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

Fulfilling FOIA Requests Is 'Disruptive,' Says Public Library Director

Fulfilling FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests is "disruptive," says St. Mary's County Library Director Michael Blackwell: "My time is valuable.  I am not inclined to disrupt other library operations by giving it away."  Maryland Public Information Act compliance is part of a public servant's job—it's not a "disruption."  This public servant has open hostility to the law.

Further, he will not waive fees for me to report publicly on his possible facilitation of so-called "Drag Queen Story Hour," and will instead charge me $50 an hour, basically ensuring I will refuse to pay the price and the public will not get the public records.  (Someone want to start a GoFundMe page for this?)

Now this is a matter where a man has been charged with trespass for attempting to attend a public meeting in a public library that the library director said was private, where the library director may have lied to the County Commissioners—that's part of what I am investigating, and where the county government has ordered the library to pay for security services that were used essentially to put on a circus in a matter that may have been illegal in the first place.  The ACLU and secular humanists are threatening to sue the county government as a result.  So this is a matter of great public interest, I am a reporter digging for information to shed light on what happened, and the library director—who may be part of the problem—is suppressing production of public documentation by charging me what is certain to amount to hundreds of dollars, perhaps even a thousand.

And this is not the first arrest of a patron under Michael Blackwell's watch.  It is now a pattern.  I suspect it is part of the circus he puts on to help promote what the library is doing.  Let's look at this in Michael's own words as he gleefully promotes what he has done and reports 23 May 2017 to thousands of ALA librarians, even with details about the arrest:

Hi, Michael Blackwell, Director of St Mary's County Library here. Thanks to all for your kind words of support for our library. I am very proud of our Trustees and staff for standing strong in a challenge that threatened First Amendment rights to assemble and engage in free speech. We took no stand on the program itself: it is not a library program. Our concern is fair use of our meeting rooms. [Teens attending said they greatly enjoyed the program, however, and found it more honest and informative than anything they learned in school.] We are glad that except for one person who chose to be arrested (she is 55 but claimed to "self-identify" as 17 in order to gain access to the teen-only event, and refused offers to attend the open forum, go into the library, or even just leave), the event was peaceful and both sides of the controversy could express their views as they saw fit outside the library. Freedom to assemble and educate won that day. May they always. 

[Source.  Notably, the librarians to whom he reported commented to attack me personally and wished I would die in a cruel and unusual fashion.  It's no wonder the director is hostile to me.]

Whatever, see his response for yourself, and see my original FOIA request to which he responded, both below.

Just remember, my experience tells me 90% of libraries respond in a timely and substantive manner to FOIA requests, and of the 10% that do not, 100% have something to hide, are hiding it, and it eventually comes out.  So as far as St. Mary's County Library goes, open government laws are "disruptive" and will be ignored—it's hiding something.

And no, I did not imply he was destroying documents, only to be aware that American Library Association 1) uses personal emails for work reasons, illustrating that librarians use personal emails for work reasons so they are subject to FOIA as well, and 2) orders librarians to destroy documents precisely to defeat FOIA responses.  Since St. Mary's County Library librarians are communicating directly with ALA, like children's librarian Tess Goldwasser who wrote for ALA how to "sneakily" push an agenda on children and for which a County Commissioner called her a "liar," it is highly likely they are being told how to subvert FOIA laws as this is an established pattern of ALA.  The library trustees should be aware of this so they can prevent it.  But, based on the library director's open hostility to me and defiance of the open government law, it is more likely we will pitch in on the effort to hide documentation.  The unprofessional hostility and the charging of a huge fee to a member of the media is just part of that effort.

By the way, I will amend my FOIA request to ameliorate his concerns for now, but I may raise them again in the future.  Still, it's shocking to see a library director so blatantly say open government laws can go to hell.

---

Library Director's Response:

Re: FOIA Request - St. Mary's County Library - #01

From: Michael Blackwell Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 4:36 PM

To: Safe Libraries
Cc: "csmc@stmarysmd.com" , smclboard , Joshua Brewster

Dear Mr. Kleinman,

Fulfilling these requests will require substantial time and effort.

Under Maryland law, you are granted two hours of library time to fulfil [sic] you [sic] requests. After that, we may, and will, charge.  I do not waive fees.  After two hours, I shall charge you $50 per hour.  This is a fair and reasonable rate, for I am our Public Information Officer and responsible for all such requests and must attend to them personally. No documents will be provided to you after the two free hours of time spent searching, redacting the records to be in compliance with Maryland’s strict privacy laws, and preparing the records to be sent to you, until payment is received. Keep in mind that the information you seek involves me searching all emails to and from all St. Mary’s County Library employees—simply making queries to the whole lot and reviewing results to determine relevance takes substantial time. I shall tell you what each reply would cost and send them once payment is received.

I will happily negotiate with you through Maryland’s PIO Ombudsman, who will ensure that our dealings are fair. Let me know if you wish to exercise this option.

I have copied our attorney, Joshua Brewster, and request that any correspondence from you include him.

Your implication that I would destroy or withhold any records if so directed by the American Library Association is offensive. I am well aware of my duties, which [sic] require me to redact or withhold records as required by Maryland law (and not an outside agency) but never to destroy them. I have, furthermore, never received any such request from the American Library Association.

I will tell you upfront that point # 3 will get you nothing.  I have never received any communication in the period you mention, or any other period for that matter, from Leonardtown PFLAG. I doubt any of our employees will have received any such communication related to this matter in this time frame.

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.  I offer you those, even if they exceed two hours. All other requests would require much more time.  If you do not wish points 1, 2, 4, and 5 addressed, as I have offered, I suggest you prioritize other requests and be prepared to pay.  My time is valuable.  I am not inclined to disrupt other library operations by giving it away.

Michael Blackwell
Director, St Mary’s County Library
23250 Hollywood Road
Leonardtown, MD 20650
301-475-2846 x5013
mblackwell@stmalib.org

---

Original FOIA Request:

FOIA Request - St. Mary's County Library - #01

From: Safe Libraries Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 3:35 PM

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.

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.  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 so that it could facilitate a 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 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, all limited in scope to 2019 unless otherwise stated, and keep in mind County Times reported on 27 June 2019, page 3, “Blackwell confirmed that the two non-profits eventually rented the space, making it a private event”:

1) All documents to or from SMASH (Southern Maryland Area Secular Humanists) or any of its representatives or anyone claiming to represent SMASH.

2) All documents to or from WASH (Washington Area Secular Humanists) or any of its representatives or anyone claiming to represent WASH.

3) All documents to or from PFLAG of Leonardtown (Parents and Friends of Lesbians And Gays; Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) or any of its representatives or anyone claiming to represent PFLAG of Leonardtown.

4) All applications made for use of the public meeting room, limited to those that set up “Drag Queen Story Hour.”

5) All payments made to the library for the use of the public meeting room for “Drag Queen Story Hour”

6) All documentation of communications about “Drag Queen Story Hour” with the American Library Association, and especially ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom.

7) All documentation of communications about “Drag Queen Story Hour” with the American Library Association, and especially ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom.

8) All documentation of communications by children’s librarian Tess Goldwasser with the American Library Association, and especially ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, during 2019 and during 2017.

9) All documentation of policies relating to performing background checks on people presenting programs at the library, whether sponsored by the library or by someone who arranged for use of the public meeting room.

10) All documentation of the results of said background checks having been performed.

Where emails are involved, also provide the BCC as well as the CC and the TO. As you know, BCC is for the convenience of the sender, not for circumventing public information laws. If senders/recipients include distribution lists the library created, then please provide the document that lists the individual recipient email addresses in any distribution list; again, distribution lists are for the convenience of the sender, not for circumventing the law. Further, if library business has been conducted via the use of personal emails or text messages—even on personal phones, then please provide those emails and text messages as well. Conducting library business on personal emails or phones is not a valid means for circumventing MPIA.

Any document written or recorded is included as well. That includes voice mails, audio recordings, transcripts or minutes of any public meeting. Library board executive session recordings or minutes are not included in my request if they have not already been made public.

Written or recorded documents also include those made in any telephonic, electronic, or physical meeting with anyone acting on behalf of any library association such as the American Library Association. ALA trains librarians that written or recorded documents from ALA-provided trainings, meetings, conferences, etc., are ALA proprietary and may not be released publicly. That ALA claim is false. MPIA controls, not ALA. If a public employee attended anything at public expense, then anything learned/recorded at such an event or as a result thereof has been made public and is discoverable under MPIA no matter what ALA claims. The public has a right to know what business has been conducted at public expense.

Be clear ALA top leadership uses personal email to direct librarians to destroy public documents precisely to prevent production under state sunshine laws like MPIA. Example from the private email of the current Interim Director and Deputy Director Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq., of the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom: “Subject: URGENT -­ must delete all documents related to 17 Dec crisis communications workshop .… Remove these from your servers today and destroy hard copies. This is an attempt by two individuals to obtain privileged information …. we cannot allow anything from 17 Dec to be produced in response to FOIA.” Source published here:
“Librarians Ordered to Destroy Public Documents Revealing Homophobia at American Library Association and Crime in Libraries,” by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 26 April 2018, https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2018/04/librarians-ordered-to-destroy.html

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Source of County Times article cited:
https://countytimes.somd.com/archive/2019/06-jun/2019-06-27.pdf

[NOTE: If any librarian wishes to contact me privately/confidentially, perhaps to provide some of this documentation, use SafeLibraries@pm.me.]

Sincerely,

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

---

UPDATE 1 AUGUST 2019:

I amended my FOIA request, and the library director responded again, again with the nastiest, most unprofessional manner possible, actually telling me he won't read any more of my messages, yet he is the person responsible for FOIA requests!  He even implied I was unreasonable.  And he's going to make me wait a full 30 days before he will deny almost everything I requested.  So much for freedom of information.

In all my years of filing FOIA requests on libraries, most are fine, some are contentious yet professional, but none are ever this outright nasty.  When this man appeared before the County Commissioners, he presented as the friendliest of men who would never hurt a fly.  The reality is a major eye opener.  He's hiding something.  And he's hiding it from the public.

---

My Amended FOIA Request:

Dear St. Mary’s County Library Director Blackwell,

In light of your response to my FOIA request, I hereby amend my initial request to the following, dropping 6-10 and amending 3 to add PFLAG national, and as before, just during 2019:

1) All documents to or from SMASH (Southern Maryland Area Secular Humanists) or any of its representatives or anyone claiming to represent SMASH.

2) All documents to or from WASH (Washington Area Secular Humanists) or any of its representatives or anyone claiming to represent WASH.

3) All documents to or from PFLAG of Leonardtown and PFLAG national (Parents and Friends of Lesbians And Gays; Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) or any of its representatives or anyone claiming to represent PFLAG of Leonardtown and PFLAG national.

4) All applications made for use of the public meeting room, limited to those that set up “Drag Queen Story Hour.”

5) All payments made to the library for the use of the public meeting room for “Drag Queen Story Hour”

Given the amended request, it appears no fee will be due, and there will be no need for the services of Maryland’s PIO Ombudsman.

I may raise the removed public document requests again if I raise enough money to pay the fee you require but MPIA law does not, so do not allow them to be deleted in the interim.  It’s interesting that an investigative reporter would be charged such fees in light of your own complaint of having been charged fees by your county government.  It smacks of a double standard, let alone disdain for open government laws.

Also, please note I have published the following newsworthy report:

• Fulfilling FOIA Requests Is 'Disruptive,' Says Public Library Director
• https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2019/08/fulfilling-foia-requests-is-disruptive.html

Thank you.

Dan Kleinman

---

The Unprofessional Library Director's Unprofessional Response:

Dear Sir,

I have no interest in your posts and will not bother to consult them.  You may post my entire email for all I care. Reasonable people will understand my position.

Please be aware of the following:

Maryland Code, General Provisions § 4-308 

(a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, a custodian shall prohibit inspection, use, or disclosure of a circulation record of a public library or any other item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that: 

(1) is maintained by a library; 

(2) contains an individual's name or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual;  and 

(3) identifies the use a patron makes of that library's materials, services, or facilities. 

(b) A custodian shall allow inspection, use, or disclosure of a circulation record of a public library only: 

(1) in connection with the library's ordinary business;  and 

(2) for the purposes for which the record was created.

I am prohibited by Maryland law from disclosing any record of any transaction at the library involving an individual. If an individual member of SMASH or PFLAG has made any request of the library, including use of its meeting rooms, I am prohibited from disclosing it and I shall not. The Maryland Public Information Ombudsman will confirm my reading of the law.

I shall review library records to see if SMASH or PFLAG as a group has corresponded with or made requests of us.

Applications for our meeting rooms are made via online registration and are simply confirmed or denied. I can confirm any uses of the meeting room by SMASH or PFLAG from January 1 through today’s date.

I can confirm the date and amount of any payment for reserving our meeting room on June 23rd.  If the payment was made by an individual, I am prohibited from disclosing that record itself but can send information about our processing of the payment.

You will have my response to your request by 30 days, August 31st.

In the interim, I shall not respond to communications from you.

---

NOTE ADDED 5 AUGUST 2019:

I have filed a second FOIA on the library and have published it here:

• "How To Remove Drag Queen Story Hour From Libraries, Part 1: FOIA Library Law," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries®, 5 August 2019.

NOTE ADDED 8 AUGUST 2019:

Today I received a substantive response to this FOIA request and I now consider it closed.  Below is that response and accompanying explanatory email.  I have no open FOIA requests with the library at this time.

From the provided documentation, I found the following is troubling:

Michael Blackwell says, "Our meeting rooms have been, and will remain, open to all.  Our policy is firmly grounded in First Amendment rights—rights we are proud to stand for.  We remain, as much as any organization can be, apolitical (as Maryland law on libraries clearly establishes) and eager to serve all."

1. The meeting room was not open to all and indeed a man was arrested after he entered the room.  Michael Blackwell even sat in the front room of the trial of the man.  The meeting rooms are not open to all.  And if I recall, the police blocked the man from attending saying this room was privately rented, and the FOIA response contains a transfer of $100 for room rental.
2. First Amendment rights are nice but public libraries may restrict certain things despite the First Amendment, as proven by US v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).  The law that created that library requires the library "benefit" the people, as shown in the response to my second FOIA request, and gender theory is harmful and thus not allowed in the library, despite the First Amendment, just like in the US v. ALA case where Internet pronography was involved—legal outside the library, just not inside.
3. The library does not stand for First Amendment rights.  Libraries routinely block materials and even people and groups that they view as false or as hate groups.  A number of law suits have gone against the libraries that do this, but it doesn't stop the vast majority.  For example, to this day, positive books about ex-gays or reparative therapy are routinely censored, only the librarians call it "selection," not censorship.  Somehow such books are never selected.  Adherence to the First Amendment is selective and selectively applied.
4. The library is not "apolitical."  First, its own children's librarian Tess Goldwasser coordinated with ALA to provide training to librarians nationwide on how to "sneakily" push ALA's agenda into public libraries.  Second, ALA's top goal, its stated top goal, is so-called "social justice."  That is to be pushed into libraries nationwide, and the library's own Tess Goldwasser is helping to do that.  Third, the "apolitical" language to which the library director refers pertains to how the County Commissioners must by law deal with the library board of trustees, it does not refer to the library itself.  So the library director is misleading here.  This library is extremely political and is partly responsible for "sneakily" pushing things that violate the library law into the library notwithstanding the law.
5. Eager to serve all?  Let me remind everyone of the title of this publication: "Fulfilling FOIA Requests Is 'Disruptive,' Says Public Library Director."

Then there's this statement that's at least eyebrow raising: "Officially, we must remain neutral on the event."  That likely explains a number of things, including the pretty good language below.

The following is pretty good:

Michael Blackwell states to the people who rented the room for the event, 

Your statement that "The undersigned write to advise ... the Library of their obligations..." is ... unwarranted and offensive, especially in light of the attacks that the library and I myself have undergone defending SMASH and PFLAG's use of our meeting room. I have spent quite enough time being taken to task from callers across this county and Canada and being bashed like a Piñata in public meetings and letters to local media simply for standing up for the fair use of our meeting rooms to establish my commitment to Maryland law and the First Amendment, thank you.

Lastly, here is the payment for the room, and it appears PayPal ate some of the library's fees, by the way, but I digress:

Below is the substantive FOIA response including the attached document.

---

Substantive FOIA Response:

FOIA Request - St. Mary's County Library - #01

From: Michael Blackwell Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:44 PM

To: Safe Libraries

Cc: "csmc@stmarysmd.com" , smclboard , Joshua Brewster

Please find attached a PDF with all the documents that are responsive to your FOIA request.

Answering your request has required a comprehensive search of all records and speaking with employees about how reservations and payment were arranged for the use of a meeting room by outside groups on 6/23/2019. It also required speaking with Maryland’s PIO Ombudsman to get an interpretation of if one document was allowable. More than two hours were spent, inclusive of the preparation of documents.

On Page 1, find an email dating 5/28/19 containing, first, a request from a member of SMASH addressed to me, asking me to arrange posting of a flier for an upcoming event, and second, my reply that the flier must be treated like all such requests and brought into the library for consideration by employees. The name of the individual has been redacted in accordance with Maryland law on library records, but it is responsive because the person sending it was representing SMASH. This was the first notice anyone at the library had that there was going to be a drag queen story time.

On Page 2, find an email to me and County Commissioner President Randy Guy, “concerning the decision to partially defund the library.” It had an attachment, which I include later. It is from Geoffrey Blackwell of the American Atheist Legal Center and is responsive because representatives SMASH and Leonardtown PFLAG have co-signed. As I point out in my reply, (appearing on next page), Mr. Blackwell and I are, despite sharing a last name, in no way connected. I had never heard of him until receiving this email.

On Pages 3-4, find my reply to Mr. Blackwell’s email.

On pages 5-9, find the document that was attached to Mr. Blackwell’s email. It was hand-delivered as well as attached in PDF.  Because the two documents were identical, I include only one version here rather than scanning two copies of the same thing. You will find that his ideas on the legality of using library meeting rooms directly contradict your own. He is an attorney and member of the bar. I have had to consider his arguments carefully.

On page 6, find an email I sent to a generic address for Leonardtown PFLAG, explaining that a package intended for them had been mistakenly mailed to the library. Mailing a package to our address was an error on the part of the sender.  We have no affiliation with PFLAG Leonardtown or PFLAG National. I left the package at the Customer Service Desk in Leonardtown Library.  Employees tell me that somebody picked it up. I have no idea what was in it and retain no record of it other than this email.

This finishes the records responding to your request 1 – 3. We move on to 4 -5:  use of and payment for the library meeting room.

On page 7, you will find record of reservation for use of the meeting room on 6/23, made on 3/2/19.  The individual’s name has been redacted. Strictly speaking, this document is not responsive to your request.  You ask for all records related to “Drag Queen Story Hour.” You will see that this reservation makes no mention of that term.  I provide it to save us both time.  I could say I have no record of a reservation made for “Drag Queen Story Hour,” and you would then have to reformulate your request. The room was reserved for a “Special Event.”

Library meeting rooms may be reserved through an online system called Evanced.  This reservation was made though the system.  We have no direct or even email contact with the group making the reservation.  One of our employees reviews the reservation and simply approves the request in the online system.  A form response is then sent through the system, in this case on 3/4/19.  We have no record of these responses, other than what you see here. They do not go through our email system.  On page 8, I have given you the form and you can see roughly what the person making the request would have seen. If you wish to see exactly what was sent, you would have to apply to the group making the reservation. Because the room was originally reserved by a non-profit group and open to the public, no payment was required at the time.

On June 20th, one of our employees received a phone call asking to make payment for the room reservation. The caller was directed to pay online via credit card through our Paypal account. We have no phone or email record of this conversation, but you may see the receipt of the transaction on page 9:  $100 for 4 hours, at our regular rate of $25 per hour.

St Mary’s County Library has only these records that are responsive to your request and no others.



Michael Blackwell
Director, St Mary’s County Library
23250 Hollywood Road
Leonardtown, MD 20650
301-475-2846 x5013
mblackwell@stmalib.org

• 2019 08 08 - Response to FOIA Request - St Marys County Library - 01.pdf 1M

---

—

URL of this page: 
safelibraries.blogspot.com/2019/08/fulfilling-foia-requests-is-disruptive.html


Follow @SafeLibraries

Notice of Possible Legal Action Regarding Meeting Room Policy

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

Greetings.  I’m Dan Kleinman from SafeLibraries® brand library services.  I provide public awareness of crime and sexual harassment in libraries and inappropriate books in schools due to American Library Association policy.

It has come to my attention that you are allowing a “public” meeting to occur that violates your meeting room policy.  I say “public” in quotes because it is not a public meeting.  It is only for a certain portion of the public and specifically excludes another portion.  That violates your meeting room policy and general principles of free speech in public buildings.  https://www.stmalib.org/about-us/library-policies/meeting-room-policy

Using clever wording to get around having to comply with your meeting room policy may be clever in your minds, but it is not legal.  The clever aspect is to ask parents to sign a waiver allowing children to attend a meeting without their parents, but where children will not be admitted without that waiver.  It is an effective bar against parents no matter how cleverly it is done.  "Parents are welcome to wait in the general Library areas, or in the other room we have reserved," says the people promoting the meeting: http://wash.org/sex-ed/ That means parents are not welcome to attend the meeting.  That violates your meeting room policy.

The American Library Association has very good meeting room policy samples and reminds libraries they need to have good meeting room polices and to follow them.  I support the American Library Association in this area.  You have a good meeting room policy.  You do not follow it.

It is on this basis that I will begin to seek legal means to force compliance with your own meeting room policy.  Legal action will be too late to stop you from violating the policy now, but there may be serious consequences for your actions should you continue to violate that policy.

My advice would be to allow parents to attend, making the meeting compliant with your own meeting room policy, or to cancel the illegal meeting and reschedule it to when the meeting policy is being properly applied.  That will obviate any legal action.  Either means is really simply.

No one is saying not to have any particular meeting.  You just have to have meetings in compliance with your own meeting room policy.  If you stray, you may be sued.

I am currently suing another library for violating the state’s open meetings law to pass policy: http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2017/03/sunshine-week.html  Also, I have been sued to silence my exposing homophobia and child porn facilitation by the American Library Association: http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2016/06/bittman-v-fox-dismissed-again.html  The point here is I’m ready, willing, and able to find the means to bring suit if you go ahead with your illegal meeting that violates your own meeting room policy.

Let’s be clear I take no joy in getting involved in this matter, and I am only seeking to have you apply your own policies else sustain consequences for not having done so.  This will be pain of your own doing.  You are violating your own policy.  I’m just the messenger calling you on it.  So please do everyone a favor and either allow everyone to attend the currently scheduled meeting in accordance with your own meeting room policy or cancel it until you find a means to comply with your own meeting room policy.

That the meeting may be a “private” one as defined in your policy doesn’t absolve you of anything.  Your policy states, in bold, because it is obviously so important, “Any use of the room which disturbs library customers or operations is prohibited.”  And, to know if library customers might be “disturbed,” one merely needs to look at your own statements about the meeting when you initially cancelled the meeting the first time it was scheduled.  You said at https://www.stmalib.org/pdfs/pr/LibraryTrusteesPressRelease.pdf “After careful review and unanimous decision, the Library Board and the Library is not moving forward with a program on sex education.  This decision is based on our concern for the polarization of the topic in our community.  We believe that any value to the proposed educational program would be smothered by diverse and divisive positions.”  So the meeting is clearly “disturbing” to patrons, as you yourselves made so clear, thus it is prohibited, in bold type.

My understanding is blocking of parents from attending the meeting is what is most disturbing.  Parents want to be able to discuss the issues that their children are learning, but that will be impossible since they are not allowed to attend.  While that may be acceptable in a school environment or other such venue, this is a public library having a meeting room policy that is being willfully violated by allowing the private party to use a clever means of requiring waivers that in effect block adults from attending, so far as I can tell.

So it’s really simple.  Follow your policy and allow parents to attend the existing meeting or reschedule until the means to follow the policy is employed.  If you do not follow your policy or use a clever means to fool people into thinking you are following your meeting room policy when you are not, that’s when the trouble begins, and it will be trouble of your own making.

I am CC’ing the local government since while libraries enjoy autonomy to act within the law that created them, they do not have autonomy to act outside the law, and if your local government does not stop your ultra vires activities, it too may be liable.

I note, by the way, that the library already appears to have violated the law with respect to meeting room policy.  The April 2017 agenda https://www.stmalib.org/board/Agenda_April17.pdf (NOTE ADDED 23 MAY 2017: link since deleted, see full comment below) says, “Executive Sessions: Meeting Room Policies.”  That violates your state’s open public meetings law; you are required to talk about meeting room policy issues in public, not in executive session.  See http://www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/OpenGov%20Documents/omaChapter4.pdf  Having already violated state law will not help you in any way should legal action be brought against you.

I’m certain you can see what I have said is quite reasonable.

Can you imagine the ruckus you yourselves will cause if parents attempt to enter the “public” meeting then are blocked or even arrested for attempting to do so?  Then even your police department will be drawn in to the resultant mess.

And I urge parents to bring video cameras to the public building and keep the tape running before, during, and after they attempt to enter the “public” meeting.  Tape the whole meeting — it’s a public meeting, why not?

You have a brewing problem on your hands yet a very easy means to address it.

Please let me know what you have decided.

Thank you.

Dan Kleinman
SafeLibraries® brand library services
641 Shunpike Rd #123
Chatham, NJ 07928

—

THE LIBRARY'S FIRST RESPONSE:

Dear Mr. Kleinman,

My name is Michael Blackwell, and I am Director of St. Mary’s County Library.

Thank you for your email.

In response, I am copying Mr. James LaRue, Director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom & Freedom to Read Foundation of the ALA, and Ms. Deborah Caldwell-Stone of the ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Office, with whom we have already been in frequent communication on this matter. I am also copying our State Librarian, Ms. Irene Padilla. I am also copying our attorney, Mr. Joshua Brewster.

In reply, at least for now, I will only provide you some information. Our meeting room policies currently allow private groups to reserve space. You have pointed to the ALA’s guidelines on meetings, which may be found here.  http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/meetingrooms Please note this:  Written policies may include limitations on frequency of use, and whether or not meetings held in library meeting rooms must be open to the public. If state and local laws permit private as well as public sessions of meetings in libraries, libraries may choose to offer both options. The same standard should be applicable to all. Our policies do not state that meeting rooms that have been reserved for private functions must be open for public use. The event you refer to is not a library sponsored meeting. The group that has reserved as a private space is requiring a parental signature to attend the program, not us. Under our policies on private use of the meeting rooms, they would be within their rights to close a space in this way. Any parent attending would have to agree to this restriction ahead of time. This invalidates a statement you have made: Parents want to be able to discuss the issues that their children are learning, but that will be impossible since they are not allowed to attend.  Any parent allowing their child to attend would understand this. Your proposed legal action seems like an effort to allow people unrelated to the teens, who have their parents’ blessing and permission, into the room. With this in mind, I ask that you reconsider your position.

My understanding is that the group reserving the meeting rooms are offering a public forum as well. Concerned citizens, including yourself should you be so inclined, may attend that forum.

Now that you have this information, I hope that we might have a discussion of this matter. I make no further reply for now nor any comment on our future course of action. You may well get a much fuller reply once I have had the opportunity to discuss this situation with Mr. Larue, Ms. Caldwell-Stone, our Trustees, and Mr. Brewster. I add only that the library does not endorse the content of the event this Sunday. We are only interested in the fair use of our meeting rooms.

Respectfully,


Michael Blackwell
Director, St Mary’s County Library

—

MY REPLY:

Dear Director Blackwell,

Thank you for responding.

Thank you for contacting the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom.  On the issue of public library meeting room policy, they are pretty solid.  I'm certain they will advise you correctly and I hope your library acts accordingly.

I appreciate the library board's meeting room policy allows for private events.  But you neglected to address the original issue I raised about the line in bold text being violated and the statements your library already made proving the line in bold text would be violated should the meeting go forward as is.

Regarding the private event offering a public forum as well, that has two problems:

1)  It is false.  Advertising for the private meeting calls it "teens only," as shown in the graphic below, and the site's registration form makes no mention of such a separate event, at least it doesn't to this point in time.

2)  The library board's allowance for a public forum does not address the underlying issue of the violation of its own meeting room policy.  Actually, it evidences an intention to keep the potentially illegal meeting in place using yet another clever means.  This may worsen potential liability.  It is the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson approach to free speech, separate but equal.  Can you image having a private party for an anti-Trump event and having separate rooms for adults and children into which neither may go?  Of course your library policy would not allow for that.  Similarly, your library policy does not allow for any separate but equal fiction already proven false decades ago in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

So your response may have the effort of worsening the cloud of litigation and liability under which the library board and the county government now operates.  You neglected the key issue that violates the policy, and the library board's own statements about that key issue, and you suggested a separate but equal approach would be acceptable to ameliorate any deficiency.  Besides, evidence shows there is no separate but equal event advertised nor planned.

This is good: "You may well get a much fuller reply once I have had the opportunity to discuss this situation with Mr. Larue, Ms. Caldwell-Stone, our Trustees, and Mr. Brewster."  However, if the library chooses to go ahead with the meeting as currently planned in a manner that violates library policy, then speaking with them may be too little, too late.

I appreciate this is a tough and emergent issue for the library, but that is never an excuse for violating the law.

I have made this issue public here:

• "Notice of Possible Legal Action Regarding Meeting Room Policy"
• http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2017/05/notice.html

Good luck in guiding the library board accordingly.

Dan Kleinman

—

THE LIBRARY'S RESPONSE TO MY REPLY:

Mr. Kleinman:

I am legal counsel for the Board of Trustees for the St. Mary's County library system.  I have reviewed your emails to Mr. Blackwell in regards to the reservation of two rooms at the Lexington Park Library on May 21.  Your allegations are completely without merit, and I will not engage in the legal arguments here.  I ask that you refrain from further contact with Mr. Blackwell and direct any further communication to me.

I appreciate your consideration.

Joshua S. Brewster
Attorney at Law

—

MY RESPONSE TO THE LIBRARY'S RESPONSE TO MY REPLY:

Mr. Brewster,

Of course.

Thank you for letting me know.

I urge you to read this book, it may help you considerably when representing the library board:

• SHUT UP! The Bizarre War that One Public Library Waged Against the First Amendment 
• http://readshutup.com/

If I may assist further, please let me know.

Dan Kleinman

—

NOTE ADDED 18 MAY 2017:

I'm in a publication on the issue:

• "Lexington Park Library Planning Extra Security," by Joy Shrum, The BayNet (St Mary's County), 18 May 2017.

By juxtaposition, the publication makes it appear my efforts are in support of those using religious means and flyers to oppose the meeting.

To be clear, I seek to hold the library to its own meeting room policy, especially given the library has violated the Maryland Open Meetings Act.  That violation is itself a violation of §23–405(f)(6), a second violation of the law.  The library has violated at least two state laws and is about to violate its own meeting room policy.  And, as explained below, the BayNet article proves the library board, as represented by the library director, has violated a second library policy.

Of course, it's too early for official determinations of the various violations to have been made, so naturally this is all my opinion, but you can all read the laws and policies yourselves.

The BayNet article also quotes the library director saying flyers cannot be left on cars due to a solicitation policy.  The solicitation is about commercial solicitation and explicitly allows "Non-profit and community organizations, advocacy groups and individuals who wish to distribute flyers, engage in petition drives or advocacy activities...."  Only they "must be approved by the Director at least 2 weeks in advance," which is, as we see in this case, a suppression of free speech.  Those flyers are free speech under the  First Amendment, raising a public and political issue about the library itself, and the library director is complaining about them and saying, "'They cannot do that. It's in violation of our no solicitation policy and we have asked them to stop....'"  So we see, yet again, another violation of another library policy.

It's beginning to become a string of violations.

So the library complains about free speech that it opposes, but doesn't complain when its own free speech meeting room policy is violated or when various state law is violated.

I see.

And notice how the St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Department is being informed by the library director.  That means it is being misinformed.  The library, if it goes ahead with the illegal meeting, will be holding illegal meetings, asking St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Department to provide security, but not advising that the meeting is illegal as currently constituted.

You see, when you break the law, the crimes just keep piling up.  A huge, public relations disaster is rolling downhill and no one's willing to stop it.  If the St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Department enforces an illegal meeting, whether or not it has or has not been misled by the library director, then it too may have cause for legal concern.

Of course it should provide security, but it should not favor an illegal meeting.  Adults should be allowed to attend the meeting, and the St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Department should help enforce their right to do so, as one possible example.

Lastly, "TheBayNet.com has reached out to SafeLibraries for comment on the pending litigation and has not yet heard back."  I am not aware of such an invitation for comment.  A spam filter may have caught it.  I can be reached at 973-610-8296.


NOTE ADDED 19 MAY 2017:

Media reports now include that St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Department will be providing security for the illegal meeting.  It is a "private," non-library illegal meeting.  Library operations are being disturbed just to provide security for this non-library event.

That is a second violation of the library's meeting room policy.  The policy for "non-library functions" prohibits, in bold, "Any use of the room which disturbs ... operations."  The need to hire or arrange for security for a "non-library function" disturbs operations, among other things.  Indeed it is frequently used as the reason to cancel conservative speakers on American campuses.  And this requirement is so serious it is the only substantive line in the policy that is in bold typeface.  It's right there in black and white and bold.

It has been my experience that when libraries start breaking policies and laws, the ball starts rolling down hill from there.  Then a desperate attempt is made to ridicule the whistleblowers so attention is drawn away from the actual violations and liability therefor.  Eventually, the American Library Association will get involved, as it already has in this case, and advise librarians to destroy evidence so none will be uncovered by sunshine law document requests.

The illegal meeting is Sunday.  As originally stated, simply allow parents to attend or otherwise restructure it to comply with the library board's policy.


NOTE ADDED 20 MAY 2017:

"'Library Watchdog' Targets Lexington Park Library" http://www.thebaynet.com/articles/0517/library-watchdog-targets-lexington-park-library.html

I view this as media covering for the library by attacking me.  Right in the title Joy Shrum starts mocking me as a, scare quotes, "library watchdog."

Then, the first sentence is filled with three significant and intentional efforts to attack the whistleblower:

"Dan Kleinman, a self-proclaimed 'library watchdog' recently threatened to sue St. Mary’s County Library over a planned Sex Education class for teens on Sunday, May 21."

Dan Kleinman is correct.

I am not "self-proclaimed 'library watchdog.'"  That was a name given to me by another reporter in another state.  I adopted the name.  But Joy Shrum uses it to ridicule me right off the bat, even right in the title.

I did not threaten to sue the library.  I said I might consider it or others might consider it.  Besides, when ACLU threatens to sue, does media mock them as busy body "watchdogs"?

I did not do what I did "over a planned Sex Education class for teens."  I did it because the library is violating its own policies and its own state laws.  She is playing the guilt by association game.  I never once had a bad word to say about that class's contents nor its teacher nor its sponsor.

So right there in the title and very first sentence is fake news.  That fake news is designed to spin the story so the whistleblower is the bad guy and the poor, put upon library board is angelic and would never break any laws or policies.

Okay, I'll start reading the rest of the obvious hit piece now.

And the issue for you and your community is significant.  Who cares she wrote a hit piece on me, I get that all the time and American Library Association was even involved in a federal lawsuit to silence me about its homophobia and child pronography facilitation.  I was dismissed out twice and ALA could not censor me.  These hit pieces don't bother me in the slightest.  I am so not intimidated by child pronography facilitators and their supporters.

But from your community's perspective, you have media actively working to provide air cover for the library board's lawlessness and possibly your county government allowing the lawlessness to proceed.

I see the rest of the article now.  It's Joy Shrum and Bay Net acting as the advocate for the library board, presenting my legitimate arguments and having the library director slough them off.  There's no serious consideration of the issues raised.

Your media are working against you.  Nice, huh?

And she doesn't even link to my publication like she did last time, before she starting spinning fake news for the library board.  That's exactly what ALA does to prevent people from seeing what I say, unfiltered by the bias.

Am I being harsh on her and Bay Net?  Perhaps, but this particular article of hers will, in my opinion, harm your community by misleading them about the facts and the laws and policies being broken by the library board and possibly the county government.

You've got a big problem down there, and now it has expanded to your media.


SETTLEMENT OFFER ADDED 22 MAY 2017:

Here is my library settlement offer, made in response to someone's question:

SETTLEMENT OFFER TO @STMARYSCOGOV #LIBRARY:https://t.co/pqjb8NESzS@LarryHogan @BrianFrosh @USAO_MD @MDLibraryAssoc @ALALibrary @OIF

— Dan Kleinman (@SafeLibraries) May 23, 2017

Well, it depends on what you mean.

If you mean the "private" meeting, then multiple library policies were violated in multiple ways, and if so, illegal would mean not in accordance with existing policy -- I'm not sure if a library board violating its own policies is illegal per se or if some other term applies.

If you mean the open public meeting of the library board in April where the meeting room policy was discussed per agenda in the executive session and not in open session, then that would violate Maryland state law.

Having said that, the illegal meeting of the executive session -- the 1st meeting -- preceded the illegal "private" meeting -- the 2nd meeting --. Indeed, how to handle the 2nd meeting was likely discussed at the 1st meeting. The 2nd meeting is the fruit of the 1st meeting. The 1st meeting was illegal. The 2nd meeting violated library policy but was held per the illegal 1st meeting. It is fruit of the poisonous tree. It too is illegal.

Were the library interested in avoiding what's about to ensue as a result of the library board's lawlessness, it should announce that it will discuss at an open meeting exactly what it discussed in the executive session in April, and provide the recording of that executive session to prove it has done so, or, even more easily, simply make public the recording of that illegal executive session meeting.

That's how easy it would be to make this all go away. Everything else that happened after that is the fruit of the poisonous tree. So if the library board reverses its initial illegal action, legal liability and the ensuing consequences melt away just like that.

Of course all this is all my opinion. I am not a practicing attorney. I am not providing legal advice.
But the law is the law, I can read it as well as you, and being a library or a librarian does not provide exemption from the law.

The library board and director has been counseled by the American Library Association that I am a really terrible person and that they should not give an inch, else I would become even more of a terrible person. Your library board, so far, is following ALA misguidance to a tee, so far. ALA is even part of the library's mission:

https://www.stmalib.org/about-us/library-policies/materials-selection-policy/

Notice there it says, "A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of ... age...." Yet that is EXACTLY what occurred here, and likely exactly what was discussed at the 1st meeting in violation of the Maryland Open Meetings Act.

I hope you can help your library board to get over its obsequiousness to ALA. ALA will not pay one iota for the mountain of taxpayer money ALA causes communities to expend with bad advice trying to protect its own policies as applied locally. A library in Illinois, for example, ran up a bill of over half a million dollars to follow ALA advice to defend against child pornography whistleblowers. The library eventually lost before the courts and the Attorney General, but taxes were raised on the citizens to pay for the effects of the bad advice from the ALA.

Sometimes that bad advice is actually illegal advice. ALA, for example, the very same person Michael Blackwell says he consulted for help, wrote to librarians telling them to destroy evidence precisely to keep people from obtaining public documents under that state's open records act. This is the person advising your library board and library director:

https://storify.com/SafeLibraries/american-library-association-orders-public-librari

So your library board will not bend. It will continue on with the illegality, goaded on by ALA, so ALA is happy I don't get a feather in my cap.

I'm not looking for a feather in my cap. The library board is violating the law and I just exposed the lawlessness.

If you or someone convinces the library board to release the video recording of the illegal April executive session and show it to the public, your library board will have righted its wrong, and I will withdraw all my concerns over the illegality of that 1st meeting and the subsequent fruit of the poisonous tree.


NOTE ADDED 23 MAY 2017:

I have uncovered what appears to be destruction of evidence, though it could be just a coincidence.  The April 2017 Meeting Agenda has been removed from the library's web site.  That's the page I linked in my original Notice to the library about the potential for having violated the Maryland Open Meetings Act since it listed "Executive Sessions: Meeting Room Policies."

The web page housing the agenda and the minutes now has no agenda listed:

Library deleted the link to the April Agenda that proved a violation of MD OMA.

The link to the agenda I provided in my initial Notice to the library, shown above and in the graphic below, now gives the 404 page not found error, shown below:

Library deleted the April Agenda that proved a violation of MD OMA.

Does anyone have a copy of that April 2017 agenda from before it was deleted?  I hope the library is not starting to destroy evidence, something the American Library Association advises libraries to do.


NOTE ADDED 29 MAY 2017:

I struck out the above note added 23 May 2017 since I received a satisfactory answer from the library director.

For those interested, the St. Mary's County Library Board of Library Trustees Meeting April 2017 Agenda can be found here:

• http://tinyurl.com/April2017Agenda

NOTE ADDED 30 MAY 2017:

The St. Mary's County Library Board of Library Trustees Meeting April 2017 Minutes have been published.  That contains the following: "There was a short discussion on the upcoming SMASH Sex Ed program and our Meeting Room Policies that allow this even."  Look:

That further cements the violation of the MD OMA law.  It seems clear to me the library board had something to hide and illegally used an executive session to hide it.


—

URL of this page:
safelibraries.blogspot.com/2017/05/notice.html

Follow @SafeLibraries