIA/FOIA is not subverted by his unprofessional actions.  I may have to report his actions to the state's Attorney General depending on the circumstances related to him—I simply will not be bullied by his unprofessional behavior and he has no right to block the public from public documentation to which it is entitled under MPIA, and I am an investigative reporter working to expose documents material to the public's interest.

I already have grounds to report what appears to be his illegality to the AG.  Micheal Blackwell is playing fast and loose with the law, thereby thwarting the legislative intent and even the plain language of MPIA.  I want you to consider this so that you can exercise some sort of control over his unprofessional and likely unethical and illegal behavior, in both this FOIA response and in the response to my FOIA request of a few days ago.

Let me explain.  My FOIA request of a few days ago requested 10 things.  He responded that he could get me a certain subset in about two hours, but the rest would take a really long time to find and cost a large amount of money.  He charged another reporter about $1,600.00 for a FOIA response, but I digress.  “My time is valuable,” he scolded me.  So I responded by dropping my requests for the material he said would take a long time to get and cost a lot of money, including even the request for records about whether the drag queen was given a background check and what were the results.  Basically, Blackwell’s bullying ballestra worked to hide records from the public, even after they were requested by an investigative reporter.

With the dropping of the longer requests I only kept the ones he said he could get in two hours: “Since any communications on points 1 – 5, exclusive of #3 as already discussed, would have been addressed to me or to an online system for reserving meeting rooms, or involve payments made to us, I can probably prepare responses to them in two hours.”  So, after amending my initial FOIA request to just what he said he could get in probably two hours, I expected to get the response quickly so I could report to the public quickly.  But it was not to be.  Even though I had dropped the longer/costly requests to only those he said he could get in two hours, he decided instead to break the law and to make me wait 30 days for what he already said would take only two hours to get: “You will have my response to your request by 30 days, August 31st.”  This is illegal.  This violates MPIA.  How do I know?  I looked at the MPIA Manual published by the AG: http://www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/OpenGov%20Documents/PIA_manual_printable.pdf  Quoting, “C. Time for Response; Under GP § 4-203(b)(1), if a custodian determines that a record is responsive to a request and open to inspection, the custodian must produce the record ‘immediately’ after receipt of the written request. An additional reasonable period ‘not to exceed 30 days’ is available only where the additional period of time is required to retrieve the records and assess their status under the PIA. A custodian should not, however, wait the full 30 days to allow or deny access to a record if that amount of time is not needed to respond.”  Michael Blackwell stated he needed probably two hours of time to obtain the records, and he stated the records that would take probably two hours to get would be delivered in 30 days.  “A custodian should not, however, wait the full 30 days to allow or deny access to a record if that amount of time is not needed to respond.”  Michael Blackwell is already acting illegally.  And it’s the people for whom the law was written who are suffering as a result, not me personally.

The library director's actions are so egregious I have written about them here: “Fulfilling FOIA Requests Is 'Disruptive,' Says Public Library Director” https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2019/08/fulfilling-foia-requests-is-disruptive.html

This present document request seeking the law that created the library is of extreme interest to the public.  Why?  So the public may learn what is and what is not allowed by law in its public library.  You see, there is a question whether the public library is being responsive to the public or to the American Library Association, an organization based in Chicago, IL, that has made “social justice” its top goal, specifically setting aside literacy.  If the library trustees were responsive to the public, they would follow the law.  If they are responsive to the ALA, they would jettison or simply ignore the law, as it appears they may be doing right now.

You see, libraries are usually created statutorily for the use and benefit of the public.  You cannot have just anything at all in public library, it has to be for the use and benefit of the public or it has to be proper.  Just because there’s a First Amendment right to something does mean the library must allow it.  There’s a First Amendment right to Internet p-rn-graphy, for example, but that right does not extend to public libraries.  ALA lost big on this case, United States v. American Library Association, 539 US 194 (2003): http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/539/194.html  Here are quotes from the SCOTUS case, “Public libraries pursue the worthy missions of facilitating learning and cultural enrichment.”  “Although they seek to provide a wide array of information, their goal has never been to provide ‘universal coverage.’ …. Instead, public libraries seek to provide materials ‘that would be of the greatest direct benefit or interest to the community. …. To this end, libraries collect only those materials deemed to have ‘requisite and appropriate quality.’”

Facilitating learning.  Cultural enrichment. Direct benefit.  Requisite and appropriate quality.  These are the concepts that make a library.  This are embodied in the laws that instantiate libraries. P-rn-graphy is not included in that, so it may be legally blocked from libraries.  Well the same goes for so-called “Drag Queen Story Hour.”  It’s a cute name and there are rainbows and butterflies and happy songs and silly dances, but studies are showing that inducing gender confusion in children may cause harm.  We all know this but are bullied into not saying this publicly.  And ALA is using that squeamishness to push into public libraries something that is just as harmful to communities as is Internet p-rn-graphy—indeed even St. Mary’s County Library’s own children’s librarian Tess Goldwasser works with ALA to “sneakily” push ALA agenda on children.  Sure, we all have a First Amendment right to such material, but in a public library, such material may be legally excluded despite the First Amendment.

And even if parents say they what their children to be exposed to “Drag Queen Story Hour,” that still does not give the library the right to subvert the law to make that happen in a library.  If parents want that, go to a bookstore or other private business like Whole Foods or even a public park to see that, but something harmful is simply illegal in libraries, gender confusion is harmful for children, and “Drag Queen Story Hour” is specifically about gender confusion—and not literacy, by the way.  So to make a determination of what is and what is not legal in St. Mary’s County Library, one must look at least to the statute that created the library.  That is what I am seeking in this MPIA/FOIA request.  That is why this request is so important to the public.

By the way, my request is for the law that instantiated St. Mary’s County Library, not for general laws such as § 23-405(f) “Each board of trustees may: … (6) Do anything else necessary for the proper control and development of the library.”  That general law is significant too, but so is the specific law that instantiated St. Mary’s County Library.  Notice the general law requires library trustees to do things for the “proper control and development of the library.”  Introducing children to gender confusion, among other concerns about “Drag Queen Story Hour” such as its use for virtue signaling without even the slightest concern about the LGBT community, is not “proper” in a public library, and Maryland law specifically requires “proper control and development of the library.”  Why is that word “proper” even there if it doesn’t mean what it says?  But let’s also see the law that created the library in the first place, let alone what the US Supreme Court said.

It is especially important for the public to know the law since the bullying tactics are mounting up to force the County Commissioners to allow the library trustees to do what ALA wants instead of doing what the law says:

In a July 19 Facebook post, MD House Delegate Brian Crosby says: “The fact is that in this situation, our commissioners are playing politics with our library. …. Second, this is really about denying the constitutional rights to free assembly and free speech. …. These commissioners are circuitously denying people their first amendment rights. …. Lastly, I know many of you are curious about an ACLU and AG lawsuit. I am aware and am in contact with several legal offices. I’m not sure where they will go with this, but I can assure you that restricting constitutional rights because of a personal disagreement isn’t a game, and I’d proffer returning the $2,500 penalty instead of using taxpayer dollars to fund a legal defense.” https://www.facebook.com/bc4md/photos/a.1911753509073805/2300404876875331/

In a July 25 report, “County Attorney David Weiskopf confirmed Tuesday that he would be speaking with officials from the Maryland Attorney General’s Office this week about the county’s dealing with the library system. …. ‘Our office will be having a conversation this week… to get the details of the event and the transfer of funds,’ Coombs said. ‘We are just having a conversation at this point.’” https://countytimes.somd.com/archive/2019/07-jul/2019-07-25.pdf

In a July 30 report, “Yesterday, American Atheists, Southern Maryland Area Secular Humanists (SMASH), PFLAG National, and PFLAG’s Leonardtown chapter sent a letter to the commission warning that the organizations ‘are prepared to seek judicial remedies for [the] violation of their rights.’” https://www.atheists.org/2019/07/drag-queen-story-hour-maryland/

These are all bullying tactics meant to force a decision fast, without anyone taking the time to think and to look at the law.  This MPIA/FOIA request is part of an effort to get to that law.  The County government may not control what a library does when it acts within the law that created it (§ 23-401(a): “The governing body of each county may establish … a county public library system free from political influence.”), but when library trustees step outside the law, and it is quite possible they may have by allowing harmful material—and it doesn’t matter whether that was in the library itself or in one of the library’s public meeting rooms, whether or not the room was rented—then the County Commissioners have the right and the duty to force the library trustees to act within the law.  That minor $2,439.38 security fee shifting from the library may be the County Commissioners acting quite legally to ensure the library trustees comply with the law, and indeed, that may have been the most efficient, least obtrusive way to go about requiring the library to act within the law, both the state law and the law I am seeking with this MPIA/FOIA request.

So let’s look at the law.  Certainly that can be obtained and returned to me within a day, right?  It’s the library’s founding document, after all.  Michael Blackwell will not be blocking my receipt of that law for 30 days, right?

By the way, has anyone noticed what the library’s public meeting room policy says in bold type, and it’s the only text in bold type?  “Any use of the room which disturbs library customers or operations is prohibited.” Besides the law, are the library’s own policies being ignored as well?  That could be a subject of investigation for a future FOIA request. https://www.stmalib.org/about-us/library-policies/meeting-room-policy/

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Dan Kleinman
SafeLibraries® brand library educational services
641 Shunpike Rd #123
Chatham, NJ 07928
973-610-8296



NOTE ADDED 6 AUGUST 2019:

The library replied to my second FOIA request, basically saying go fish, and I responded to that, basically saying they are not complying with the law.  Both are below.  Don't be bullied!  Notice they leave out the FOIA officer Blackwell who threatened to stop corresponding with me, so I added him back since he's the FOIA officer.

---

Response From Library Board of Trustees:

FOIA Request - St. Mary's County Library - #02

From: smclboard Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 11:00 AM

To: Safe Libraries , smclboard

Cc: "csmc@stmarysmd.com" , info

Dear Sir,

St. Mary’s County Library, with the duties of its Trustees and Director, was established under the “Laws of Maryland Relating to Public Libraries.” We continue to operate under them.  They are a matter of public record and easily located online.  Please find them through a web search.

The Trustees of St. Mary’s County

---

Response From Me To Library's Response:

FOIA Request - St. Mary's County Library - #02

From: Safe Libraries Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 10:56 PM

To: smclboard

Cc: "csmc@stmarysmd.com" , info , Michael Blackwell

Greetings, 

Thank you for responding quickly, however, the response is not substantive. So I still await a substantive response. 

I did not request a citation of what law applies, especially since I cited and quoted that law in my request. FOIA requests may only seek documents, not answers to questions. I received only answers to a question I did not ask. 

I requested a document. Look again at what I requested, “Copies of public records that comprise the statutory basis for St. Mary's County Library, including the powers or duties of its Board of Trustees and its Library Director.  In other words, I seek a copy of the most recent statute or statutes that created St. Mary's County Library at its inception, including a copy of the most recent statute or statutes that lists the powers or duties of St. Mary's County Library Board of Trustees and St. Mary's County Library Director.”

I did not ask for the laws of libraries in Maryland state generally. I asked for the legislation or the like that was passed into law that specifically instantiated SMCL: “I seek a copy of the most recent statute or statutes that created St. Mary's County Library at its inception.” That is the document I seek. I even added the “in other words” section to be clear I was asking for the law/document that instantiated SMCL. 

Please provide a copy of that document and any others related to my original document request, and the original filing date stands since the response so far has been nonsubstantive. 

And, "We continue to operate under them" is a conclusory statement still being investigated.  We already know violating your state's FOIA law is becoming a pattern.

Lastly, public laws are not public records.  So, "They are a matter of public record and easily located online" is false and merely amounts to yet another in what's becoming a string of delaying tactics to avoid making public records public.

To forestall your next delaying tactic, yes, I asked for the law, but I don't want a citation to the law. I want the actual document that instantiated SMCL. It may contains signatures, vote counts, official seals, who knows.  We shall see, yes?

Thank you. 

Dan Kleinman

---

NOTE ADDED 8 AUGUST 2019:

Yesterday I received a substantive response to this "FOIA Request - St. Mary's County Library - #02" and I republish it below.  It proves Drag Queen Story Hour in the St. Mary's County Library, which presents harmful gender theory, is ultra vires, thus all agreements with the organizers of Drag Queen Story Time in St. Mary's County Library are void ab initio, and the Commissioners of St. Mary's County have the right and duty to stop the library from presenting harmful material in violation of the law.  Drag Queen Story Time may proceed outside the library grounds and not otherwise presented by the library, but may not occur inside the library.

Why?  Look at the law that created the library, freshly uncovered in this FOIA response.  Look at the 1 March 1948 Certificate of Incorporation of the St. Mary's Memorial Library Association, page 1 of the "within instrument," wherein the very first description of the library—the first because it is so important and is the key to the whole library—is that the library must "benefit" the people: "1. To conduct a library for the benefit of the people on a strictly non-profit basis."  This library may not do things that are harmful to the people.  It may only "conduct a library for the benefit of the people."  Drag Queen Story Hour is harmful to the people in a number of different ways, but that's not the subject of this publication.

Suffice it to say harmful activities are not allowed in the library under the law, specifically the Certificate of Incorporation of the St. Mary's Memorial Library Association, the library board is not empowered to act outside the law, and the local government has the right and duty to force compliance with the law.  For example, the Commissioners security fee shifting move regarding police security for the Drag Queen Story Hour is, in itself, legal as the action of the government to force compliance with the law.

Read the law that created your library for yourselves and think, think for yourselves, don't be bullied by the library representatives misleading you about the law or the First Amendment or about me as a reporter of what I uncovered.  You in St. Mary's County have an existing law that requires your library to be for the benefit of the people, DQSH harms the people, so it has no legal basis in your library, and your government has the right and duty to force compliance with the law.  It's that simple.  Take your own law, read it, and apply it!

Here is the library's response to me today, with the attachments linked and renamed by my for clarity reasons:

---

Substantive Response from Library Board of Trustees

RE: FOIA Request - St. Mary's County Library - #02

From: smclboard Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 3:42 PM
To: "safelibraries@gmail.com"
Cc: smclboard , Michael Blackwell , "csmc@stmarysmd.com" , "joshua@brewsterlegal.com"

Dear Mr. Kleinman,

I have asked our director, Michael Blackwell, to provide for me the documents you have requested.  He is “responsible for the day-to-day administration and operations of the Library,” and your request is in his purview.

I provide for you three documents of possible relevance.  The first two, dating from 1948, are about the incorporation of the library. They make no mention of the roles of Trustees and Director, but we include them for your consideration.

The library would have been established under the laws of Maryland at the time.  We have no such documents from the state from that time, or any other time.  You might wish to apply to the State of Maryland to see if any such incorporation documents exist, with statute, and if they mention the roles of Trustees and Director. Laws may have changed since 1948. We operate under current “Laws of Maryland Relating to Public Libraries,” of which you are aware.

We have one document that sets out the roles of Trustees and Director, and it is attached.  It is derived from “Laws of Maryland Relating to Public Libraries,” to which you should refer for a full legal statement of those relations.

I, and our other Trustees, am aware of your statements of various legal interpretations and about “bullying tactics meant to force a decision fast, without anyone taking the time to think and to look at the law.” We cannot comment individually or as a board, or recommend action on your statements, without a meeting. Our next Trustees meeting is in September. We may consider your points then.

All future requests for documents should go directly to Mr. Blackwell, whom we empower to conduct daily library operations and to whom we will refer all requests for action. Our board cannot conduct public business without meeting, and I do so now individually only reluctantly in response to this specific request since providing documents does not involve board discussion or a need to vote and since Mr. Blackwell provides them as part of his duties. Your email to us has included several legal interpretations from you. Because of this, any email to us or to Mr. Blackwell should also include our attorney, Joshua Brewster, who is copied on this email.

Carolyn Guy, President, Board of Library Trustees for the St. Mary’s County Library  

3 attachments

1. 2019 04 16 - Bylaws of the Board of Library Trustees St Marys County.pdf 244K
2. 1948 03 01 - Certificate of Incorp of the St Marys Memorial Library Assn.pdf 2M
3. 1948 01 - Articles of Incorp of the St Marys Memorial Library Assn Inc.pdf 257K

---

—

Top graphic credit—coincidentally another county government that stopped another drag queen story hour in a library.

URL of this page: 
safelibraries.blogspot.com/2019/08/how-to-remove-drag-queen-story-hour.html

On Twitter: 
@StMarysCoGov

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