Well, Since Jed is Having Flashbacks…  |   Home  |   Sittin’ In a Tree

Library Board Update

I reported yesterday that the West Bend Library Board planned to meet today in an emergency meeting to discuss hiring outside council. I publicized the meeting and posted a letter from the City Attorney detailing why this was a bad idea.  

Well, they met, and it was apparently interesting.  I could not attend the meeting.  I had prior plans and the excessively short notice prevented any juggling of schedules.  Ginny, OTOH, attended and has a report on the meeting. 

Apparently, I was quite the villain. 

Furthermore, Deters was quite upset that “someone” had given out the city attorney’s letter (see prior post) and it was posted on Boots and Sabers by 9 p.m. last evening. She said that it appeared the city was being run by bloggers and whoever leaked the information from the city attorney to Boots and Sabers was both “unprofessional” and that it was inappropriate, and that those involved “did not have the best interests of the city in mind.” She called the city attorney to clue her in to the blog post. Deters said that the city attorney told her that letter was “attorney/client privilege” and was not an open record to be shared. She glanced around the table, but nobody fessed up.

First off, the letter I posted was certainly subject to open records.  The Library Board seems to be having issues with these laws.  The laws are pretty clear and if it’s not a personnel issue, it’s open.  Either Deters is lying or the City Attorney is way off base. 

Second, let’s review the events… The Library Board schedules an emergency meeting on Tuesday to be held Thursday.  A local blogger (um… me) publicizes the meeting and its agenda.  Deters is upset?  If everything is above board, why would Deters object to the public being informed so they can attend?  If they can discuss the issue of hiring an outside attorney in open forum, then why was it inappropriate to discuss the City Attorney’s advice on this blog? 

Clearly, Deters wanted to ram this through with as little notice as possible.  Unfortunately for her, there are citizens in West Bend who give a damn and happen to have a forum to publicize her nonsense. 

In the end, they board voted unanimously to spend money to speak with another attorney.

The attorney fee, Deters said, was probably about $250 per hour. She stated “I will go and meet with him alone” to gather the information she desired, and would bring it back to the next board meeting. This would be a one-time meeting, with no future plans to obtain counsel from Atty. Feind. The funds would come out of ENDOWMENTS, not library funding, which Deters felt was appropriate for this matter.

Atty. Aynesworth suggested Deters contact the DOJ for the information she was seeking. Deters responded that she did not wish to wait that long as she was sure they would not be a “priority” on the DOJ’s list of things to do. She wanted an answer “now.”

I imagine that the people who funded that endowment thought it would be spent to share books and knowledge with the library’s patrons - not pay for legal advice that has already been given by the City Attorney and could be validated for free elsewhere.

This Library Board is seriously out of control and Deters is behaving like a nut. 

Where is the Mayor?  She appointed and vouched for these folks.  What does she think of their overt desire to ignore the citizens and waste money intended for making the library better?

UPDATE: Here’s the Daily News’ story on the meeting.

Posted by Owen at 2318 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

1. Just to be first…

   :zpopcorn:

   and

   :zzdeadhorse:

   Posted by Owen on June 18, 2009 at 2343 hrs
   
   
   

2. Hey, we got people like that in Milwaukee County too!

   Posted by capper on June 19, 2009 at 0000 hrs
   
   
   

3. I was first   I’ve been sitting on a chair eating popcorn for 2 hours since you posted more to come. 

   Sounds like you need a new mayor as well as some grown ups on your library board.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 0024 hrs
   
   
   

4. So are you saying you got that letter by filing an Open Records Request?
   If not, a letter between a city attorney and board members and no one else sounds like attorney-client privilege to me. I could be wrong, but it sounds like one of those clients decided to release that privilege.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 0048 hrs
   
   
   

5. First, this whole situation is stupid.  Everything about it, and nearly all of the actors.  Dumb dumb dumb.

   Second, you are incorrect to imply that attorney-client privilege is not a legal rationale for refusing to disclose documents.  This issue was addressed in GPS Inc. v. Town of St. Germain, which dates back to 2003.  The Court of Appeals ruled that attorney-client privilege was sufficient to protect documents from release.  The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the ruling in 2004 on a split decision.

   That said, I’m not certain that this particular document is privileged since the attorney is not addressing a legal matter, and certainly one cannot argue that an agenda item that has been publicly noticed can be privileged in and of itself.  However, the individual who leaked the letter best be careful with correspondence from the city attorney.  It isn’t the prerogative of an individual to potentially waive attorney-client privilege on behalf of the board.  That’s a matter to be addressed by the board as a whole, probably in closed session.

   In regard to email addresses, it should be a no-brainer that people serving on city boards be issued email addresses by the city.  And then the city attorney should walk them through the appropriate use of those accounts and how to use them in such a way that they aren’t violating the open meetings law by engaging in a rolling quorum.  Handing out some email aliases is virtually free.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on June 19, 2009 at 0230 hrs
   
   
   

6. Since having library board business conducted on personal email is offensive to the board members because of the ORR, then how about they do this to solve their problem:

   Open a gmail or yahoo or ? account and strictly use THAT for library board business.  There.  Done.

   Posted by GAMazy on June 19, 2009 at 0647 hrs
   
   
   

7. Belling spoke about this yesterday as well. I agreed with his comments. The Library Board is out of control and any self respecting mayor would yank their leash - hard. The fact that the mayor allows this to go on is very telling.

   This is a freaking library board - not the US Senate.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 0724 hrs
   
   
   

8. In her blog, Ginny indicates the “gang at Boots & Sabers” suggests a mayoral recall and links to this post.  I see one comment of the 7 before mine that mentions this.

   Where is the supposed “gang”? And Owen, are you calling for a recall?

   Posted by Maria Hanrahan on June 19, 2009 at 0748 hrs
   
   
   

9. The client privs thing blows my mind. If a village, city, or any other org wanted to do something under the table all they would have to do is hire an attorney and pass everything through them. If I were a lawyer, that could be an outstanding side job. I would just recieve all emails, mailings, and be present on phone conversations and then when the silly public comes asking all the employee would have to say is that it was a private discussion between the lawyer and the client and not subject to open records.

   Posted by fishaddict on June 19, 2009 at 0750 hrs
   
   
   

10. No, I’m not calling for a recall.  I think that Mayor Deiss needs to go during the next election, but I thought that well before this issue popped up.

    Posted by Owen on June 19, 2009 at 0752 hrs
    
    
    

11. I’m not sure the Mayor is responsible for this.  The American Library Association directs how library board members should view various issues, and it’s up to the board members to decide whether what the ALA said is worthy or not.  The ALA even trains attorneys on how to promote the ALA agenda in local communities.  The ALA, for example, describes how to drag out challenges so they will be dropped just by people getting tired of the long, drawn out battle.  Sound familiar?  I do not see how the Mayor is responsible for this.  Please explain.

    I do see something though.  If it is determined that the library board members have acted in an illegal fashion, the Mayor should take action to correct that.  That determination may be close, but it has not yet been made, so far as I know.  The Mayor’s actions in response to a finding of illegality will be revealing, one way or another.

    In any case, it seems clear to me that the library board members have brought this all on themselves by failing to act in the first place.  They could have simply denied Ginny’s request and been done with it. 

    All efforts to make Ginny look like the heavy or claim the CCLU makes West Bend look bad are mere attempts to divert from the library board’s own actions and omissions, and now its potentially illegal actions.  What is worse, the CCLU reacting to mismanagement (even though in a silly fashion) or the mismanagement in the first place?

    Posted by Dan Kleinman on June 19, 2009 at 0827 hrs
    
    
    

12. I’ll just do this:

    :zzdeadhorse:

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 0847 hrs
    
    
    

13. Dan,

    I have to respectfully disagree in a couple areas:

    - If the Library Board had initally denied the request, I highly doubt that would have been the end of it.

    - The ALA may ‘direct’ libraries on issues, but there is no requirement for the West Bend Library Board to follow any procedure from the ALA. 

    - The mayor is absolutely responsible to answer to the voters in my mind.  I believe she should have quietly (or otherwise) told the Library Board to move the books and this would have gone no further.  I highly doubt moving the books would have drawn the kind of attention currently being drawn.  In fact, she could end this quite quickly by this action yet today.

    Overall, I fully support the actions of Ginny and her group.  There is no hiding that there is no one willing to really stand up for these materials, i.e. openly read and discuss these materials with kids.  The defenders of the location of these books consistently back down when confronted with the language.  I also feel that our community is better to decide which books are where in the library as opposed to some Federal Judge.

    Has there been any talk of a city referendum to move the books?  Let’s get really crazy here…

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 0857 hrs
    
    
    

14. The library board did start off on the wrong foot, first by dragging their feet and second by stone-walling.  By dragging it out they hoped it would just go away.  Perhaps if they handled this in a more professional manner in the beginning things may be different.

    With all this talk about free speech and censorship I again find it funny that they are blaming the “bloggers”.

    It would be interesting to see where the Mayor stands on this issue concerning open records and private e-mail.  If the library board, who are volunteers for a public library use their personal e-mail addresses for public business and that’s their standard means of operation, does that not mean they are using that for “work” and would fall under open records?  Just asking.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 0911 hrs
    
    
    

15. “A record is any material on which written, drawn, printed, spoken, visual or electromagnetic information is recorded or preserved, regardless of physical form or characteristics, which has been created or is being kept by an authority in connection with official purpose or function of the agency. A record includes handwritten, typed or printed documents; maps and charts; photographs, films and tape recordings; computer tapes and printouts, CDs and optical discs; and electronic records and communications.”

    http://apps.commerce.wi.gov/OpenRecords/OpenRecordFAQ.html

    It doesn’t matter if they use their own computer.  If the record is about the public’s business, then the person is responsible to keep the record and make it available upon request.

    Posted by Owen on June 19, 2009 at 0923 hrs
    
    
    

16. “I see one comment of the 7 before mine that mentions this.”

    My comment has to the the one….and I just said you need a new Mayor, not that you need a recall.  Once can not infer one from the other.  Not a big recall fan, but the mayor you guys have is a clown. 

    “I’m not sure the Mayor is responsible for this.”

    I believe the mayor appointed the circus that is your library board.  If that is the case, the mayor bears responsibility for their actions.  And even if the mayor didn’t appoint these clowns (perhaps she inherited them), she certainly could grow a spine and put them back in their place.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 0937 hrs
    
    
    

17. BTW, I did rant a little about the whole private email issue a while back in a column.

    On a side note, it is ridiculous that the Aldermen use their personal email accounts for constituent contacts.  Those are public records, yet they reside on personal computers.  We don’t know if they are being archived or even just deleted by accident.  For example, there were a few emails that were sent to all of the Aldermen.  When responding to my open records request, not a single one of these batch emails was returned by all eight Aldermen.  This indicates that public records are not being properly preserved.  The City of West Bend should issue city email addresses to Aldermen for constituent communications where the city can control and preserve those public records.

    http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/latest_wb_daily_news_column/

    Posted by Owen on June 19, 2009 at 0943 hrs
    
    
    

18. Wow!  Two years ago and nothing was done!  This story is only looking worse and worse for the library board.

    Posted by Dan Kleinman on June 19, 2009 at 0946 hrs
    
    
    

19. Actually, I was ranting about the Aldermen at the time.  Since then, they all have city email addresses except for one (Vrana).  I assume that the city is keeping those emails stored somewhere, but I admit that I haven’t had occasion to look into it again.

    Posted by Owen on June 19, 2009 at 0951 hrs
    
    
    

20. Open a gmail or yahoo or ? account and strictly use THAT for library board business.  There.  Done.

    Or how about they purchase disposable cell phones and communicate that way?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 1004 hrs
    
    
    

21. Good grief.

    I am a librarian, originally from West Bend.  My family still lives there.  I’ve been reading about this miasma from the beginning, and the situation seems to be going from bad to worse. 

    What on earth is going on there???

    As a former public library director, I can’t even imagine what the director is thinking in all this. [ By the way, I’ve looked on the website and find no listing of any staff or board members.  If someone did want to contact the library director, it should be easy and transparent. ]  The library director is supposed to be informing the Board.  This group is completely running amok.

    There are pretty strict public meeting laws for board meetings - and library boards must follow those guidelines.  One of them is that meeting notices must be posted in a timely manner, with enough time for the public to respond.  It sounds like Owen was providing the only public notice in this instance.  Shame on the board for playing these games….and shame on the director for not informing the board of those “rules” and rather insisting they be followed.  [That being said, I don’t envy the director for having to deal with this bunch.  Sheesh, what a nightmare.]

    As for the controversy, there will always be items in a public library that are controversial.  THAT’S WHY IT’S A PUBLIC LIBRARY.  If there were only items that appealed to ME, it would be the Mary Beth Library.  Additionally, the librarians do not act in loco parentis, unlike in a school.  If you don’t want your kids reading something, it’s your duty to enforce that, not the library’s.

    Frankly, this is getting to be beyond embarrassing.  Can’t someone snap these people into behaving?

    Posted by Mary Beth Sancomb-Moran on June 19, 2009 at 1004 hrs
    
    
    

22. A few points:

    1. Presumably in response to Maria calling her out above, Ginny (slightly) changed her blog post, stating that now “some” here are calling for a recall, and not a “gang.” Of course, I don’t see anyone calling for that here, so she’s still in error. More here.

    2. The board members should indeed be given city e-mail addresses, will, as noted above, cost the city nothing. Using GMail or Yahoo is not a good idea, as the city cannot control those services, nor ensure that e-mail is properly archived for possible open records requests.

    3. If the books had been moved right away there would be just as much, if not more, attention drawn than currently. Moving the books would almost certainly encourage a lawsuit against the city (and not the silly CCLU kind).

    Posted by Concerned West Bend Citizen on June 19, 2009 at 1233 hrs
    
    
    

23. Concerned WB wrote - “Moving the books would almost certainly encourage a lawsuit against the city (and not the silly CCLU kind). “

    WB does not allow adult book stores and should not allow adult books in a childrens section at the library.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 1251 hrs
    
    
    

24. If the record is about the public’s business, then the person is responsible to keep the record and make it available upon request.

    You might want to let Terry Vrana know about this. When I asked him about records of his conversations with constituents he said that he’s not obligated to keep track of those things.

    Posted by Limor on June 19, 2009 at 1510 hrs
    
    
    

25. Limor;

    A conversation is not a written or recorded record (is recorded record a redundant redundancy?), unless the public offical made notes of the meeting, and then only the notes are subject to ORR. So, Vrana is NOT obligated to make notes of conversations with constituents or anyone else, but if he does, they very well may be subject to disclosure.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 1552 hrs
    
    
    

26. I heard Mark Belling speaking of this topic today and it seems as if he has filed for open records at a number of levels, including the Mayor.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 1608 hrs
    
    
    

27. “it seems clear to me that the library board members have brought this all on themselves by failing to act in the first place.” - Dan Kleinman
    “The library board did start off on the wrong foot, first by dragging their feet and second by stone-walling.” - Kelly

    Ginny’s lib issue(s) took time to be addressed as Ginny changed her complaint 3X and the lib council was “stone-walling” on the advice of the city attorney.  Whatever side your on, these two get 49% of the blame.

    “adult books” - anon Go call the cops, after they tell you what to do, go file complaints against specific titles w/o calling all the attention to yourself like some (trouble-makers) do.

    1) I hope someone is taking all this down factually so future generations can read about this.  2) I’m waiting for someone to perform an open-records request on Vrana and the rest of the “They’re stonewalling” city council regarding the library board issue.  Oh wait, Vrana says, “he’s not obligated to keep track of those things.”  He’s above everyone else because he agrees with the right people and the right people have said he is of the morally-superior type (plus he does not nor has he ever had a library card like the people who made it past the initital selection process for the voluntary lib board.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 1748 hrs
    
    
    

28. Well, ya know, Bob, if a board member chooses not to use email, such as Tom Fitz, then is he expected to write down each and every time he talks to someone in the community, and note what they talked about?  If so, then I need to see where Fitz recorded our phone conversation, as that was the first thing I did regarding the library issue.  I rather doubt there are notes on what he or I said, don’t you?

    I must agree with you, though, on the comment regarding future generations.  Let them see that the community standards are worth fighting for.

    Posted by GAMazy on June 19, 2009 at 1756 hrs
    
    
    

29. I’m waiting for someone to perform an open-records request on Vrana and the rest of the “They’re stonewalling” city council regarding the library board issue.  Oh wait, Vrana says, “he’s not obligated to keep track of those things.”  He’s above everyone else because he agrees with the right people and the right people have said he is of the morally-superior type (plus he does not nor has he ever had a library card like the people who made it past the initital selection process for the voluntary lib board.

    Hm.. Not a bad idea Bob, not a bad idea…. Interesting indeed…..

    Respectfully,
    Kristina

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 2043 hrs
    
    
    

30. People just don’t listen. They believe what they want to believe. For example, at the City Council meeting where the foru members were not renewed, and the Library Board was accused of foot-dragging, the Library Board had never ever voted or requested an adjournment or delay of anything. At both instances of delay, it was the city attorney who ordered that the meetings be adjourned or not held. Is the Library Board to be pilloried for following the advice of counsel? And when that advice buys them nothing but grief, abuse, and invasion of privacy, are they not justified in questioning that advice. When the City Attorney seems to have a conflict of interest to her loyalty to the City Council (who probably could have her replaced) and the Library Board (who has no authority whatsoever over the City Attorney) is it not normal to seek another opinion?
        But here is the main thrust of this entire brouhaha that is driving me crazy. What does Ginny Maziarka means in her petition when she uses the term “obscene” or “child Pornography” or “(c) appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion; (d) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals;”
        She is not referring to the definition in the Wisconsin Statutes. The definitions are legal and are contained in the Statutes and she deliberately misrepresents them. She LIES by telling a half-truth. The law says that to be found obscene a material has to be “taken as a whole.’ The Statute re: obscenity uses that term FOUR times. When short quotes are used instead of considering the material as a whole—the statute is violated. It is not proper to judge a book that way in the public domain. Not if you use the word “obscene.” Also, any book that has “serious literary, artistic, political, educational or
    scientific value, if taken as a whole.” is by definition NOT obscene And “child pornography” is another thing altogether. No many how many times she is told that child pornography may only refer to pictures or videos of real children engaging in illicit behavior—Ginny still accuses the library of containing such materials. She distorts and mistates the law every time she mentions the word obscene. Her lack of explanation of the use of this term is conclusive proof of either profound and blind ignorance or vicious malice. Her lack of response to this basic question puts in doubt every single signature on her petition because—what are the signers to understand what she meant by those terms? She—and you—and everyone else can’t make up their own definition for public use. You can use your own definition of anything to choose what you are to read—but that does not allow you to tell anyone else what they can or cannot read. There is not one book in the West bend Public Library that can be categorized as obscene, child pornography, or harmful to children. And because that is the law, I will debate that issue with anyone (if they are a lawyer) anytime, anywhere. Hey, Jed, you’re a lawyer. Care to defend Ms. Maziarka’s legal position?
        Moving books? Is that all she wants? Not at all. The one book she uses the most excerpts from in her presentations is a book called “Deal With It.” It IS shelved in the adult section and always has been since the book was in the Library. Ginny ignores the truth. All books in that category, Young Adult Non-fiction have been shelved in the adult section for 40 years. Yes, since 1969. Ginny and the rest of you people have been told the truth time and time again and it doesn’t sink in.
      Moving books not censorship? WRONG. Three people on June 2 spoke of the case of Sund v. City of Wichita Falls. The federal court there found that moving two books because of their content from the children’s section to the adult section was unconstitutional, was against the First Amendment—and the books could NOT be moved. Three times—and you still don’t get it.  For people who claim to be loyal Americans, you refuse to know the law, you refuse to state it correctly, you intentionally misrepresent it (that’s called lying) and you don’t understand it No matter how many times you are told. And in the end, you don’t like the law, don’t respect the law, and I’m not so sure that you seemed inclined to obey it.
      Ginny has been given opportunity after opportunity to challenge books in the fashion that is correct by the Supreme Court standard, the First Amendment standard, Wisconsin Statutes standard, Wisconsin caase law standards, or even the process offered by the West Bend Library procedures. . That is, considering the books as a whole rather than by quotes, and questioning whether they have serious merit. She hasn’t done so. She can’t. She hasn’t yet found an extremist web site with the answers. And she won’t either.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 2240 hrs
    
    
    

31. Bob,

    I see that you chose to spew more drivel instead of defending your previous drivel.

    Telling…

    Posted by Owen on June 19, 2009 at 2244 hrs
    
    
    

32. Sund v. City of Wichita Falls is not the issue here. 

    In Sund, the books were 1S) removed 2S) under some law.  In West Bend, the books will 1WB) not be removed, and 2WB) the library will move them, not some law. 

    In Sund, the books had 3S) zero inappropriate material and 4S) covered homosexual topics.  In West Bend, the books 3WB) are so filled with inappropriate material for children that they cannot be published in the media or spoken on radio and tv broadcasts.  Further, 4WB) homosexuality has nothing to do with the issues on the table in West Bend. 

    There are other significant differences.  Sund may state what Bob says it states, but Bob does not reveal that it is inapplicable to the West Bend matter.

    Sund v. City of Wichita Falls does not apply to the West Bend matter at hand.  Any one can read the case and see the clear differences.  I have no idea why people like Bob attempt to mislead people as they do—I guess they hope people haven’t or won’t read or understand the case for themselves.

    Posted by Dan Kleinman on June 19, 2009 at 2255 hrs
    
    
    

33. Hey, Jed, you’re a lawyer. Care to defend Ms. Maziarka’s legal position?

    I haven’t seen the books, so I can’t opine on which position is correct.  I can offer this, however…

    It doesn’t take much to get to “obscene,” and Sund is easily distinguishable.  Any reliance on it is misplaced.

    Posted by Jed on June 20, 2009 at 0529 hrs
    
    
    

34. What people seem to forget is that Ginny is a regular ordinary tax paying citizen and mother who wishes to move obscene materials out of the childrens section. She doesn’t have a free attorney or Mayor to back her up.

    The library and the board has an attorney on their side.  So if Ginny makes a error…that’s pretty human and normal for an average citizen.  There are plenty of people who would have not taken on this role simple because of its enormus and complex issues. 

    So, I’m more apt to cut Ginny some slack as opposed to the library, YA Zone librarian. the library board and Mayor who have a FREE attorney.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2009 at 0827 hrs
    
    
    

35. Right on, Kelly.  Over and over again we hear legal means to protect children should not be used because Ginny misworded her reconsideration request.  So what?  Does a misworded complaint mean the complaint is totally without merit?  The library board has the help of the ALA/ACLU and the ALA has 40 decades of honing the message that children should decide for themselves if inappropriate material is inappropriate for them.  Right.  Yet Ginny is supposed to be the perfect wordsmith.  Right.

    Posted by Dan Kleinman on June 20, 2009 at 0841 hrs
    
    
    

36. Owen, I intially agreed with you that obtaining outside counsel would be a waste of money.  I’ve reconsidered my position because the City Attorney’s disclsoures of the letter, in my opinion, poses a significant violation of his ethical duties. 

    Let me explain:

    You note,

    “First off, the letter I posted was certainly subject to open records. “

    I disagree.  The City attorney’s letter is a privileged communication. I don’t blame you for posting the letter as it is not your duty to keep the information confidential—it’s the Attorney’s duty.    But to clarify, an open records request does not permit the disclosure of a privileged communication.  Wisconsin Newspress, Inc. v. School Dist. of Sheboygan Falls, 199 Wis.2d 768, 546 N.W.2d 143 (1996). 

    In Wisconsin Newspress, the Court noted:

    Our review of the attorney letter shows that the District is correct. Although the Newspapers only seek the disclosure of a portion of the letter, the release of such portion of the attorney letter would reveal information protected by the attorney-client privilege

    . 

    Owen, you then pose the following queation:

    If they can discuss the issue of hiring an outside attorney in open forum, then why was it inappropriate to discuss the City Attorney’s advice on this blog?

    The short answer is that the City’s attorney violated the ethical rules for professional conduct by leaking the letter. Per Supreme Court Rule 20.1.6:

    (a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the Client gives informed consent . . . .”

    The City attorney’s letter acknowledges an existing client relationship (although similar rules of confidentiality would also exist for prospective clients per SCR 20:1.18(b).  The letter states:
    

    As the City Attorney, I have provided legal counsel to the Library Board in the past and can continue to provide legal counsel in the future

    .

    The letter also gives legal advice:

    “

    Please remember that Library Board members cannot discuss Library Board business with other Board members except in a properly noticed meeting of the Library Board

    . ”

    Further:

    “It is for your own protection that I encourage you to refrain from talking to each other or emailing each other regarding issues that may come before the Library Board

    .”

    The Disclosure of an Attorney’s communications to a client can be a fairly serious violation and could subject the City’s Attorney to penalties.  See e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against O’Neil 2003, WI 48, 261 Wis. 2d 404, 661 N.W.2d 813 (ordering public reprimand and fines).

    In sum, the Library board would be well served by avoiding being represented by attorneys that violate their duties of professional conduct

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2009 at 1503 hrs
    
    
    

37. Super Id,

    Where did you get the impression that the City Attorney disclosed the letter to Owen?  AFAIK, Owen hasn’t stated anywhere how he came about that information.  And FWIW, I don’t know who leaked the letter…

    Based on the information that’s been made public at this point, the City Attorney hasn’t violated any of her duties of professional conduct.

    Posted by Jed on June 20, 2009 at 1521 hrs
    
    
    

38. It was my impression that the City Attorney was Owen’s source from reading his post.  And my comments were made based on that assumption.  I do, however, acknowledge that is an assumption and you’re right we don’t know who leaked the letter.  At a minimum it requires an investigation.  Perhaps Owen would be willing to disclose his source to exonerate the City Attorney from a potential ethics violation.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2009 at 1538 hrs
    
    
    

39. Perhaps Owen would be willing to disclose his source to exonerate the City Attorney from a potential ethics violation.

    Nice try, but I seriously doubt it. 

    I’d be willing to bet it wasn’t the City Attorney, and any allegation of an ethics violation would be pretty frivolous.

    Posted by Jed on June 20, 2009 at 1543 hrs
    
    
    

40. Jed,  I’m willing to give the City’s attorney the benefit of the doubt but the disclosure raises some red flags, which merit investigation.

    Dan Kleinman, your attempt to distinguish Sund is amusing, but rather uncompelling.  It is amusing watching the back tracking:

    Exhibit A.

    Further, 4WB) homosexuality has nothing to do with the issues on the table in West Bend.

    Exhibit B
    The Journal Sentinal reported:

    The petition also asks the Library Board to balance its collection of books about homosexuality with books “affirming traditional heterosexual perspectives” that are faith-based or written by “ex-gay” authors.

    So Danny boy, why are you trying to lie to us?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2009 at 1615 hrs
    
    
    

41. Super Id,

    Any reliance on Sund is wholly misplaced.  From a legal perspective, Sund is very easily distinguishable from the present issue.

    Posted by Jed on June 20, 2009 at 1632 hrs
    
    
    

42. Jed

    “Any reliance on Sund is wholly misplaced. From a legal perspective, Sund is very easily distinguishable from the present issue.”

    That’s a bit too conclusory for my taste.  So humor me and take a shot at distinguishing it.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2009 at 1649 hrs
    
    
    

43. It is all water under the bridge. Once the Library Board disclosed their intention to pursue other legal counsel the rest of the story would have been figured out.

    Leave it to a lawyer to not see the forest for the trees.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2009 at 1742 hrs
    
    
    

44. Wichita Falls ran into two constitutional problems in Sund:

    (1) Impermissible content-based restrictions
    (2) Lack of Procedural Due Process

    The content-based restriction applied when a book was determined by any 300 patrons to be “most appropriately read with parental approval and/or supervision.”

    In striking this down, the court was clear that some content-based restriction is constitutional.  “[S]tates may regulate children’s access.. where the restricted materials meet the stringent test for obscenity as to children, or ‘harmful to minors.’”

    To do so, however, there must be a process which meets basic Procedural Due Process requirements.  In Sund there wasn’t, because the determination had been abrogated from the governmental body to any 300 private patrons, and there were no provisions for review or appeal.

    Based on what has been made public about the West Bend issue, it is easily distinguishable from Sund.  Had the Board made a determination that the materials were “obscene as to children” of “harmful to minors” (as defined by case law), they could constitutionally impose a content-based restriction.

    Furthermore, the fact that the Board is a governmental body holding open hearings on the matter prior to a decision would have satisfied the Procedural Due Process requirements.

    In summary, Sund held that moving the library books was unconstitutional, but only as applied to the specific facts of that case, which are very different from the facts of this matter.

    Posted by Jed on June 20, 2009 at 1811 hrs
    
    
    

45. Super Id,

    Jed is right.  I never disclosed my source and won’t.  That document passed through a lot of hands.

    Posted by Owen on June 20, 2009 at 1813 hrs
    
    
    

46. Insert ‘Deep Throat’ joke here.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2009 at 1831 hrs
    
    
    

47. Super Id, I did not lie, as you claim.  A newspaper report does not make something true.  All LGBT issues have been dropped in this case long ago.  The one case where balance is requested is being brought under existing law requiring balance.  People are allowed to request relief under existing laws, are they not?

    And your effort to force disclosure of certain information was very clever.  But people saw through that too.

    I think you owe an apology to the city attorney.

    Posted by Dan Kleinman on June 20, 2009 at 2040 hrs
    
    
    

48. Dan, Dan, Dan,
      Folks, readers please remember that Dan Kleinman is the sole obsessed delusional person behind “Safe Libraries”  site. He is delusionally obsessed with the ALA. I believe his list of objectionable books has over 1000 titles on it. His paranoid delusion is that the American Library Association controls and dictates what very library in the nation does. He does not have a law degree. I do. Dan, you lied when you said the books in Sund were removed. The books in Sund were only moved from the Children’s section to the adult section. And yet even that MOVING was found unconstitutional. Ginny claims she doesn’t want books removed—only moved. How many times must she—and you be told that moving is unconsitutional before you get it.
      Note to Jed, his distinguishing of Sund is off base. None of the material in the West Bend Library fits the definition of “harmful to children” as used in Wis. Stats. 948.11 Why is no one able to address the issue of Ms. Maziarka’s misuse and mistating of the statute by using only excerpts in deciding this matter. The phrase “taken as a whole” is used only three times compared to the obscenity statutes four times, but the harmful to children statute also uses the term “predominantly” Tell me, how do you determine that something is predominant in a book with many, many pages by quoting just a few sentences? And yes, the moves requested are content based. Just because not all of the books refer to homosexuality, so what? And problems with due process? Where is there ANY due process in Ginny’s petition request. She just wants it done according to her whim, her will, and her own idiosyncratic and priggish version of obscenity. Doing things her way would instantly be struck down as affording no due process.
        But there is due process available. There is an established book challenge procedure promulgated in the Library by-laws and procedures. Ginny started down that path—and then gave up. I was at the Silverbrook presentation where she promised to follow through with the appropriate book challenge procedures. She was even kind enough to send us a DVD of that performance to memorialize her failed promise. In her blog, she even promised IN BOLD PRINT to follow through . Was she lying? Did she fail to keep her promise?
      So, to summarize, Sund is precisely on point. Whether the content was homosexual or heterosexual makes no difference to the statute. There is no material material to children or obscene material, or child pornography as determined by Wisconsin law in the West Bend Library. Ginny’s petition lacks due process for their is no procedure in her petition for any sort of hearing when the library inappropriately moves a book. and whether the move gets made by library action or city action is irrelevant.
        I also note that no one has yet challenged my finding that Ginny’s use of the terms obscene and harmful to children are violative of Wisconsin law as applied to her methodology of using only excerpts and not considering literary merit. What parts of the law do you think you can ignore and get away with it?
        I will advise you that a professor of Children’s Literature, and also of Intellectual Freedom at the number one ranked School of Library and Information Sciences in the United States has been consulted and would testify that all of the books in question have serious literary, artistic, political, artistic, or educational value FOR CHILDREN. Who are you gonna get as an expert? The court in Sund did not classify the two ministers who testified against the books as being any sort of expert in this field.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2009 at 2350 hrs
    
    
    

49. Bob would you publicly read and discuss these books with kids?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 21, 2009 at 0004 hrs
    
    
    

50. Smeety,
      Yes, I would. Because, for example, “Perks of Being a Wallflower”  one of the books on Ginny’s hit list from which excerpts have been taken, tells about a young teen suffering the effects of a sexual assault. An important theme of the book is that it is not only alright, but necessary to discuss being raped with trusted adults, most particularly parents. The book goes on to emphasize that being raped is not a mark of shame for the victim- but for the rapist. The description of the rape is graphic, brutal and ugly because that is the way that rape is. If the book were to have said only, “And then she was raped,” it would only emphasize to the victim’s that the incident is so shameful that it isn’t safe to discuss this issue with anyone. That attitude of denial, suppression,  and of refusing to acknowledge the problem leads to victims becoming alcoholics, drug addicts,  or promiscuous. It leads to divorce, depression, law violations, and all too often, suicide. In my 30 year career as a lawyer practicing criminal law, I saw it happen too many times. Many rapists were themselves victims of sexual assault when they were children. They didn’t get the help they needed. “Perks of Being a Wallflower” emphasizes the need for help and guidance; for assistance and professional counseling. Didn’t you get all that from the few sentences you read out of context? It’s a good book, praised by critics and experts on childrens literature. Read it with your kids so that they can have a sense of empathy and caring for victims of sexual assault.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 21, 2009 at 0039 hrs
    
    
    

51. OK I can provide you direct quotes from Ginny herself in TV interviews she has done from the beginning. They are direct quotes, not taken out of context and full. You all will see for yourself how her complaint changed and evolved including the language used.
    justmythoughts-kristina.blogspot.com

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 21, 2009 at 0105 hrs
    
    
    

52. Super Id,

    I realize that because you’re emotionally invested in this, there’s nothing I can say to convince you you’re wrong, again, but…

    None of the material in the West Bend Library fits the definition of “harmful to children” as used in Wis. Stats. 948.11

    This is irrelevant as it relates to whether Sund applies.  For Sund to have applied, the Board would have had to bypass the determination altogether, as happened in Sund.  Whether the material was actually obscene was not an issue before the court in Sund, and the court never considered it.

    Ginny’s petition lacks due process for their is no procedure in her petition for any sort of hearing when the library inappropriately moves a book. and whether the move gets made by library action or city action is irrelevant.

    The petition went through due process. It was heard before a Board (a governmental body), which considered the opinions of the community, and then voted on a decision.  That’s textbook due process.

    You can’t cherry-pick from cases the sentences you like to support your position You have to look at what the issues were, what the court held, and which portions were dicta.  There may be cases out there that support your position, but Sund isn’t one of them.

    Posted by Jed on June 21, 2009 at 0640 hrs
    
    
    

53. I will advise you that a professor of Children’s Literature, and also of Intellectual Freedom at the number one ranked School of Library and Information Sciences in the United States has been consulted and would testify that all of the books in question have serious

    And I would advise you, Bob, that we do not care what the OIF or the SLIS or ALA thinks. This is West Bend and we have community standards that are not being met, even if you, yourself, think sexually explicit adult material is fine for kids.  The opinions of national organizations mean nothing to us.  We do not appreciate them shoving their liberal ideology down the throat of the West Bend p;arents and taxpayers.

    Posted by GAMazy on June 21, 2009 at 2147 hrs
    
    
    

54. Kristina,

    Perhaps you should ask your uncle how he feels about endowment money being used to pay an attorney for information that was already given to them free.  Information, I might add, they could obtain free of charge from the DOJ.  Mrs.  Deters requires an answer now, however, and the DOJ won’t (according to her) accommodate that request, thereby justifying the expense.

    Nice.  Endowment money.  Wonder how many people are rethinking their donations?

    Posted by GAMazy on June 21, 2009 at 2151 hrs
    
    
    

55. “[B]elieve his list of objectionable books has over 1000 titles on it.”

    I have no such list, Bob.  Please provide a link to that which you are referring.

    Posted by Dan Kleinman on June 21, 2009 at 2239 hrs
    
    
    

56. “Dan, you lied when you said the books in Sund were removed. The books in Sund were only moved from the Children’s section to the adult section.”

    Bob, if so, it was an honest mistake as I read it weeks back.  People are allowed to make mistakes without being accused of lying, are they not?

    Posted by Dan Kleinman on June 21, 2009 at 2243 hrs
    
    
    

57. “How many times must she—and you be told that moving is unconsitutional before you get it.”

    Bob, both the former head of the ALA OIF and the current head of the ALA OIF have said moving books is appropriate in the right circumstances.  And it is.  Will you now also state the ALA is recommending unconstitutional actions?

    Posted by Dan Kleinman on June 21, 2009 at 2246 hrs
    
    
    

58. “But there is due process available. There is an established book challenge procedure promulgated in the Library by-laws and procedures. Ginny started down that path—and then gave up.”

    Bob, Ginny has not given up—that the library’s false story.  The library said she gave it up, then said it would not respond to her request.  Now if she truly gave it up and the library truly believed that, why would the library say it would not respond to her request?

    As to the due process available, there is.  But it was not honored by the library.  Actually, it was dishonored.  That’s why the four library board members were not reappointed.

    Bob, if you want to argue, argue from the facts, not from your version of the facts that has little to do with reality.

    Posted by Dan Kleinman on June 21, 2009 at 2252 hrs
    
    
    

59. “I also note that no one has yet challenged my finding that Ginny’s use of the terms obscene and harmful to children are violative of Wisconsin law as applied to her methodology of using only excerpts and not considering literary merit. What parts of the law do you think you can ignore and get away with it?”

    Bob, I challenge it.  I addressed the issue in comment #35 above where I said:

    “Over and over again we hear legal means to protect children should not be used because Ginny misworded her reconsideration request.  So what?  Does a misworded complaint mean the complaint is totally without merit?  The library board has the help of the ALA/ACLU and the ALA has 40 decades of honing the message that children should decide for themselves if inappropriate material is inappropriate for them.  Right.  Yet Ginny is supposed to be the perfect wordsmith.  Right.”

    Posted by Dan Kleinman on June 21, 2009 at 2256 hrs
    
    
    

60. “I will advise you that a professor of Children’s Literature, and also of Intellectual Freedom at the number one ranked School of Library and Information Sciences in the United States has been consulted and would testify that all of the books in question have serious literary, artistic, political, artistic, or educational value FOR CHILDREN.”

    Wonderful!  That has nothing to do with providing notice as to the contents of those books.

    And you should know few are likely impressed by the credentials you just expected everyone to marvel at.  In West Bend, your own local library school got directly involved in misleading the local population.  See “UW-M Library School Misleads West Bend Citizens” at http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/04/uw-m-library-school-misleads-west-bend.html

    My own web site is used at the “number one ranked School of Library and Information Sciences in the United States,” as you put it.  Yet you obviously do not hold me in such high esteem.

    So, Bob, you may value the opinions of such people, but your community’s children deserve legal protection, not obsequiousness.

    Posted by Dan Kleinman on June 21, 2009 at 2310 hrs
    
    
    

61. Wow, I feel lucky. I really got Dan Kleinman’s goat. And yet, I must apologize to him that I was wrong about a book liston his site. I have followed so many links and seen so many lists that I probably associated your site with one of your links. You have a lot of them. I have seen a site with over 1000 titles on it.
      But—- technicality in the wording of the petition??? Minor error? I’m sorry, but if no one is sure what the heck Ginny means by her use of the terms “obscene” or “child pornography” then they essentially would have no knowledge of what she was talking about in her petition. They knew not what they signed. And if each signer has his or her own definition of obscenity—then who knows what ANY of the signatures meant.
        Time and again I have repeated that any person can set any standard they choose—FOR THEMSELVES. But the whole thrust of your movement is to tell OTHERS what they can or can’t read. Or what they should or should not read. The same problem with Ginny’s petition—whose standard is to be used—also exists in your efforts to have warning labels or advisories put on books. Whose standard is to be used? So far, the only standard I have seen Ginny use is that a book is objectionable if some web site says so and if some quote from a web site offends her. Are library employees to comb the net for lists of titles and quotes—and then read every book to find out. That’s crazy, impossible, expensive and wrong. But—- it’s also the solution. Why don’t concerned parents THEMSELVES check the net for book lists or quotes, then check what their kids read. It seems all that nasty looking around has already been done for you by your wacky friends on the web. Are you people lazy? Unconcerned about your kids? For golly’s sake, the library people have been saying all along, “Be a parent.” Invest some time and care in your kids.  Because you say you really don’t care what’sin the library for other people—you don’t want to remove any books—just warning or moving. I find it amazing that conservative and libertarian people want a very intimate and personal parenting function—done by a government employee.  Talk about government intervention in the family. And again, what standard are they to use. Thousands and thousands, potentially millions of people find these books not only acceptable, but desirable. They don’t care if you object to them. In fact, many would object to your objections, or your idea of ratings. I do.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 22, 2009 at 0243 hrs
    
    
    

62. Kristina,
    Perhaps you should ask your uncle how he feels about endowment money being used to pay an attorney for information that was already given to them free.

    Which one do you speak of? There are 2 to choose from? In talking to my mother she had said that my father, also a nephew of uncle Elmore and Aunt Alyce would have supported the idea. So even in one family there could be a difference of opinion. I am not sure about what either one of them may think.
      Not to mention it was not their money nor was the donation done at their request. It was all Aunt Alyce. She made the choice to do with her money as she choose. I certainly can’t ask her now. Well, I suppose I could but I don’t think I would hear directly from her. Elmore and Alyce are the only ones that could speak about the endowment money issue because it was their money.
    Respectfully,
    Kristina

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 22, 2009 at 0406 hrs
    
    
    

63. Bob, you didn’t get my goat.  I’m simply correcting misinformation, mostly about me.  Like the 1000 book list claim.  I’m glad you went back on that, but you raised it before and was asked to defend it before, yet you did it here again.  Even your current response is so filled with your personal views that have nothing to do with reality, that, not only need I not comment further, but you only expose yourself as an untrustworthy source.

    I’m here to discuss issues.  You are here to attack people and make false claims about legal issues.  I’m deciding not to play your game much longer.  I am certain, however, you will continue to go from blog to blog claiming I have a 1000 book hit list, etc., and to the extent you do that, I’ll have to correct that information again and again.

    Posted by Dan Kleinman on June 22, 2009 at 0637 hrs
    
    
    

64. If Bob or any other man read these books to children in a park you know full well he’d be hauled off in hand cuffs.  His name spewed across the news and his career would be in ruins.  Why?  Because these books are obscene.

    I’ve read a number of these books cover to cover and I don’t see redeeming qualities in them.  For children to read these books without supervision is not only in poor judgement, but risky. 

    The human brain is not fully developed until in their 20’s so reading these books may only confuse a child of let’s say 11, 12, 13 or 14.  See these books are geared towards children 11-17 years.  To have these books in the library for anyone to read without a parent to guide them misguided.  Let’s move the books and have parents re-consent.

    Many of you are talking like the books won’t be in the library any more.  Sure, they will still have access to these so called “educational” books.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 22, 2009 at 0707 hrs
    
    
    

65. From the outside, I find this situation, both sad and laughable.  Most of the argument here is silly.  Whether Ginny filled out the right forms or not and what the Board can and can’t do are silly arguments. 

    A competent board would have helped a citizen navigate the maze, not run ahead of her putting up more walls.  No matter what side of this you fall on the board just looks silly. 
    Have some guts and give Ginny her hearing and tell her no. 

    Then maybe the voters of West Bend can then put some people with values more like the rest of the community in place and they can just stop putting such trash on the shelves in the first place.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 22, 2009 at 0957 hrs
    
    
    

66. Bob, let’s do this. 

    Let’s advertise a reading of the book “Deal With It” publicly at the Farmer’s Market.  (I can help with advertising - no problem there.)  Parents can bring their kids on their own volition and you can carry through with your statement that you, indeed, would openly read and discuss “these books.” 

    Should make for a nice warm fuzzy on a beautiful summer day.

    What say you?

    Posted by GAMazy on June 22, 2009 at 1058 hrs
    
    
    

67. Remember, this is a youth-targeted young adult book.

    Posted by GAMazy on June 22, 2009 at 1059 hrs
    
    
    

68. What would be the point of anyone publicly reading from the books?  If someone read a section of their choice, they will be admonished if it isn’t one of the excerpts which are so often quoted here and other places.  (Which, by the way, are comments from teenagers, and my understanding is that a lot of these comments were made (perhaps anonymously) on the GURL website community.)

    Continued suggestion of a public reading is silly.  I think for the most part, people that want to keep the books where they are (which, in the case of “Deal With It,” is already shelved among the adult nonfiction books):
    ~ are saying it is a parent’s right and responsibility to determine whether reading materials are appropriate for their children
    ~ are NOT saying they are appropriate for everyone/all children, including all in the 11-17 age range
    ~ have not endorsed the books other than to say what enjoyment/helpfulness they have gotten out of reading the books or their perception of how the material could be of literary value, educational, etc. to others

    If anyone publicly read from these books, as Ginny, Smeety and Kelly have suggested, wouldn’t they then be doing what Ginny has accused the library of doing, “forcing” the material on others?  I clearly don’t agree that the library forces material on people simply by having it available or included on a list, but I do agree that every parent should be able to prevent their children from accessing this material if they don’t think it is appropriate.  And they are empowered to do this with the current setup; they can attend the library with their children and select materials together, discuss which materials are inappropriate in their family, retain the minor’s library card (or not allow the minor to have one), etc.

    Posted by Maria Hanrahan on June 22, 2009 at 1342 hrs
    
    
    

69. I think the point of reading them out loud would mean you fully endorse these books for children.  Sort of putting your money where your mouth is, so to speak.  If you think these books are fine for consumption you should not have a problem reading them out loud to children and taking the risk.

    If you think they are obscene, then you would have a problem reading them out loud to children.

    I think having the books at the library may not be forcing, but it is tempting for such young minds. 

    “...they are empowered to do this with the current setup; they can attend the library with their children and select materials together,...” Post #68
    It would be much easier to use the quote above and apply it to the books in question.  That way the kids with out parents would not be tempted.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 22, 2009 at 1433 hrs
    
    
    

70. Continued suggestion of a public reading is silly.

    Maria, supporters of moving the porn will say that even the people who support the books feel reading them in public is silly.

    My purpose of asking the question continually is not because I expect a reasonable answer. 

    I’ve never heard of a book being acceptable for kids, except for reading and sharing in public with adults. 

    My purpose is to have you dodge and parry the question continually as to provide readers of the blog the reality that even the staunchest supporters of this material will not share it with the kids they are trying to protect.

    Bob chose the mildest of the books with which to choose that he would share with kids.  And mild is probably not the properest of terms ... Wallflower is simply the least gratuitously sexually obscene.  (Gratuitously being the key word)

    With that being spouted, I would not feel the need to share with my daughter the reality of a sexual assault.  If there was a need for an understanding at a pre-adult age (such as maybe a friend had an issue), I certainly wouldn’t give her that book to read; I would discuss openly, and probably involve a pastor.

    I have my doubts that Bob would really share this with kids.  I also doubt he could find six parents in all of West Bend that would consent to allowing their kids to share and discuss this material.  I wonder if there are any other books in that section of the library that Bob would be willing to read (any of them, Bob?)...

    Legalese this, and precedent that ... at the end of the day, I want my community to decide what my kids have access to in the library, not a federal judge…

    Community referendum ... love the idea.  This is such a winning topic in WB.  I’d guess a referendum would move these books by a 40% margin…

    Posted by Smeety on June 22, 2009 at 1823 hrs
    
    
    

71. “[S]upporters of moving the porn….”

    The issue is not porn.  It’s material inappropriate for children.

    “The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree.”

    US v. ALA, US Supreme Court, 6 years ago tomorrow. 

    Odd, since the ALA is in West Bend arguing that West Benders should follow its losing arguments already asked and answered 6 years ago.  Choose one to follow: 1) ALA, 2) US Supreme Court.  I choose the US Supreme Court.  Which does West Bend choose?

    Posted by Dan Kleinman on June 22, 2009 at 1834 hrs
    
    
    

72. It’s porn.  It’s porn wrapped in P.C.

    Posted by Smeety on June 22, 2009 at 1848 hrs
    
    
    

73. Riddle me this….

    Why aren’t these groups pushing to have these books in Badger/Silverbrook/High School libraries?

    Why aren’t these books being read in lit classes @ Silverbrook or the High Schools?

    Posted by Smeety on June 22, 2009 at 1857 hrs
    
    
    

74. It’s not porn.  Porn is not the issue. 

    “Looking For Alaska,” for example, contains a graphic oral sex scene and is otherwise pervasively vulgar.  The ALA awarded it as the best book of the year (2006) for kids as young as 12.  I personally got the author to admit we would no even give his own award-winning book to his own 12 year old if he had one.

    But, it is not porn.

    Posted by Dan Kleinman on June 22, 2009 at 1902 hrs
    
    
    

75. Answers answers and more answers.
      Since no one knew the answer to my previous question, I foung it myself and would like to share it.
      The cost the city has incurred and may continue to do so on the tax payers dine ONLY pertains to CITY residence. Therefore, if a person from the twonship or surrounding communities that are outside of West Bend City limits DOES NOT hold any fiscal tax liability. So as this continues to go on and if lawsuits occure and such only west bend residents will have their taxes effected. People from outside the city that cause tax dollars to be used for this issue basically can raise all the havoc they wish cause the city to have to spend all kinds of money, can walk away without having to pick up any fiscal responsibility.
      I don’t know about any of you but this infuriates me. Mine and my mothers taxes have to pay for something that those bringing the action won’t.
      I want to know what it cost to have the meeting at Silverbrook, City Hall, Mcclane. Most would say nothing but that is not true. Electricity costs money, janitorial services that cause overtime by the workers at the schools and such none of that is free. Who picks up that tab?
      Everyone knows that the school district is strapped for cash and is having to cut classes and all kinds of things that effect our students (music, art, and the like) yet people seem to feel it is OK justified to allow the district to spend money of which they have not for these extra’s. I think it would be better to educate out students. SoI have an idea. Next time if there will be and I’m sure there will be, have the meeting in a city park. Baseball field at Regner comes to mind. It has a sound system and enough seating, and wouldbe lite by mother nature. That way the tax payers won’t get screwed by people bring the issue up that don’t live in the city.
      I do want to say I do support people right to challenge things they disagreed with but I think that they should also then have to participate in the expense. imhp
    Respectfully,
    Kristina

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 22, 2009 at 1907 hrs
    
    
    

76. “People from outside the city that cause tax dollars to be used for this issue basically can raise all the havoc they wish cause the city to have to spend all kinds of money, can walk away without having to pick up any fiscal responsibility.”

    Thanks for the informative post, Kristina.  Since WBCFSL is comprised of nearly all WB residents, I think they are well aware of what their taxes pay for.  In addition, since these are city residents who are complaining, I am sure they feel their money is well spent on fighting for their community standards to be upheld.

    Posted by GAMazy on June 22, 2009 at 2038 hrs
    
    
    

77. Folks,
      I believe that I will be signing off. There is no more point in arguing. The anti-library people have lost—and will continue to lose. they change their minds, change their terms, use terms without any clear definition, or misuse terms that have a clear legal meaning. For example, why hasn’t Ginny ever answered the question she was asked, “Does she believe that there is child pornography in the library—as defined by Wisconsin Statutes—or is she using her own made up, unknown idiosyncratic personal whim.  And just a note to Smeety. First he said that no one would defend a book on Ginny’s hit list. Then I did. And then he said that I had picked the mildest one. Not if you read Ginny’s quotes. And I didn’t tell Smeety that he should read it to his kid either. It was my choice—- not one I was forcing on another.
        No, I’m leaving this blogging scene because there is no end to your inanity. I won’t have to read people who are upset with me. I won’t have to read people that upset me. You people will sputter ans spew, fizzle and fume and remain in your isolated and angry world. Meanwhile, the rest of society—and the rest of Washington County will go on enjoying one of the most beautiful, well staffed and fantastic libraries in the state. I’m proud of that Library of the Year banner behind the circulation desk. And I’ve heard that enrollment in the children’s summer reading program has almost doubled. The people will vote with their feet and with their library cards. Maybe the library will be a better place if you choose not to patronize it. And them maybe—if you did go there yourself you would be impressed by the wonders it has to offer.
        Just one last little slogan for all you people who are against the library, against the library board and staff, and are hurting the reputation of our city. A slogan with a bit of optimism, a soupcon of irony and a very healthy dose of Nancy Reagan.
    JUST SAY ‘NO’ TO NEGATIVITY!

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 22, 2009 at 2200 hrs
    
    
    

78. [url=http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s27Oq5ot0ZI]Bob must have been serious.  He claimed victory last night on
    the news.[/url]

    Posted by Smeety on June 22, 2009 at 2325 hrs
    
    
    

79. Thanks for the informative post, Kristina.  Since WBCFSL is comprised of nearly all WB residents, I think they are well aware of what their taxes pay for.  In addition, since these are city residents who are complaining, I am sure they feel their money is well spent on fighting for their community standards to be upheld.

    Ginny,
      Seriously? Are yanking my chain? Wow. City residents complaining… Let’s back up a tad. Let’s start with you. You DO NOT live in city limits, Township does not count. You are the one who filed the complaint and has kept this ball rolling. You are the one who through the media brought this up. Not that you don’t have a right to, you do, I support your right to do so. My point is it is not your kids college fund, or your own retirement that will be effected when the CITY residents taxes are hit to make up for the money the city or school district has had to shell out for this venture that even you have said “is not over, the best is yet to come.” No it’s people like me and my mother who as a retiree worked hard her whole life, my parents invested well and were doing fine. Since the down turn n the economy and rising heath care costs and medi-care cost on the rise she is getting hit hard. Higher taxes is something that is not good on her quality of life and be able to continue to support herself for the rest of her life. Continuing to pursue this is hurting people like that. Not you. You are unscathed by it fiscally. What part of that cannot be thought of as selfish?

    The board rendered it’s verdict against you. Yet, you can’t let it go. Put your big girl pants on and move on. I had to when the ethics committee rendered against me. The CITY money being spent will have NO EFFECT on you. So you can keep going with no consequence while the WB residents pay for it and go further in debt and you just continue on your merry way.
      If your above statement was true then pass your torch to a WB resident. Let a WB resident take up your cause. File the complaints, do the media blitzing, do it all. You step aside. Then and ONLY than would your statement float while your sank.
      By the way Ginny, do you still stand by your statement that you stand by your original complaint? Do you still stand by saying that you actually DID file a new complaint in April and it was ignored? Do you stand by those as 100% truth? Inquiring minds want to know.
      Than again, I don’t know why I even ask. You won’t answer. You never do when someone has solid evidence against you and you have no loop hole to slide into. The dead end street offer no escape. So you in turn just refuse to answer the questions time and time again. So to use a word you seem to use a great deal…
    Interesting…..
      I ask you Ginny, will you take the challenge and answer my questions? Do I have to say Truth or Dare? and if you say dare do I have to ask double dare?
      I guess we shall see if you realy do stand by your words and can defend them at all costs.
    Respectfully,
    Kristina
    PS. Sorry about the tone but this whole thing about ciy money and taxes seriously has my dander up.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 22, 2009 at 2342 hrs
    
    
    

80. First of all, we as citizens and library funders have every right to complain if we see something wrong in the library that OUR tax dollars are paying for.  Second, we can not help how the system is set up…if we could then perhaps the library board would have voted against keeping sexually explicit materials in the childrens section.  So, if there is a problem then I suggest going through the proper channels (like Ginny has) to correct it. Then perhaps you’ll know what it’s like to fight an up hill battle against the “machine” known as the government.

    “The board rendered it’s verdict against you. Yet, you can’t let it go.” - Kristina

    Let it go?  We should just give up protecting those who need it because a stone-walling, renegade library board said so?  I think not.  If you truely believe in what you are doing you never give up.

    Kristina, remember that Ginny is just an ordinary regular tax payer, citizen, wife and mother.  Will she make errors along the way, sure…but she is doing what she can. Ginny does not have a FREE attorney at her becken call like the library does.  I’m cutting her some slack.  I know you’re upset about the taxes, just as we are upset about the obscene materials in the childrens section.  It’s frustrating, when you know that to solve this mess is as easy as moving the books a few feet and have parents RE-concent.

    “Maybe the library will be a better place if you choose not to patronize it.” -Bob

    That’s the problem Bob…we pay tax dollars to the library so we are automatically involved.  It’s not just as simple as not going.  Just move the books.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 23, 2009 at 0718 hrs
    
    
    

81. Post 27 and 30 are two different Bobs.  I being the first Bob will bow to the second Bob and take some time to consider a new ID.  God, it’s hot out side.

    Mr. Belling,
    
    If the West Bend library board is distributing “porn” to adults, and minors, it is your duty to contact the West Bend police.  I would not suggest publicizing this request or the lack of police response.
    
    Are you sure you want to support this drive?  I know it might be good for ratings, but…
    
    “It is basic Wisconsin law that all correspondence and documents of any public employee, including e-mails, are public records.”
    
    The library board are volunteers, not employees.
    
    As to your “pair of grandparents in the Bend”
    
    Part I: Feb. 2007 to Dec. 1, she campaigned (with Mary Weigand) before school board meetings to remove “sexual orientation” from West Bend School District’s harassment policy.  Ginny and Mary came with 500 signature requesting the policy be changed to include parental involvement in harassment cases, among other things.  Ginny/Mary believe the current harassment policy protecting “sexual orientation” alongside religion, race, creed, ethnicity, violates 1st Amendment rights.  Ginny also believes the current policy encourages “gayness” and teen sex.  The WBSD chose to side with state and federal law rather than risking being sued for adopting Ginny and Mary’s suggestions.
    
    Ginny Maziarka, Part II:  02-12-09 submits Request for Reconsideration of Library Materials Form to the West Bend Community Library (with her husband) addressing a concern with books about gay teens, books about “ex-gay” characters, and an “Out of the Closet” online book list (next to many other genre book lists including Christian YA).  On 02-23-09, the Maziarkas (Step 1 of the reconsideration process) met with the YA Librarian and asked for the removal of all books written for patrons to age 17 that contain perverse/pornographic language.  02-26-09: in a meeting with the prior librarian and the library director, (Step 2 of the reconsideration process) the Maziarkas add Perks of a Wallflower to be removed.  03-04-09: they want books moved to the adult section. 03-16-09: they add two more titles to be removed.  03-19-09: they want books (including the ones up for removal) moved to the adult section and/or tagged for illicit content.  Because their complaint changed (often), they were kindly asked to start over and clarify what they wanted (per advice to lib board by the city attorney)  3-26-09: The Maziarkas announce their new petition in a WISSUP blog: “Petition for Child-safe, Family-Friendly Library”. 
    
    Five alterations to the original complaint.  Mark, try doing that in a court of law or at the customer service desk in a store.  Try submitting six versions of a complaint to the police.  Yes, you know what will happen, you will be seen as a _______. 
    
    The city council meeting was shut down due to a overcrowded room - fire code.
    The lib board proposed meeting at East High School was refused by the Maziarkas.
    The meeting at Silverbrook where Ginny read excerpts was passed over by the board at the advice of the city attorney.
    The board’s apparent main reason to refuse Ginny’s large and widely publicized request is to avoid a Freedom of Speech / Freedom of access to information lawsuit at the hands of the ACLU, the publisher’s unions, and several others. 
    
    WEST BEND WOULD LOSE THAT LAWSUIT!

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 0935 hrs
    
    
    

82. No it would not.  The ACLU and the ALA have already lost on substantially similar issues in US v. ALA.

    Posted by Dan Kleinman on June 24, 2009 at 0940 hrs
    
    
    

83. When Ginny approached the library about her request they could have walked her through the process.  If I am correct, they could have told Ginny long before the meeting that her requests would have needed to be refiled.  They post-poned this until the last minute.  Remember Ginny is a regular taxpayer, citizen, wife and mother and does not have a free attorney at her disposal like the board.  Cut her some slack.

    Start over?  This is what you call splitting-hairs and they do this for the purpose of stone-walling with the hopes that this would go away.  Sex is sex no matter the gender of those participating.  They are obscene and have little value to children unless there is an adult to answer questions.  That being said moving the books and having parents consent would be the wise move in order to protect children. The books are still in the library and are available.

    However, we will find out the truths of the WB library and the library board when the open records are made known.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 1027 hrs
    
    
    

84. Then go ahead. File the suit. Cost West Bend tons of cash and see what happens. Then complain about the cost the city will have to pay the attorney. Its really easy to avoid- go to the library with the kids you all say you want to protect from these fiendish books. Maybe, actually read them and decide if they are ok.  Oh no, you don’t want to do that, too easy.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 1117 hrs
    
    
    

85. Herein I will rant a little about lawsuits and such…

    First, let’s be very clear… anybody can sue anybody for anything at anytime.  Period.  The questions is, how do you react?

    I see it in business all the time where lawyers lead business people around by the nose.  The business people do whatever the lawyers say regardless of the cost to the business for fear of the dreaded lawsuit.  There is one company in Wisconsin that I think has the perfect attitude.  They ask their in-house lawyer for advice on issues and take that into account with many other factors before making a decision.  The lawyer does not have veto power as they do in some companies. 

    Let me give you an example… let’s say that you own a pharmaceutical company and you create a pill that cures cancer.  It will benefit millions of people, but it also happens to kill about 5% of the patients.  A lawyer might advise you to NOT bring it to market because those 5% could sue your pants off if they claim to have not been properly informed of the risks or didn’t fully understand them.  What would you do?  I’d bring it to market.  Some wouldn’t.  What’s the greater damage to society?

    The point is that while legal considerations are important and necessary, they can’t always override other considerations. 

    In this case, the city has already been sued.  If they move the books, they’ll probably be sued the other way.  But the City Attorney is on salary.  It really doesn’t cost the city anything more to fight the suit unless they decide to bring in outside counsel.  If the city loses, courts are traditionally very reluctant to levy any kind of large monetary damages against governments because punitive fines don’t really work when they are levied against people who just tax the people to pay it off.  More than likely, even if the city lost the case if the books were moved, the ruling would just tell them to move the books back and tell them not to do it again. 

    People who make their decisions based solely on the threat of lawsuits are idiots.  There’s a lot more to life and good decisions.

    Posted by Owen on June 24, 2009 at 1145 hrs
    
    
    

86. I’m married to a lawyer Owen. I have had dealing with the courts and lawyers in my previous work in social services.  I know what they do, and what they cost and how many people have to get involved in a lawsuit that, say, involves the ACLU or the ALA. The city attorney would no doubt need help. My point was that the constant back and forth about the ACLU losing, the library board losing is bullshit. Stop throwing the bombs and bitching about what might happen and do it. Better yet- Be a parent. Make the “good decisons” for yourselves. Stop asking the city librarians to do it for you. And really, idiots? So much for civililty.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 1200 hrs
    
    
    

87. Elizabeth,

    Yes.  Idiots.  Those who “make their decisions based solely on the threat of lawsuits” are indeed idiots. 

    But we seem to agree.

    “Stop throwing the bombs and bitching about what might happen and do it.”

    Indeed.

    Posted by Owen on June 24, 2009 at 1203 hrs
    
    
    

88. Let’s put it this way.  Threats of lawsuits should not stop West Bend, or anyone anywhere, from acting to take legal action to protect children from harm.  If the threats work, it only leaves the children exposed to harm, and more serious lawsuits will be down the road.

    Posted by Dan Kleinman on June 24, 2009 at 1204 hrs
    
    
    

89. You’d make a good lawyer Owen. An even better paid expert witness. Take what your clients want you to say and spit it back out for a fee. Enjoy the day.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 1207 hrs
    
    
    

90. Yeah, it sucks when we agree on something, eh?

    But what the heck are you talking about Elizabeth?  Is this your VRWC moment?  Last time I checked, nobody is sending me a check for writing here.  Are you suggesting that my opinions aren’t my own?  On what basis would you make such a claim?

    Sheesh.  The mark of one devoid of argument is when they decide that baseless accusations and innuendo are a substitute for reasoning. 

    Nice try though.  And… have a nice day

    Posted by Owen on June 24, 2009 at 1220 hrs
    
    
    

91. You are funny Owen. The only reason you responded to my post is to get me to clarify to your readers you are independent. Ta-da. Done. Not that anyone would confuse your opinions with someone else’s. I don’t even know what a VRWC moment is. I am not a blogger, nor am I contributor to blogs except on this issue. I said you would be a good lawyer because you and I agree on nothing when it comes to this, however, you twisted the meaning of my words and made it work for your argument. Congrats.
    I got involved in this for two reasons. Censorship is wrong. Moving the books is censorship. More appalling to me is that parents are willing to let the librarians do their job for them. Isn’t that more goverment involvement? The stuff you hate?
    Off to the beach.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 1302 hrs
    
    
    

92. “Censorship is wrong. Moving the books is censorship.”

    Let’s break that up.

    “Censorship is wrong.”

    True.

    “Moving the books is censorship.”

    False.  Even the ALA’s top leaders say it is not censorship in the right situation.  And there’s been no censorship in the USA for about half a century.

    Posted by Dan Kleinman on June 24, 2009 at 1307 hrs
    
    
    

93. Elizabeth,

    Since you’re not a blog frequenter, I’ll explain what this is ahead of time… this is called a “fisking.”

    You are funny Owen.

    Yes!  I am!  Thanks!

    The only reason you responded to my post is to get me to clarify to your readers you are independent.

    I was unaware that you read minds.  It’s a bad debate tactic to state the other’s argument and then refute it.  It’s better to just refute the actual argument made by the other side.  For the record, that is not why I responded to your comment. 

    Ta-da. Done. Not that anyone would confuse your opinions with someone else’s.

    I would hope not.  Thank you

    I don’t even know what a VRWC moment is.

    Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.  You know… when Hillary Clinton claimed that there was some sort of VRWC behind her husband’s wandering loins?  It’s not really a blog thing… more of a political cultural thing. 

    I am not a blogger, nor am I contributor to blogs except on this issue.

    Whew.

    I said you would be a good lawyer because you and I agree on nothing when it comes to this, however, you twisted the meaning of my words and made it work for your argument.

    It seems to me that we agree.  I argued that a lawyer’s advice on the potential for lawsuits should be a factor in decision making, but not the sole factor.  Are you saying that you think that anytime a lawyer advises that there could be a lawsuit if we make X choice that we should choose another path regardless of other considerations?  Seems rather… er… myopic to me. 

    Congrats.

    Thanks!

    I got involved in this for two reasons. Censorship is wrong.

    Agreed.  See?  We agree again. 

    Moving the books is censorship.

    Disagree.  There has to be some basis on where we put various types of books.  There is a standard that we use today.  All that some folks are asking for is to modify that standard a little.  If that’s censorship, then we’re really going to have issues if City Hall wants to move the pamphlets for the Park and Rec across the hall. 

    More appalling to me is that parents are willing to let the librarians do their job for them.

    Nobody is saying that.  You are, again, assuming an argument on the other side that doesn’t exist. 

    Isn’t that more goverment involvement?

    Asking the government-run library to listen to the people who pay for it is not “more government involvement.”  It’s asking that our government be responsible and responsive to the people.  That’s a wholly American concept. 

    The stuff you hate?

    There are very few things that I “hate.”  That’s an ugly and overused word.  Once again you presume too much. 

    Off to the beach.

    Be sure to use sunblock.

    Posted by Owen on June 24, 2009 at 1341 hrs
    
    
    

94. Okay, Dan, moving books in some circumstances may be appropriate and not considered censorship, but that is not the case here.  Moving the books discussed in the WBCFSL complaint/petition to the adult section and/or labeling or otherwise restricting them (special permission needed from parent) would indicate that these YA books are not appropriate for ANY in the YA range (typically 11-18) and would remove the books from the section that serves those individuals.  Their access would be suppressed.  They would have to seek out these books in the adult section and possibly acquire special parental approval to check them out.  That is censorship, and it is wrong.  (And this is where you can compare it to Sund

    the Book removals burden fully-protected speech on the basis of content and viewpoint and they therefore cannot stand; By authorizing the forced removal of children’s books to the adult section of the Library, the Altman Resolution places a significant burden on Library patrons’ ability to gain access to those books. Children searching specifically for those books in the designated children’s areas of the Library will be unable to locate them. In addition, children who simply wish to browse in the children’s sections of the Library will never find the censored books. Moreover, parents browsing the children’s areas in search of books for their children will be unable to find the censored books.

     

    It’s a parent’s right and responsibility to determine whether books are appropriate for their kids or not.  If parents choose not to exercise that (by remaining uninvolved in their kids’ reading choices) that doesn’t mean they forfeit that right or no longer have that responsibility.  Why are so many here willing to give that right away to someone else, be it WBCFSL, library personnel, etc.?

    Posted by Maria Hanrahan on June 24, 2009 at 1413 hrs
    
    
    

95. Maria:  “Moving the books discussed in the WBCFSL complaint/petition to the adult section and/or labeling or otherwise restricting them (special permission needed from parent) would indicate that these YA books are not appropriate for ANY in the YA range (typically 11-18) and would remove the books from the section that serves those individuals.”

    Not true.  The books may actually be appropriate for the children, and the parents should make that decision.  Moving or labeling the books effectuates the opportunity to give the parents the chance to make the decision and not have it made for them.  If it is not done that way, then it is the American Library Association that essentially ends up making the decision for the parents, and the ALA claims it is age discrimination for a librarian to keep any material whatsoever from children.

    Maria, do you believe it is age discrimination for a librarian to keep any material whatsoever from children?  Yes or no.

    Tell me.  In all the false cries that parents are responsible, and they are but not solely, why is it overlooked that the ALA has created the atmosphere where the material available for children is increasing inappropriately sexualized?

    Lest you think this is a “conservative” or a “Christian” point of view, let’s be clear it is not.  Consider, for example, “Young Adult Fiction:  Wild Things,” by Naomi Wolf, The New York Times, 12 Mar 2006.

    Maria:  “Their access would be suppressed.  They would have to seek out these books in the adult section and possibly acquire special parental approval to check them out.  That is censorship, and it is wrong.”

    Acquiring parental permission for check out is censorship?  Maria, you do realize, of course, how silly you sound, right?

    Posted by Dan Kleinman on June 24, 2009 at 1434 hrs
    
    
    

96. I think we’re setting some kind of record for mis-using Sund.  Geez…

    I feel like Inigo Montoya.  “You keep citing that case. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    Posted by Jed on June 24, 2009 at 1455 hrs
    
    
    

97. Its really easy to avoid- go to the library with the kids you all say you want to protect from these fiendish books. Maybe, actually read them and decide if they are ok.  Oh no, you don’t want to do that, too easy.

    What about the children who do not have parental involvement?  Do we let them flouder reading these books unattended?  What are you willing to risk?  I’m not willing to risk a child so I opt to move them.

    Okay, so you don’t want to move them…then let’s build a wall around them and only kids with parental RE-consent can enter.  Viola!  no movement.

    I happen to put the welfare of children who are not my own over a book. Do you?

    These books, if read, should be read with an adult who can explain the purpose of the book.  If read unattended it could do more harm than good.

    This would not require “special permission” it would require parents to come back to the library and resign for a library card.  Added to the consent form would be a statement that would make it known to parents that by
    re-consenting your child would have access to sexually explicit books in the YA Zone. 

    Oh, by the way I did read a good number of the books.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 1556 hrs
    
    
    

98. Moving or labeling the books effectuates the opportunity to give the parents the chance to make the decision and not have it made for them.  If it is not done that way, then it is the American Library Association that essentially ends up making the decision for the parents

    Dan, moving/not moving the books doesn’t affect parental decision making one way or the other, and it’s absurd to say that placing a book in the YA section negates parents’ ability to give the final say on what their kids read.  Can they not read the blurb on the book? Or a review on a web site? Is there a parent of a teen or pre-teen out there who doesn’t realize that books, movies, etc. marketed to teenagers may contain things too mature for an 11-12 year old?

    I think you suffer from ALADS—ALA derangement syndrome.

    YA sections exist because teens like stories about themselves and like to be distinguished from little kids, and the libraries like to get kids of all ages interested in reading. It is not, however, for a library to play parent and set up value judgments about content. To address Kelly’s persistent question about uninvolved parents: under her plan kids would still be able to access everything in the library, but not check out things on “the naughty list” so how much “protection” would that really be? Not much.

    Again, to those wanting labels on books: take that fight to the publishers. They already label books “YA” in many cases, so push for something like YA-M for “mature.”

    Here’s another persistent question that hasn’t been answered, for all the blathering: Who will decide what is “safe” and “unsafe”? Or, gosh, would that have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, just as the reconsideration policy is now?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2009 at 1050 hrs
    
    
    

99. The rhetoric goes on and on and on, and still not ONE lefty willing to share this material with the kids they are trying to protect.

    Posted by Smeety on June 28, 2009 at 1520 hrs
    
    
    

100. I (Who is neither left or right) would share these titles with a 14-17 year old.

     Speak, by Laurie Halse Anderson, 1999
     Unable to tell anyone why she busted a party by calling the cops, Melinda becomes becomes a silent observer of the lies and hypocrisies at her high school while she lives in fear of the boy who raped her.

     Monster, by Walter Dean Myers, 1999
     Is Steve Harmon guilty of being the lookout in a botched robbery during which a storeowner is killed? As he awaits the results of his trial, Steve writes the story as if it were a screenplay for a movie. (Printz Award)  (While in jail, the protagonist hears another man being raped (suggested, not graphic).

     Holes, by Louis Sachar, 1998
     There is no lake at Camp Green Lake, but why does the eviltempered woman who is the warden make Stanley Yelnats and his fellow prisoners dig deep holes every day? (National Book Award and Newbery Award). (The Warden’s main guard had a sex change)

     Guess that movie Scared Straight is out of the question too?

     Yea, create a little committee to tag the books and move them.  Make the kids get permission to check them out.  Nothing could go wrong there, right?  I wonder what the discipline would look like if a book slipped through the committee?  I wonder what the discipline would be for a librarian or aide who slipped up?  I wonder if someone could sue the library if there was a slip up with the NEW policy?

     It would be a lot easier for anyone to simply challenge books one title at a time.

     Smeety, you are such a bonehead for making this a leftie, rightie thing.  There’s are just as many sensitive people on both sides of the issue.  Biurification is a fallacy.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 29, 2009 at 2133 hrs
     
     
     

101. Stanley,

     Without debating these specific books, I’ll take your comments at face value.  You don’t endorse reading these books with a large portion of the kids that have access to these books (11-13).

     Bonehead?  Ouch….  (I’ve been called worse by better I’m sure)...

     xoxoxox,

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2009 at 0807 hrs
     
     
     

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.